Agfachrome 50 S expired 1978

[Cowboy]

Hey folks,

I aquired six rolls of Agfachrome 50 S yesterday that expired in May 78 (that stuff is older than me 😀). As far as I know it needs to be developed in E6, could anyone confirm that?

With the film being so old, what can I expect? Shift in colours? Do I need to compensate exposure?

I am really looking forward to experimenting with this film!

-Cowboy

 

[sevres_babylone]

I used Agfachrome on my trip in 1977 to 1978, and used to send it to Agfa in countries along the way for development (hence, the loss of my Nepalese slides somewhere between Agfa Teheran, which had a record of it, and Poste Restante Esfahan). I'm not sure, but I don't think it was E-6. Even then colour and grain varied significantly, although some of that may have been due to how it was stored before I bought it. Some of it was probably baking in shops in Thailand for a while. The processed slides haven't aged well either. That said, I like it much better than the Ektachrome I shot then, but not nearly as much as the Kodachrome.

Here's a discussion I found on flickr, which might be helpful:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/crossprocessing/discuss/72157624682983279/

 

[raid]

I am only aware of E6 Agfachrome film.

 

[sevo]

Agfachrome 50 was AP-41, same as CT18 - it cannot be developed in E-6 or indeed any Kodak E process, having a fundamentally different chemistry. Process C22 http://www.processc22.co.uk/ supposedly still develop it, but it may be that they only develop it to black and white negative, which is generally the last resort for salvaging exposed film from extinct colour processes (CT18 is on their list for full development to colour).

I can understand having it specially processed if it was exposed a long time ago with potentially important images on it - but there is no point in using it now. If you don't have significant cash to blow for the heck of it, you should better refrain from using that stuff.

 

[MartinP]

As I recall it was indeed developed in the Agfachrome (not E6) chemistry which was completely different and it also ran at a lower temperature than the 38C of E6. For some reason the 24C seemed easily achievable to me at the time, and a kit with with five rolls of the film (probably the 100asa version actually) and chemicals was the first I ever developed, even before black-and-white negatives.

In any case, perhaps the best thing is to find someone who wants the rolls for their film museum and hope they will pay enough to cover the cost of a few rolls of a new E6 film.

 

[Cowboy]

As far as I know it needs to be developed in E6, could anyone confirm that?

Does not seem to be E-6 but Agfachrome 🙁. Does anybody still do that? Possibly in Germany?

EDIT: You were too quick for me, I should have pressed F5 before posting ;-)

 

[sevo]

It also should be possible to develop it to an IR channel scannable black and white negative - this is pretty much universally possible, and the last resort for salvaging exposed film from extinct colour processes. All scanners with ICE have an infrared channel, and as the unremoved couplers remaining in the emulsion after a black and white development are fairly IR transparent, you can use that channel (at the very least with third party software like vuescan) to scan the black and white silver image hidden in that muddy green barely transparent film.

Unless you have cash to burn, you should probably either go with the above or refrain from using it. Development at UKP20 per roll with predictably ugly results makes it a remarkably poor value for money. Usually you'd only develop film as ancient as that if you expect old images on it which are of so much historic or legal importance that quality does not matter.

 

[raid]

Agfachrome 50 was AP-41, same as CT18 - it cannot be developed in E-6 or indeed any Kodak E process, having a fundamentally different chemistry. Process C22 http://www.processc22.co.uk/ supposedly still develop it, but it may be that they only develop it to black and white negative, which is generally the last resort for salvaging exposed film from extinct colour processes.

I can understand having it specially processed if it was exposed a long time ago with potentially important images on it - but there is no point in using it now. If you don't have significant cash to blow for the heck of it, you should better refrain from using that stuff.

I stand corrected. This is an old film!

 

[Cowboy]

Hey everybody,

thanks for sharing your comments. I guess you convinced me, this film does not seem to be worth using anymore if I wanted the normal colors.. At least the little film containers (made from metal, not plastic like today) look cool.

Btw, do you know what chemicals (not the brand name but the actual chemistry) was used in AP-41/CT18? Or what would happen if this film gets developed in E-6 or C-41?

-Cowboy

 

[sevres_babylone]

Hey everybody,

... Or what would happen if this film gets developed in E-6 or C-41?

-Cowboy

There's a link from the flickr link I included before. The discussion is in Dutch (I think), but it appears to be about cross-processing in C-41.

 

[sevo]

Btw, do you know what chemicals (not the brand name but the actual chemistry) was used in AP-41/CT18? Or what would happen if this film gets developed in E-6 or C-41?

Probably nothing much visible - this is no cross development as in C41/E6 (where the latter is quite the same as the former, with added reversal stages). Agfa used couplers immobilized by being chemically tied to polymer chains while Kodak used fat-soluble couplers immobilized in a oil-in-gelatin suspension - the processes needed different reagents. I remember brown/orangeish film with faintly visible traces of an image from a mis-development, but I don't remember whether that was Agfa in Kodak or vice versa.

Sevo

 

[rovnguy]

I used to shoot Agfachrome 50 (CT-18) way back in the late 60's. The old guy who owned the camera shop where I got my Olympus 35 LC recommended it. The exposed rolls had to be mailed back to New York for processing. I was always pleased with the results. Then my mentor told me to not rely on Agfa being around for the long haul and told me to pick another transparency film and stick with it until I learned what it would do under every circumstance. I went to Kodachrome and stuck with it until they too went away. At least I still have the slides and they are remarkable... no fading. The old Agfachrome slides have not weathered the years as well.

 

[Cowboy]

There's a link from the flickr link I included before. The discussion is in Dutch (I think), but it appears to be about cross-processing in C-41.

I read that link and I think I will check out C-41 and post the results here. I'm excited but don't expect too much.

 

[sevo]

I read that link and I think I will check out C-41 and post the results here. I'm excited but don't expect too much.

The guy there is either a liar or somehow got hold of either different film or different chemistry. If Agfa CT18 could have been magically developed to decent quality slide in nothing but Kodak C-41, it would have swiped Ektachrome from the market - a slide film that needed nothing but a colour negative development would have been a major milestone in photography.

 

[sevres_babylone]

The guy there is either a liar or somehow got hold of either different film or different chemistry. If Agfa CT18 could have been magically developed to decent quality slide in nothing but Kodak C-41, it would have swiped Ektachrome from the market - a slide film that needed nothing but a colour negative development would have been a major milestone in photography.

The link I looked at showed pictures which clearly looked cross-processed, and were not meant to be seen as quality positive development. Given my sad experiences with Ektachrome, I won't make any comparison 🙂

 

[xwhatsit]

The guy there is either a liar or somehow got hold of either different film or different chemistry. If Agfa CT18 could have been magically developed to decent quality slide in nothing but Kodak C-41, it would have swiped Ektachrome from the market - a slide film that needed nothing but a colour negative development would have been a major milestone in photography.

I'm sure he's not saying it's perfect results, they're just talking about cross-processing. You can cross-process E-6 or even Kodachrome using the C-41 process, the Holga kiddies do it all the time. You get some pretty funky colours and things can be pretty unpredictable, but it is possible to get a readable image.

 

[sevo]

I'm sure he's not saying it's perfect results, they're just talking about cross-processing. You can cross-process E-6 or even Kodachrome using the C-41 process, the Holga kiddies do it all the time. You get some pretty funky colours and things can be pretty unpredictable, but it is possible to get a readable image.

With Kodachrome? No way, Kodachrome does not contain colour couplers - it is as cross-processable as Tri-X. Any attempt to soup it in C-41 or E-6 will result in blank film. It can however be developed to black and white (with a deep yellow base unless you find something that clears the filter layer without removing the silver image).

Anybody who believes he has successfully crossprocessed Kodachrome to a visible colour image has either encountered a lab that silently forwarded his film to Dwayne's or must have been suffering some mental mixup between media. The "crossprocessing community" is not exactly reliable - participants can gain popularity with preposterous claims to irreproducible techniques, and many there have no knowledge beyond digital. I've encountered quite a few kids that firmly believe their postprocessing of digital shots to crossprocessed looks is indeed all that crossprocessing is about, now that film does not exist any more.

 

[xwhatsit]

With Kodachrome? No way, Kodachrome does not contain colour couplers - it is as cross-processable as Tri-X. Any attempt to soup it in C-41 or E-6 will result in blank film. It can however be developed to black and white (with a deep yellow base unless you find something that clears the filter layer without removing the silver image).

Anybody who believes he has successfully crossprocessed Kodachrome to a visible colour image has either encountered a lab that silently forwarded his film to Dwayne's or must have been suffering some mental mixup between media. The "crossprocessing community" is not exactly reliable - participants can gain popularity with preposterous claims to irreproducible techniques, and many there have no knowledge beyond digital. I've encountered quite a few kids that firmly believe their postprocessing of digital shots to crossprocessed looks is indeed all that crossprocessing is about, now that film does not exist any more.

I was searching Flickr a day or two ago for "expired Kodachrome" to see what my slightly dated K64 that I mailed off to Dwayne's might look like in the worst case. I saw these photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourcitylights/4613262700/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ourcitylights/4613269138/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/f138/458083495/

Of course, B&W chemistry isn't disputed, and it turned out a funky looking image:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zebandrews/228032185/

Of course these people could be full of crap. I understand perfectly that Kodachrome is essentially B&W film, there's no dye until the horrendously complicated process. In fact one of the above clearly states the image was shot on a medium-format Agfa 6x6, so I'd assume no digital trickery.

But anyway, back onto the original topic, there's no definitely no reason why you couldn't soup Agfachrome in C41. Of course it'll still looked like cross-processed rubbish 😛

 

[sevo]

But anyway, back onto the original topic, there's no definitely no reason why you couldn't soup Agfachrome in C41. Of course it'll still looked like cross-processed rubbish 😛

If we consider anything in the range from blank to entirely black cross processed rubbish, yes - it will not look anywhere like cross processed E6, the difference in chemistry is too big for that.

 

[Cowboy]

Hey folks,

I found more evidence that C41 should be possible. One of the film boxes contained a manual. There it says:

"Processing:
This film is sold exclusive of processing charges. It can be developed by you with Process 41 (new designation for CU-chemicals). In addition, the development can be carried out in Agfacolour Reversal Stations. Your dealer can also give you details of processing laboraties. More information..." and so on.

I will bring the film to my lab tonight. In a couple of days we will know what happens 🙂