Really old TMAX 3200

[giverin]

<p>A few weeks ago I bought a load of film from an ebay seller who was giving up film for good. He was selling lots of 35mm, 120 and sheet film. I bought 10 rolls of Neopan 400 (good exp dates) and a single roll of Tmax 3200 with an advertised date of 05/2014. However when it arrived I found the date was 05/2004. The seller had made a typo in the listing and refunded the purchase price.</p>

<p>So what do I do with this roll of TMZ? Its over eight years out of date and going on my experience of Delta 3200 that was one year out of date, it will be fogged to death. Should I just throw it in the bin? My only thought is to keep it for use when testing for light leaks on older bodies. It would have been handy to have on my leaky Kiev 4A last year. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>If you want to experiment with it then shoot it in three batches of 10 exposures each. With the leader you need that should work out. With some bracketing and note-taking of development times you should at least get the last 10 shots right.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>All the film was 2004? or just the one roll of Tmax? Just shoot it for fun, if it's just the one roll.</p>

<p><br /> In any case, I have shot Tri-X with expiration dates in the last century with little problem. I've even shot film that was more than 20 <em>years</em> out of date. Bump up the contrast if you're scanning after using. Use higher contrast paper if printing optically.</p>

<p>Of course, don't use it for that critical wedding assignment.</p>

<p>I've never had an experience as bad as your Delta 3200, although obviously the higher speed, the more danger.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>That TMZ will probably be very foggy by now. If you want conventional optimal results, try rating it around EI 800 and soup in a developer with added restrainer or other low fog developer such as HC-110.</p>

<p>But I'd be inclined to experiment and shoot it at 1600-3200 and soup it in Microphen for 20 minutes, or maybe Rodinal 1+200 for two-hour stand developing. It'll be grainy, contrasty and probably foggy, but that might be interesting.</p>

[giverin]

<p>Hi guys, it was only the TMZ that was expired. The Neopan is well in date. Lex, I like your idea, particularly as I do have Microphen and Rodinal in my darkroom at the moment. I might actually go with the Rodinal as the stock Microphen I have on the go has been used 5 times already. With the 1+200 Rodinal stand development, would you recommend any agitation after the first minute? I know some people like to agitate after an hour or so.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>For stand development I usually agitate continuously for 60 seconds, then don't touch the tank again for two hours. But as far as I can recall I've done stand developing only with Tri-X. I might have tried it with FP4+ but can't recall for certain. So far, so good, no problems with streaking or uneven development.</p>

<p>One reason I think you might even like foggy negatives is because of an experience I had with outdated Tri-X several years ago. It was fogged from sitting in a hot car. Then I developed it in some type of Ilford print developer. The negatives were really murky but I liked the look for some photos - it was reminiscent of some of my old family photos dating back to the late 1800s. It was an interesting look for photos of rustic rural scenes where there were no visible utility lines or modern artifacts to give away the era.</p>

[giverin]

<p>Well that was interesting but I don't think I'll be adding TMZ/Rodinal to my favourite combinations list. I shot the film at 1600 and stand developed for 2 hours in Rodinal 1+200. I did suffer from uneven development..... streaking from the sprocket holes in some frames (plastic reel). I suppose the streaking was the least of my problems. The fogging was quite bad and grain that the Rodinal produced wasn't great but it was all good fun and only cost me 2.5ml of Rodinal and a couple of hours on a murky Sunday afternoon.</p>

<p><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8238/8354851446_59ed073110_c.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="535" /></p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"streaking from the sprocket holes in some frames (plastic reel)"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, *that* problem, I have seen. I switched to stainless reels for stand processing. The squarish, high flanges of plastic reels seem to contribute to streaking and unevenness.</p>

[sfcole]

<p>I have a great deal of tmz 3200 that is years (decades) old. I shoot it at 1000 and it's fine.</p>