Found film - developing advice please?

[carl_neilson]

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I was given a bunch of old camera gear recently, comprising of a Spotmatic SPF with a few M42 lenses and accessories, and a Pentax K1000. In the case with the K1000 I discovered an exposed roll of Tri-X and just for kicks I'd like to see if there are any images on it. I can only guess about the age of the film, but presuming it was probably shot with the K1000 there is an airline carry-on luggage sticker in the camera's case for a flight dated 1985 so that may be the earliest it was shot. I'm not up with my Tri-X packaging history so I can't tell potentially how old or recent it might be from the design of the cannister.</p>

<p>I use Kodak D-76 for all of my black and white developing so that is the only developer I have on hand. Since the contents of the film have no personal meaning to me I don't intend to buy any other kind of developer that may give better results under these circumstances.</p>

<p>Are there any recommendations out there re D-76 dilution, time, and agitation technique that would give this old film the best opportunity to reveal its contents?</p>

<p>The only other info I can add regarding the film is that each year it has been subjected to a hot, humid, tropical summer here in North Queensland, Australia.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>That (1985) is like yesterday for Tri-X in my own experience. I shot and developed a bunch of late 70s Tri-X at the usual recommended times and such. Worked fine. Not so good results with the one roll of Plus-X I had, but even it was pretty much OK with normal development (the problems were elsewhere than density, etc.).</p>

<p>I'd recommend just following the D-76 recommendations, that's what I did after trying out a roll first and finding out that it worked. I'll bet yours will too, unless the film has been baked or something. Of course already present latent images may turn out a little light, my Tri-X was unused.</p>

<p>As far as I'm concerned, D-76 is all anybody ever needs. Maybe someday I'll try something else for a change.</p>

[craigd]

<p>JDM, you say you "shot and developed a bunch of late 70s Tri-X", but that makes it sound like the film was old but you exposed it recently and developed it without any unusual delay. Doesn't it make a difference that Carl is talking about film that was exposed decades ago? As I understand it, the latent image created by exposing film gradually decays over a long period of time, which might justify some adjustments in the development process to compensate.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>I'd say that's a mid-1970's roll. HC-110 is good for controlling base fog, which this film will have. My mid-70's Kodak Darkroom Dataguide "Developing Dial" would say 7.5 minutes at 68F in HC-110 dilution B. Maybe push up to 8 or 9 minutes to make up for loss of the latent image?</p>

 

[cj8281]

<p>What does it say for film speed on the canister? Does it have DX coding on it? Some time in the late '80s they added DX coding. In the early to mid '80s they changed from ASA to ISO. <a href=" is a shot of 2 cassettes that I have</a>. It appears that if your is marked ASA, then they may have stopped blocking the numbers in a box as yours appears to be and just used Green paint to write them out as my "newer" one appears to be.</p>

<p>I have a bulk roll of Tri-X that was kept in a garage for about 12 years and it is horrid for grain. After a quick test, I shoot it at EI 50 to get any tone out of it. The heat from your summer time is going to be the killer for it. My recommendation is to use HC110 at about 10% (1:9) and get it cold, develop it for a short amount of time and while it is in the fix, begin to warm it up for the final rinse. I developed a <a href="../black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00X1EE">roll of Gevaert Pan</a> that was shot in the early mid '60s. What I mean by cold, I developed mine at 37.9ºf. I had my developer, stop and fix at this temperature. When the fix was in, I set the tank in a shallow bowl and began circulating water that was about 62ºf. When the fixer was about up to 62ºf, I did my wash for 30 minutes. For time, <a href="http://foundfilm.livejournal.com/16982.html">you will need to do a clip test</a>. It is easy to do and will help you get the time that you need. </p>

<p>Good Luck, please post results whether they be good or bad. When I was looking I found a few threads were people had similiar tasks but they did not post what happened or what they did. I was lucky to get in touch with <a href="http://amirko.livejournal.com/">amirko</a> and get advice from him. I tried soliciting help from a few others but never got any responses. </p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>as I said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course already present latent images may turn out a little light, my Tri-X was unused.</p>

</blockquote>

[leicaglow]

<p>I second the fact that the film should be easily developed, unless abused by heat or something, and that HC-110 might be the better choice over D-76, but either should be fine. You will likely have a bit of fog, but you should be able to print through it.</p>

[carl_neilson]

<p>Thanks for the responses so far.</p>

<p>Clay - The cannister says "ASA" and seems to be identical to the cannister on the left of your photo.</p>

<p>I use D-76 for all of my general developing and I have a big supply of it at the moment. I realise that I may not be giving the latent images their best chance by using this developer but I don't want to invest in another type of developer like HC-110 just for this one film. If it was a roll of my own family's long lost photos it would be another matter of course.</p>

<p>I develop my own fresh Tri-X like this:<br />1+1 dilution;<br />30 secs agitation initially;<br />10 secs agitation each minute;<br />Total 10 mins development time.</p>

<p>Should I do anything differently with this old film?</p>

[will_daniel1]

In addition to the ASA vs. ISO thing, the found canister is 20 exposures. The film might be older than you think. Does anyone know when Kodak abandoned 20-exposure Tri-X in favor of 24?

[cj8281]

<p>When I was still in high school in 1985, we were still using 20 and 36 exposure rolls of Panatomic-X, Plus-X and Tri-X.<br>

My cassette on the left came out of its box for this photo. Its expiration date was 1982.</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Your D-76 1:1 time corresponds exactly with my 1970's Developing Dial. Go for it.</p>

[mark_medin]

<p>I developed a roll of Tri-X shot in 1977 which sat in an unheated/uncooled garage for 20 years. I used HC-110. The images were grainy but still printable though the film itself has a fierce curl which I can't do anything about. I think there's something I posted about it here. I still have a roll of Tri-X that looks like the roll in the second photo on the left, and I believe it's unshot and dates from the same time as the shot roll.</p>

[kris-bochenek]

<p>I once did a Agfa Pan + from 1940's shot on an old Luftwaffe converted Robot camera. Film was very curly and hard to get on a roll. I cooked it in Ilfosol and it turn out OK (you could recognize faces) good luck and share the images if you dont mind.</p>

[carl_neilson]

<p>Time to report back on the results. I developed the film this afternoon, but only had very minor success. I added a couple of extra minutes to the development time, hoping that it may help things along. The film's edge markings came out fine, but I got no images. In fact all I got through the length of the film was what looks like fungus or mould residue. There isn't even a hint of image frames on it. Initially I was assuming that the film had been exposed because it had been wound back inside the canister, but now I'm sure that the film was never exposed for a couple of reasons. One is that the edge markings came out clear. The other is a weird one. The frame numbers start at number "5", so the leader and first four frames had been cut off. Never mind -- nothing gained; nothing lost.</p>

[gnashings]

<p>I think you'll be surprised how much of a non-event this will be - I would give it a little extra time and and use stock or 1:1 and prepare myself for how... normal it all goes.</p>