Found expired 35mm bulk loaded film stock - what is Kodak 2496 RN 125/100?

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Hi! New member here. I recently acquired a box of rather old film stock. It includes some bulk rolled canisters of Kodak 2496 RN 125, and some Panatomic. I want to try and shoot these films - any advice on how to develop them in d-76?

Also found in the stash: unopened Lumipan 100 in med format, and a canister of bulk film from "Superior Bulk Film Co." from Chicago with no other markings...

Thanks! 

[Dustin McAmera]

Does this help?

https://cinematography.com/index.php?/forums/topic/43455-kodak-rar-2496-and-2498-film-which-iso-should-i-aim/

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Thanks! It helps a bit. Still not sure what I have here. If it's rated at 125, and it's who knows, 50 years old, what a good approach might be. 

[bruce_z._li2]

2496    Extended Red Pan    125    Negative    4 mil Estar-AH    Fast Drying(PX)    80 in D76 (source)

The description of 2496 is: Kodak 2496 RAR film (estar-AH base) is a member of the Kodak family of RAR films designed especially for rapid-access recording and high temperature (up to 130 deg F) processing.

USES:

• Photorecording with artificial light (all sources) and daylight
• Bubble chamber recording
• Cloud-chamber recording
• Modulated glow-tube (all types) recording
• CRT photography (all phosphors)

Where to start with exposure and development

2496 seems like a variant of Kodak Plus-X on a different film base with extended red sensitivity. I have used 50+ year old Kodak Plus X (expired 1981) with good results. I would suggest:

1) Expose it at ISO 50 or even lower (25, 12). The source said ISO 80 if developed in D76. But since it is very expired, I would err on the over-exposure side. With extended red sensitivity, you might get better sky cloud separation for outdoor photography.

2) Develop with D76: start with Kodak Plus-X time, and adjust time based on results
(I personally used Rodinal 1+50, 11 min at 68F)

3) There will be some inevitable base fog. If you scan your negatives, then most likely it can be corrected in Adobe Lightroom. If you do wet prints, then you might consider Photographers' Formulary Benzotriazole (Anti-Fog #1).

Edited February 13, 2023 by bruce_z._li2

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Thanks that is super helpful! I'm hoping this old 2496 works, and also the Panatomic rolls.

I have this tin of sealed positive film from ""Superior Bulk Film Co." out of Chicago - If I cut off a small bit in the dark and put it into some developer will I see labeling on the sprocket holes about what film it is?

[PapaTango]

Kodak Pan-X was one of the most elegant BW films ever made.  The only really comparable film was Agfa AgfaPan 25.  Use care with this gem!

Unlike many other older emulsions, Pan-X does not seem to change its sensitivity over time.  This includes both rated speed and chromatic sensitivities.  There is a wealth of information about this here on very old threads, on Photrio.com, and the general innernutz. Here is a link to one such of our threads:

D-76 is not the optimal developer for this film--nor is its clone, Ilford ID-11.  It is a 'middle ground' in the spectrum of fine grain to high acutance developers.  If anything, a 1:1 dilution is best.  There are better developers available, but unfortunately the one of choice, Microdol-X is no longer made.  Its worthy substitute is Ilford Perceptol.  Other darkroom hits are Kodak HC-110 and XTOL.  Some like to dabble with Rodinal or Pyro based solutions (see what I did there?).  The latter you might want to stay away from at this point in your photographic journey, and experiment with them on cheaper and current BW films like Ilford Pan F Plus & FP4 Plus

Do your research, stick to the common recommendations for this film, and have fun.  

[bruce_z._li2]

@PapaTangoHi, just wondering if the OP's film is more similar to Panatomic-X (IOS 25/32) or Plus-X (ISO 80/125)? I tend to think it is the latter. 2496 is Plus-X (PX) with ISO 80 in D76.

Edited February 14, 2023 by bruce_z._li2

[PapaTango]

The 2496 is quite unlike PX in several ways.  Similar to Kodak Tech Pan, it is a panchromatic film with extended red (not well into IR) film.  Its purpose was for scientific and engineering purposes--recording traces from CRT devices and specialized physics applications.  Think cyclotron, cloud chamber, or metallurgical stress analysis ...  

Although rated at 125 ASA, this was often shot at high speed frame rates with an effective ASA of 180-200, and then push processed similar to the original Tri-X.  Grainy, contrast subdued--but perfect for the purpose.  I suppose that one could use it for LOMO or some kind of alternative process purpose.  Not something for everyday use.  Given the age, I would expose it at 100 ASA, and develop in a 1:1 D-76/ID-11 slowly--say 68 degrees.   Stand development might be an option, but that is a different wheelhouse than the OP is in. Timing is going to be a bit experimental...

That bulk film was to make first-order BW transparencies, or in a copy rig, duplicate negatives.  No idea of the speed or grain characteristics. 

Edited February 14, 2023 by PapaTango

[glen_h]

The nice thing about more than one roll, is that you learn from the earlier ones.

Reversal films tend to have higher contrast, and so work less well when aged.

Negative film, with lower contrast and a little extra exposure, will get above the fog.

I am not one that uses the one stop per decade exposure increase, but many

negative films, new or old, work well with one or so stop more exposure.

 

As well as I know, Panatomic-X works well, and at box speed, for a very long time.

I now have some that is over 80 years old to try someday.

[rodeo_joe1]

On 2/14/2023 at 1:36 AM, Brooklyncraftsman said:

If I cut off a small bit in the dark and put it into some developer will I see labeling on the sprocket holes about what film it is?

Probably not. A lot of this anonymous stuff was old cine stock that wasn't edge-marked, or if it was it wasn't a continuous marking but maybe once per foot or something like that. Even a clear edge-marking might not give you much of a clue, since cine film often had no direct still film equivalent. 

I used to shoot a lot of cine-stock FP4, and sometimes the entire roll would show no edge markings at all. It behaved like FP4 sure enough, but you'd never know it from the lack of markings. I only had the supplier's word for it. 

Having said that, you'll have to do a clip-test anyway; to determine a good developing time and EI rating. 

Personally I'd run a short cassette of it through the camera with a range of 1 stop EIs from 5 up to 400. That's only 8 frames, but make sure you document the order. 

Then, for the development time - take the exposed leader and, in room lighting, dunk it in a cupful of your favourite developer at 20 degrees C and time how long it takes for the front and back of the film to look equally dark. Fix the clipping properly and, if you can, measure its density. A properly developed terminal exposure should have a density of around 2.5D to maybe approaching 3. If it's less than that it needs more time. If it's edging 3.0D or more, then less time. 

Edited February 15, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[Brooklyncraftsman]

15 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Probably not. A lot of this anonymous stuff was old cine stock that wasn't edge-marked, or if it was it wasn't a continuous marking but maybe once per foot or something like that. Even a clear edge-marking might not give you much of a clue, since cine film often had no direct still film equivalent. 

I used to shoot a lot of cine-stock FP4, and sometimes the entire roll would show no edge markings at all. It behaved like FP4 sure enough, but you'd never know it from the lack of markings. I only had the supplier's word for it. 

Having said that, you'll have to do a clip-test anyway; to determine a good developing time and EI rating. 

Personally I'd run a short cassette of it through the camera with a range of 1 stop EIs from 5 up to 400. That's only 8 frames, but make sure you document the order. 

Then, for the development time - take the exposed leader and, in room lighting, dunk it in a cupful of your favourite developer at 20 degrees C and time how long it takes for the front and back of the film to look equally dark. Fix the clipping properly and, if you can, measure its density. A properly developed terminal exposure should have a density of around 2.5D to maybe approaching 3. If it's less than that it needs more time. If it's edging 3.0D or more, then less time. 

 

Wow, thanks. This will be a project to diagnose. I'm not sure I understand the second phase here. Cut the leader frame off and in the light see how long it takes for the front and back to look equally dark?  when I have the time, I assume that I can guess what actual speed film I might have here. I dont have a way to measure density. All this for 50' of unknown film, but im so curious what it is! 

Also - just to be clear - to see the frame markings on film do I develop or will they appear if I clear a bit of film with fixer? 

[rodeo_joe1]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:55 AM, Brooklyncraftsman said:

Cut the leader frame off and in the light see how long it takes for the front and back to look equally dark?

To look equally dark in the developer. Undeveloped film is mid-grey in colour. During development the exposed parts turn black, and this happens from the front of the emulsion into its depth. The back of the film still appears grey until development has progressed to near-completion. That's how you can get a reasonable guide to a good development time, just with a bit of fogged film and an eggcupful of developer at the correct temperature. 

On 2/16/2023 at 2:55 AM, Brooklyncraftsman said:

Also - just to be clear - to see the frame markings on film do I develop or will they appear if I clear a bit of film with fixer? 

You need to develop the film, and in the dark for the edge-markings to appear. The edge markings, if any, are printed on using light. They only appear after developing. Fixer will completely destroy any image if used before the developing stage. 

Edited February 17, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Thanks Rodeo Joe - that helps!

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Ok so I developed the leader until the darkness of the back and front equalled out and I got around 6.5-7 minutes. Then I took 8 frames from 50-800 EI and the developed at 7min D-76 1:1. Frames for 50 and 100 are closest to ok, the 200 and on is very thin (light negs) to nothing. Here are the two at 50/100. Pretty grainy quick scan - could this be old Tri-X that now wants to be shot at 50/100? The canister says Tri-x but this was possibly either Panatomic-x or 2496 as the box I found had some bulk rolled films labeled as such.  As expected, no frame markings about what the film is.

Thanks!

T

[rodeo_joe1]

Oooh, not a good subject to get a decent EI guide from. The large area of netted window light is going to throw any metering right off. 

I presume the first, top picture is the one at EI 50? It looks about right for shadow detail, but considering the scene, the contrast is a bit low. So maybe up the development time to 8 or 9 minutes? 9 minutes is a fairly standard time for D-76 @ 1:1 IIRC. 

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Right, I can try another simple scene. Thanks. The film seems a bit fogged, yes? here it is next to a bit of HP5

[rodeo_joe1]

Yes. I'm afraid that looks more than 'a bit' fogged, but it's only to be expected with old film that's probably not been refrigerated all its life. 

The fog shouldn't hurt too much. It's not ideal, but scanning and a bit of image manipulation can cover up a multitude of sins these days. 

P.S. The Dmax looks not too bad. So maybe 7.5 to 8 mins development will get you there after adjusting the EI on a more 'average' scene. I suspect that the 32 ISO of early Panatomic-X might be closer to a realistic speed though. 

Edited February 23, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[Brooklyncraftsman]

2 hours ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

Yes. I'm afraid that looks more than 'a bit' fogged, but it's only to be expected with old film that's probably not been refrigerated all its life. 

The fog shouldn't hurt too much. It's not ideal, but scanning and a bit of image manipulation can cover up a multitude of sins these days. 

P.S. The Dmax looks not too bad. So maybe 7.5 to 8 mins development will get you there after adjusting the EI on a more 'average' scene. I suspect that the 32 ISO of early Panatomic-X might be closer to a realistic speed though. 

Great, I'll give it another try, perhaps with anti-fog additive. Does this seem consistent with very old Tri-x? what is a guess on what im shooting here? for what its worth, the color of the pan-x and 2496 emulsion in the picture above  is very different than this film in the bulk tin that was marked tri-x (but who knows what it is). Thanks again - the mystery of this film may not be worth it, but im hooked on getting it figured out!

[rodeo_joe1]

Well, if it ever was Tri-X, it certainly doesn't act like it now! Your 400 EI frame shows only a faint density in the window area, which I would expect to be almost fully black. 

Shoot another short length of test exposures around the 25 to 100 ISO range and develop for 8 mins. Because that's where the speed of the film seems to be now.... unless your metering was way off. 

If you have a handheld meter, use it in incident mode; pointing the dome from the subject back toward the camera. It's the most reliable method. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by rodeo_joe1

[mjferron]

I found some access to Ai and asked a question on it’s knowledge of B&W film photography. Here is the reply. Nothing earth shattering but to the point with a answer we might all accept as general knowledge. 
 

As an AI language model, I have knowledge about B&W film photography and can provide some information on the topic.

Black and white film photography is a traditional method of capturing images that uses black and white film, rather than color film, to produce monochrome images. The process involves exposing light-sensitive film to a scene or subject, developing the film in a darkroom, and then making prints using an enlarger and special photographic paper.

One of the advantages of black and white film photography is the ability to create a range of tones and textures that can be difficult to achieve with color photography. Black and white images can be high in contrast, with deep blacks and bright whites, or low in contrast, with a range of grays and subtle tonal variations.

Black and white film photography also allows for a greater degree of control in the development process, as different developing techniques can be used to achieve different effects. For example, a film can be developed to produce more grain for a gritty, textured look, or it can be developed to produce smoother tones for a more refined image.

While digital photography has largely replaced film photography in many contexts, black and white film photography remains a popular and highly respected art form among photographers and art enthusiasts. Many photographers continue to use film cameras and darkroom techniques to create stunning black and white images that capture the beauty and depth of the world around us.

[glen_h]

Tri-X, and other Kodak films as usually sold, have edge marking

including the four digit number that identifies them.

Also, they usually have good (enough) latent image keeping, that it

should still be there.

 

The film known to have bad latent image keeping is PanF+.

The edge markings might be gone in 10 years.   I think that means

that age fogging should be less of a problem. 

 

Kodak SO, Special Order, films might not have edge markings.

I don't know that I ever looked for them. 

[rodeo_joe1]

9 hours ago, mjferron said:

I found some access to Ai and asked a question on it’s knowledge of B&W film photography. Here is the reply. Nothing earth shattering but to the point with a answer we might all accept as general knowledge. 
 

As an AI language model, I have knowledge about B&W film photography and can provide some information on the topic.

Black and white film photography is a traditional method of capturing images that uses black and white film, rather than color film, to produce monochrome images. The process involves exposing light-sensitive film to a scene or subject, developing the film in a darkroom, and then making prints using an enlarger and special photographic paper.

One of the advantages of black and white film photography is the ability to create a range of tones and textures that can be difficult to achieve with color photography. Black and white images can be high in contrast, with deep blacks and bright whites, or low in contrast, with a range of grays and subtle tonal variations.

Black and white film photography also allows for a greater degree of control in the development process, as different developing techniques can be used to achieve different effects. For example, a film can be developed to produce more grain for a gritty, textured look, or it can be developed to produce smoother tones for a more refined image.

While digital photography has largely replaced film photography in many contexts, black and white film photography remains a popular and highly respected art form among photographers and art enthusiasts. Many photographers continue to use film cameras and darkroom techniques to create stunning black and white images that capture the beauty and depth of the world around us.

That Bot forgot to mention that 99.9% of those painstakingly produced B&W film pictures then go on only to get scanned into digital images to share online. 

[mjferron]

1 hour ago, rodeo_joe1 said:

That Bot forgot to mention that 99.9% of those painstakingly produced B&W film pictures then go on only to get scanned into digital images to share online. 

True but if not for online images we would not see each other’s work no matter what the original medium was.

 PS I meant to post this as a separate topic, not a part of this thread.

Edited February 25, 2023 by mjferron

[rodeo_joe1]

I just wonder exactly how many recently-produced negatives get wet-printed at all these days. Because I suspect the vast majority only get scanned and shared online. 

[Brooklyncraftsman]

Hi! Circling back to this topic. I cut a bit of my mystery old film and spooled it on to a cassette in the dark. The film is white - any thoughts about what it is / if it is trash?