Minimizing fog in 4 year old undeveloped Acros 4x5 negs

[beepy]

<p>Without going into the sad details, I'm about to develop a batch of 4x5 Fujifilm Acros negatives that I shot at 400 ISO equivalent. I'm worried about (massive) fog and tonal range loss. The film has not been refrigerated, but kept at about 65 deg. F.<br>

I originally developed the negs with Xtol in a Jobo CPP processor and the results were great. (I have to look at my notes at home - on the Xtol dilution I was using).<br>

I searched archives and picked up some Edwal Orthazite to attempt this weekend - I can experiment on a couple less important negs - to see effect with and without. Talking to guy at Keeble and Shuchat here in Palo Alto he observed the Orthazite will lengthen development time and was on fence as to whether I should use it.<br>

Also, the Orthazite reference was with HC-110 (which I have some of) - but the K&S guy suggested there was no reason why it wouldn't work with Xtol.<br>

Questions:<br>

1. Any experience or suggestions on approaching retaining tonal range on 4 year old exposed Acros negs?<br>

2. Does HC-110 minimize fog more than other developers with or without Orthazite?<br>

3. Any other approaches to minimizing fog (I'm seeing some reference to developer temperature in some random post somewhere?)<br>

I will be scanning the negs and can do some recovery on that end of the process - just looking to get as much info out of the batch of negs during development as possible.<br>

I promise never ever to not quickly develop negatives again. Promise.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I'd start with trying one at your old times. Four years at controlled room temperature really shouldn't be bad. Remember that you won't lose any shadow detail from the fog, it's additive. You'll just have N-1 negatives (approximately).</p>

 

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I developed some Ilford HP5 4x5 stuff about a month ago; it has shot the summer of 2005 and loaded in a 4x5 Nikkor reel at my summer home in the Katrina area. When visting there I found the tank; long forgotten about' the house still needs work.</p>

<p>The negatives really had some fog at the edges compared to new films processed; but my guess is instead of being like say 0.3; itwas more like a density of 0.4 maybe 0.5. <br>

<br /> I developed it in just dumb D76 1:1 at a stock time temp. The tank was been in an unairconditioned house since Katrina; the main AC is still broken. I have a couple of dinky 5000 BTUH units to keep the humidity less swamp like. In the summers the tank was probably about 80F.</p>

<p>The HP5 expired in 2002. I my case there is slight fog; really very little. I was really surprised. The images were some portraits with the speed graphic and 178mm aero ektar; the lens mount I got in the early 1960's.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Brian, I've fund Acros to be forgiving when underexposed, but not so much when overexposed. I haven't tried Orthazite, but use borax on occasion to control fogging. I don't find Acros is very apt to fog though. And I would shoot with 4 year old Acros (Quickload) without worries. It is very stable stuff. I would add about a gram of Borax (household 20 Mule Team is what I use, and dirt cheap) per liter and see where that gets you. You could use a bit more, and it is a very good buffer. HC-110 does a pretty good job at minimizing fog, and XTol should be okay too. I would probably opt for HC-110 in something like Dilution E. I don't use the a Jobo process, but instead use dunk tanks or F&R tanks for up to 10 sheets at a time. I can't comment on what continuous agitation would do for fogging. In Rodinal, and higher dilutions of HC-110, the Borax will retard development a bit, so you may need to compensate with 10-20% additional time. BTW, Brian, your work is stunning.</p>

[beepy]

<p>Wow - thanks for the quick responses...<br>

I'm going to take a set of the less critical negs and develop in Xtol as before to see if I am needlessly worrying. If something funny happens I'll try the borax and Orthazite approaches (with a bump in development).<br>

Maybe I'm not as screwed as I think I am. (I look at Gene's found film postings from 40+ year old exposed film and think maybe I'm a film developing hypochondriac).<br>

Michael! Thanks for the nice comment on my work! I went over to your work from Facebook and on photo.net - really beautiful and emotional black and white, and vibrant color work! Sheesh.</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Fujifilm Acros is an iso of 100. If you exposed it at an EI of 400; of course that is 2 stops less than legal iso speed. My HP5 is an iso of 400; I expose it abit more typcially; ie say 320 or 250. Genes "found film" if ancient might be say pre 1960's; were asa was defined a tad different too; where there was a built in safety margin where one overexposed sometimes by one full stop. <br /> <br /><br /> (1)With old film that was exposed long ago; the base fog rises and causes faint/shadow area to be lost.<br /> <br /><br /> (2)In newly shot old expired films on has a fresh new exposure on film that already has a slight base exposure due to fog; ie radiation; chemicals; etc.<br /> <br /><br /> Many anti fog tablets/chemcials/schemes work better with case (2); and less so with case (1).<br /> <br /><br /> In your case you have only 4 year old iso 100 film; thus cosmic ray issues are about nil; ie not a problem.<br /> <br /><br /> With underexposed film by 2 stops ; you can already have many wanted details in the shadows; delaying development for many many years just makes details merge into the base fog.</p>

<p>There is real no magical bullet to un-ravel details lost in base fog; you have a double exposure already; (a) is the shot done years ago; (b) is the added base fog. Chemicals cannot zero in on two parts of a double exposure and just work on one area.</p>

<p>****I really see a far GREATER issue ; (if any) that you underexposed by 2 stops versus a minor 4 year wait of developing iso 100 B&W film. Thus I think you are focusing on the totally wrong issue; trivial base fog. One could argue that even if shot today with fresh film; a 2 stop underexpose can be an issue' or not depending on the lighting ratios.</p>

[john romano]

<p>Beepy:</p>

<p>The faster the "box" speed (ASA) of of the film, the more fog over time.<br>

Acros at 100 won't fog that much over time so long as it isn't "baked" for a few summers in the glove compartment of a car.</p>

<p>I suggest testing one negative in your standard Xtol soup without Orthazite, and see how it comes out. Then, evaluate. I have a hunch fog will not be an issue as the film is a low ASA.</p>

<p>I think the issue will be preserving the tonal range and actual tones in the exposed negative exposing it at 400 ASA. My guess is that you will have printable negatives once you run a test and make any adjustments that you see fit.</p>