glen_h

<p>I recently developed some panatomic-X (I believe) I exposed 40 years ago. I use Diafine, which gives about IE250 for Panatomic-X. (This was bulk Panatomic-X bought from Freestyle, which doesn't have any markings on the film.) It came out just fine!</p>

<p>So, I recommend Diafine with it, and a somewhat higher IE, though maybe not quite 250.</p>

<p>-- glen</p>

<p>Two days ago I bought some old Tri-Chem-Pak packages. These seem to have Dektol, for prints only, and are likely from around 1963. (The expiration date on the paper I didn't buy: Velox 2.5in square.) I believe the Tri-Chem Pak I had in 1967 had a different developer for film and paper, but this one just says for prints.</p>

<p>-- glen</p>

<p>My old favorite developer, Diafine, would run Tri-X to about 1600. (I haven't used it in many years, but I see it is still available.)</p>

<p>Diafine is a little different from the methods described above, but with a similar result: It doesn't overdevelop the highlights,<br>

but does do well in the shadows. There are other two part developers which may have similar properties.</p>

<p>-- glen</p>

Sometimes I like to do just a few prints or one roll of film, so I don't want to through away good fixer. Better safe than sorry, but some try to be too safe.

I looked up this discussion to see if Ammonium based (rapid) fixer had a shorter life than sodium based fixer.

I bought my first bottle recently, getting back into (home) darkroom work after not doing it for many years.

Thousands of color negatives and a few boxes of Panalure and everyone is happy!

-- glen