Would you like to see what Plus-X that expired in 1963 looks like?

<p>An old roll a friend sent me that expired in 1962. Nothing to lose so I shot it at E.I. 80 and developed it in Rodinal 1-100 for about an hour semi-Stand. Shocked that I even got anything. The fog was not as bad as I thought it would be and the grain? Well this film was made most likely in 1958.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jokerphotography/sets/72157641271975163/</p>

<p>Black and white film lasts a good amount of time. You probably could have got a bit more speed out of it.</p>

<p>Yep. Thanks John. Though this roll was found in an old desk that was at a yard sale. :D</p>

<p>In my own experiments with film from the 70s, I found Plus-X more likely to show aging problems than Tri-X, to my astonishment.</p>

<p>Some artists (e.g., http://petapixel.com/2011/04/12/shooting-with-50-year-old-expired-film/ , but a Google™ shows a lot more of the same) have intentionally shot ancient film. One of the TV crime shows even had an episode about a photographer using film from WWII ... (<em>Law & Order: Criminal Intent</em>)</p>

<p>This past weekend I found an old Hasselblad C12 back that I had stuck away more then 10 years ago. I didn't even know what film was in it, but it had two shots left on the roll so I pointed it out the back door and touched them off. I played it safe and rated the two shots at ISO 100 via "Sunny 16". When I pulled it I found out it was Plus-X. I developed it in some Claytons F76+ and was really surprised at how those last two shots looked. It was a bright sunny snow scene and I could not have hit the exposure better with my Luna StarF. Very little base fog and some of the prettiest white snow. You don't know how good some things are until they're gone. JW</p>

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065">JDM von Weinberg</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub9.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Feb 20, 2014; 08:43 p.m.</p>

 

<p>In my own experiments with film from the 70s, I found Plus-X more likely to show aging problems than Tri-X, to my astonishment.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Back in the day Plus X was a very fast film. I think at one point it was the fastest film out there, that could be why.</p>

 

<p>Larry:<br>

Thank you. That's great. I am surprised how well the film survived.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=1841065" rel="nofollow">JDM:</a><br /> In my own experiments with film from the 70s, I found Plus-X more likely to show aging problems than Tri-X, to my astonishment.<br /> John:<br /> Back in the day Plus X was a very fast film. I think at one point it was the fastest film out there, that could be why.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think that explains it. Tri-X was faster still, twice as fast.</p>

<p>For the record, here is a 1941 (April issue of <em>Minicam Photography</em>) list of speeds for various films then available (relative <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed">Weston</a> Tungsten ratings are given, but are relevant here only as relative measures of film speed at that time).</p><div></div>

<p>This is what makes me laugh at people who post questions like "I have a roll of Tri-X that expired last month. Can I still use it?" :)</p>

<p>Interesting. I've never used Plus-X that old, but I shot a roll of Panatomic-X that expired in 1964 that looked fresh. The 1964 Panatomic-X had a data sheet that gave an ASA rating of 40 rather than the later 32 or pre-1960 25. <br>

Did the Plus-X still have the data sheet in the box? Was its ASA rating 125 or 160? I read that when the safety factor was reduced Plus-X jumped from ASA 80 to 160 in the magazine listing, although I never actually saw an insert sheet to confirm it. I read in a back issue of Pop Photo that when Kodak improved Plus-X in the late 50's that although its listed speed was 80 that they recommended it be exposed at E.I.s from as low as 160 to as high as 320, depending upon the nature of the available light.</p>

<p>Don't know why there is a problem. I've shot lots of Plus-X that expired in 1963, with very decent results.</p>

<p>(This was in 1962. Maybe that has something to do with it.)</p>

<p>Larry, toss a dollop of borax into that Rodinal. That should minimize the fog and grain. It'll get your whites whiter and mule team mulier too.</p>

Larry how was this film stored for the past

50 years? Thats amazing.

<p>I'm currently going through some HIE in 120 ( Aerographic 2424 ) that was spooled in 2002 or so by David Romano, I bought the film in 2007. So far, between the first roll of it I shot in 2007 and the last two I just did a few days ago, there is no change in the base fog which is similar to Delta 3200 which is pretty amazing considering I live at 8,000 feet. This makes me happy for I still have some 40 rolls left.<br>

Larry's post makes me want to find some crazy old film and shoot it..:-)</p>

 

<p>I shot several rolls of HP5+ this past year that I had bulk rolled in 1999. They expired in 2002. No issues with any of them, but certainly very grainy, even for HP5+!</p>

<p>Development of old B&W film, especially low to medium speed, can yield surprising results. Maybe not pristine, but certainly useable negatives that are easily scanned and/or printable with a little work. I found some exposed Verichrome Pan 116 in a box that I had run through an Ensign box camera my aunt gave me in 1973 or so. Here's the camera:</p>

<p><img id="yui_3_11_0_3_1393437401886_431" src="http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3724/12797064795_d3e94cd12f_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the images came out (my grandparents' house porch in 1975), using normal processing in HC-110B. There was some moderate fog, but nothing that couldn't be corrected through some slight contrast/levels adjustments after scanning; printing wouldn't be much of an issue either.</p>

<p><img id="yui_3_11_0_3_1393437515471_431" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7284/8738399283_fc3be59a61_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>On a side note, I was also quite surprised by the sharpness of the Ensign's meniscus lens!</p>

 

<p>Tri-X as a roll film came out in 1954, <a href="http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Our_Company/History_of_Kodak/Milestones_-_chronology/1930-1959.htm">Kodak History 1930-1959</a>. The Tri-X listed earlier than that is sheet film.</p>

<p>I noticed you said you developed it for an hour.... how so? I thought that it was mostly done 9-12 minits tops.<br>

I have some tmx 100 film that is still in the bulk loader from about 7-8 yrs ago. If I shoot it what do you think the recommended exposure and developing time should be?<br>

I also have slide film e-6 that has been exposed abt 2001. Any experience with it being so old and all?<br>

I used to do slide film and B&W and am getting into B&W again. I just cleaned out the old darkroom and was able to grab a new enlarger to boot. Just picked up some developer and new jugs. Should be good to go in another week or two.<br>

Jim</p>

<p>Tmax 100 from about 7-8 years ago, box speed, standard developing time. Of course your developing time will depend on what developer that you are using.<br>

<a href="http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=TMax+100&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=F">http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.php?Film=TMax+100&Developer=&mdc=Search&TempUnits=F</a><br>

What enlarger did you just get and what did you have before? What developer did you get?</p>

<p>OK, when did 35mm Tri-X come in non-crimped cassettes? They were crimped when I first knew them, about 1968.</p>

<p>I have a roll to try out. I had two, but I thought they were exposed, so developed one. It wasn't, and has a small enough amount of fog that I will try the other one.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have a roll of Tri-X that expired in 1955, so it must be from the first batch, it is crimped. I do have some reloadable cassettes that have slip on caps but I don't know when they are from.</p>

<p>Clay- from looking at some 1954 back issues of Popular Photography I found Pop Photo's glowing report (in December issue I think) of Kodak's Tri-X. The film was actually release in 35mm and roll sizes in October but I guess it took a while to get in print. BTW, there was apparently a motion picture version that was available even a few months before. I remember seeing ads for Supreme Photo showing 100' rolls of Tri-X even back to July of that year. As with many mail order houses, 100' rolls of motion picture stock were usually less expensive than the 100' bulk packaged for still camera use.<br>

Interesting to go to a large library that has back issues of various photo magazines and "relive" the history of the debut of these films as well as their improvements. Back in the 1970's and 1980's Tri-x was almost the universal choice for film photography except for special situations that needed really fine grain or extreme speed. In the 1950's (at least from what I've read) Plus-X was more of the all-around choice. Kodak released an improved version around 1957 or 1958 that offered finer grain, more useable speed, and shorter developing times. Both Modern and Popular Photography had test reports.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>This is what makes me laugh at people who post questions like "I have a roll of Tri-X that expired last month. Can I still use it?"<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or "I'm not going to use it for two months, do I need to keep it in the freezer?"</p>

<p><a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/129489-50-year-old-kodak-plus-x-roll-still-works.html">Another 50 year old roll of Plus X.</a></p>