What is the Secret of Verichrome Pan?

[Mos6502]

15 years ago I bought a bunch of rolls of Verichrome Pan in 127, all of which expired in the 1970s. I shot it all, and developed it, and the results came out great. I thought I had developed it all, but as I was digging around in my box of undeveloped "forgotten" film I found an undeveloped roll of Verichrome Pan at the bottom. I developed it, and was expecting to get basically nothing, because the film is now more expired than it was then, albeit it has spent over a decade outside of its foil wrapper now, and the latent images on the film were also over a decade old. I was nothing short of astonished when I pulled the film off the reel and had a roll of excellent negatives. Yes the base fog is quite high, but the images have enough contrast for printing anyway, and at least by my eye, don't appear grainy or mottled in the way some other films tend to go when stored for decades.

I know that Verichrome Pan was developed with longevity in mind. It was supposed to be a film for snapshooters, people who got the camera off the shelf for birthdays and Christmas, and might have film sitting in the camera for a year or two. But how did Kodak really accomplish this? And is this technology lost forever? I also developed a ten year old roll of HP5 last night and the results were (as to be expected really) not that great, but it really demonstrated just how unusual the lasting power of the VP film is by comparison.

Below are a couple of image that I had developed in 2009. I will try making prints from this latest "forgotten" roll tonight, and I expect that will come out just as clearly.

 

[raydm6]

Lovely results.

That vintage look reminds me of shooting Verichrome Pan in my Kodak Junior Six-16.

My guess is there was more silver in the film base and wider exposure lattitude:

Designed as a general purpose film for the average consumer who at the time of its release in 1956 had nothing more than a box camera the film had a wide exposure latitude to overcome the disadvantages a box camera would have.

Classic Film Review – Kodak Verichrome Pan

Before Plus-X there was Verichrome Pan. The two films have rather similar looks, but if there was a film that defined the look of the mid-century, that is the 1940s through 1950s of the 20th-Century

www.alexluyckx.com

Interesting discussion on it’s characteristics here:

Old Varichrome Pan

Hello- I have some very old Varichrome Pan in 120 that I would like to attempt to shoot and process in D-76. What ISO should I shoot it at and how long should I develop it? Thanks

www.photrio.com

Nice discussion and beautiful examples (see @Chriscrawfordphoto and other’s examples) here on RFF:

120 Verichrome pan experinces/developer

I have most of a cold stored brick of 20 rolls of Verichrome Pan and I am wondering on how well it process in D-76 @ 1:1, vs, Parrodinal, and HC-110? I would like to know favorite lighting conditions and speeds, I looked earlier at the M.Development Chart, and saw that most of the outdated...

rangefinderforum.com

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Verichrome Pan was wonderful. I used it in 126 and 110 Instamatic-type cameras. When I went to an adjustable lens
35mm camera the equivalent speed Kodak 35mm BW film was Plus-X, which sadly never gave me the same tonality.

Chris

 

[x-ray]

Verichrome pan didn’t come along until the mid to later 50’s. Before that it was Verichrome Orthochromatic film.

I remember because around 1958 I was learning to develop film. My dad taught me to process the ortho version under a red safelight and when pan came in I didn’t know the difference. It only took one attempt to run it under a red light and ruining a roll for me to figure it out.

Verichrome ortho had a totally different look from the pan film. Ortho gave bald skies with little to no definition in the sky and pan film defined clouds and retained a more natural look.

 

[Freakscene]

Verichrome uses a lot of cadmium salt stabilisers. These increase the durability of the latent image. The technology is not lost, but it is virtually impossible to use because of environmental requirements, which, before anyone complains, are completely justified. Cadmium is very toxic stuff.

Also the film has two emulsion layers with a fast one above and a slower one underneath. This aids retaining highlight detail. The ‘silver rich’ notion is a myth - even in thicker emulsions, the amount of silver per area varies only a little.

 

[DownUnder]

Verichrome pan didn’t come along until the mid to later 50’s. Before that it was Verichrome Orthochromatic film.

I remember because around 1958 I was learning to develop film. My dad taught me to process the ortho version under a red safelight and when pan came in I didn’t know the difference. It only took one attempt to run it under a red light and ruining a roll for me to figure it out.

Verichrome ortho had a totally different look from the pan film. Ortho gave bald skies with little to no definition in the sky and pan film defined clouds and retained a more natural look.

Right on. Until about 1957 Kodak called this film Verichrome, and it was orthochromatic. They went to Verichrome Pan as a panchromatic emulsion. Both were aimed at the amateur 'shooter' market, as I recall however you processed it you would get a usable image. In those days many people ordered either 6x9" contact prints or 4.5x4.5" square machine prints. I still have a few dozen with the then-fashionable deck edges everyone thought so very distinguished for that era!

I have about six rolls still in their original boxes, kept securely wrapped in my film fridge as they ae now 'heirloom photographica' and highly collectables. My oldest dates to 1947 - coincidentally my birth year - then 1952, 1954 and 1957. One roll is dated 1987. I bought it in a rejects bin in a small photo store in Ringwood (Melbourne) in 1989 or thatabouts.

I used VP from 1959 until 1966 when I discovered GAF Versapan, which coincidentally has many of the same characteristics. When GAF discontinued its film (and all its photo supplies) lines in about 1970, I went to Plus-X and Tri-X, like almost everybody else in Canada did.

My early memories of VP are of buying the film in 20 roll 'bricks' from my local pharmacy in Moncton, New Brunswick. I recall I paid CDN $10 for it.

Many of my original negatives have survived and still print very well, all things considered. In those long ago times I developed everything in Kodak DK60a which wasn't exactly a fine-grain brew. In 1966 I went over to Ron Spillman's two bath developer and my film contrast improved by several country miles. Those latter negatives scan beautifully, whereas my heavily-processed films from 1961-1966 are difficult to scan but enlarge nicely.

All water under time's old bridge for me now. These days when I use film I make do with what's in my film fridge at home as I no longer buy expensive new brands. Still have several bulk rolls of Panatomic-X, one of Plus-X, one or two of Tri-X. All probably worth a small fortune even on Ebay. I am tempted...

 

[CMur12]

What I recall about Verichrome Pan is that it was used mostly in Brownie-type cameras (single aperture, single shutter speed, fixed focus), as it had low contrast and a broad dynamic range.

GAF (formerly Ansco) films were available at least into the early 1970s (color slide films, at least). I was shooting GAF 64 in 1972 - 1973, and I especially liked it for its color palette in the fall. Around this same time, GAF introduced high-speed slide films, in ASA 200 and 500! These were unheard-of speeds at a time when High Speed Ektachrome was ASA 160. The high-speed GAF films had very large grain, however, as one would expect at the time.

- Murray

 

[Jonathan R]

In 1966 I went over to Ron Spillman's two bath developer and my film contrast improved by several country miles.

Ron Spillman! I haven’t heard that name for several decades. Was it AP, or some other mag, that he wrote in?

 

[raydm6]

A few of mine from another thread:

Old North Church, Boston (c. 1970's) - Kodak Junior Six-16 Series III Camera - (film unrecorded - maybe Verichrome Pan 616)

Washington Street, Boston (c. 1970's) - Kodak Junior Six-16 Series III Camera - (film unrecorded - maybe Verichrome Pan 616)

Downtown Boston - Grants Department Store, Orpheum Theater, Boston (c. 1970's) - Kodak Junior Six-16 Series III Camera - (film unrecorded - maybe Verichrome Pan 616)

 

[Nitroplait]

I also developed a ten year old roll of HP5 last night and the results were (as to be expected really) not that great, but it really demonstrated just how unusual the lasting power of the VP film is by comparison.

I can’t really agree that it is “to be expected”.

15 years ago I got an attractive offer and completely overestimated my 120 film usage. As a consequence I am still using of this HP5+ stock expired in 2013 as well as some Tri-X expired in 2012 which was never kept under controlled conditions.
I see virtually no base fogging issues compared to the fresh FP4 I am using alongside.

Exposed film is different of course. Some films like Ilford Pan F are said to require development close to immediately post exposure to avoid image information deterioration.
I have no personal experience with this film or phenomenon.

On the other hand, in the circles I socialize, I do see occasional examples of exposed film found in old pre WWII Leica Barnacks which develops quite nicely.
Often it isn’t possible to ID these films as they may be rolled into unlabeled FILCA cassettes, so any failure in developing a useable image may be as much due to a wrong guess when choosing development strategy as it may be the film’s ability to retain images over time - often there is no edge markings that could help ID the film post development.
When developing old exposed film, one may also find that errors made at the time of exposure may have significant effect on what can be retrieved.

I have stopped obsessing about expiration date and storage of the BW films I normally use. Expiration date + 10 years is acceptable for my use it seems - but I do try to use my film stock within manufacturers recommendations.

 

[x-ray]

VP was one of my favorites until it was discontinued. PX was fine but VP had a totally different look that I liked better.

I remember we ever GAF / Ansco and shot Ansco on occasion. I seems like I used Clayton developers that were sold by Sears. In the 50’s and 60’s Sears had a pretty complete camera department with enlargers and darkroom gear. Most good department stores of that time had camera departments often with darkroom gear.

In the late 60’s Agfa B&W appeared in my area. Seems like 120 came in an aluminum tube sealed with tape and 35mm in aluminum screw top cans very similar to how Kodak packaged its film. I think the film I used was Isopan ISS and think it was ISO 100.

Around the late 60’s I started seeing Ilford film but really didn’t use it that much because I was very satisfied with Kodak and especially TX.

I keep rolls of discontinued film emulsion for nostalgia sake. I think one roll of VP has a B price sticker of 69 cents. I think back to my youth when I really got into photography nearly 63 years ago, I bought 120 film from a local camera shop for 26 cents a roll. The store had a darkroom tray full of film that was wrapped in the foil wrapper and no box. There was no brand name but think it was Eastern European. It was very close to VPat about half the price.

 

[MrFujicaman]

GAF shut down in 1974.

 

[DownUnder]

A few of mine from another thread:

Old North Church, Boston (c. 1970's) - Kodak Junior Six-16 Series III Camera - (film unrecorded - maybe Verichrome Pan 616)

Washington Street, Boston (c. 1970's) - Kodak Junior Six-16 Series III Camera - (film unrecorded - maybe Verichrome Pan 616)

Downtown Boston - Grants Department Store, Orpheum Theater, Boston (c. 1970's) - Kodak Junior Six-16 Series III Camera - (film unrecorded - maybe Verichrome Pan 616)
View attachment 4841659

We had a 616 Kodak Brownie box camera at home when I was a child. In fact all my 'baby photos' were taken with it. Negatives are huge, back then these were contact printed by our local pharmacist who processed films in a cupboard at the back of his pharmacy (aka 'drug store' - in today's high-profile drug age the term now seems quaintly outdated but at the same time lethal). These prints have held up well, some are 70+ years old and show no signs of deterioration. However the negatives do not enlarge especially well. I have a 6x7 LPL 7700 enlarger so of necessity my home-made prints from those ancient negatives are only part of the 616 format.

IRRC I used 616 for the last time in the family Brownie in 1982 when I was in Canada for a summer holiday from Australia. I took the film back with me to Sydney and processed it in my kitchen in King's Cross. It was a typical high-temperature summer's day and the tap water was hot enough to make drinkable instant coffee. The film (VP) survived that ordeal well and those negatives are easily scanned.

A few years later my parents sold the family home and disposed of many things from my childhood. What happened to that 616 camera I'll now never know. I should have taken it with me when I returned to Australia, but I had a car full of stuff and I was facing a long drive across the USA to California (I flew out of LA), so I had to be highly selective about what I took back. I should have shipped a few boxes of things back but obviously that idea didn't occur to me at the time. Unfrtunately.

620 VP was a good film. Several aunts had Kodak 620 cameras and as a young teen I often borrowed those to play with film. Some of my original negatives have survived and as I've written, they print and scan nicely.

Ansco Versapan which I used later in the '60s gave me nicer mid-tones but VP had its own unique tonality and a pleasant grain structure. It's a shame Kodak opted to discontinue so many of its 'traditional' films in the '80s and '90s but time passes and everything changes. We now have TMax 100 and 400 which are fine films entirely in their own right.