Developing Plus-X

O

oscroft

Veteran
Local time
2:50 PM
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
2,382
I just found an exposed roll of Plus-X Pan 135, which must be around 35 years old, and I'll develop it this weekend and see if I get anything.

I have HC-110 and Rodinal (R09 version), so would you have any preference out of those two for the job? And any suggestions as to how long to extend the development?
 
There are some threads here and elsewhere that talk about the increased fog level that occurs with films that old, and how to modify the developer to suppress the fog. I am not sure that either of the developers you mention are best for the purpose. The effective film speed diminishes with age--something else to be aware of.
 
With these two developers you will get lots of fog. I would try something like D23 and the shortest times possible to get the least fog possible on that film. Did you shoot it at box speed? Last week I had shot a roll of Plus-X expired on 1976 at EI 80 and got a bit thin frames with lots of fog using D-76 for 12 minutes at 20 degC.
 
HC110 contains a lot of restrainers because it relies on high concentrations of phenidone. Without these restrainers infectious development would occur. It is the best and by far the lowest fog developer for old film.

Marty
 
I would use HC-110 (B). It will lower the high base fog, otherwise you have to add for a developer Benzotriazole to suppress the fog.
 
If there is no other developer in hand HC-110 is indeed a good option but not remarkably far from R09. Both will get you the same amount of fog.
Could you please state the sensitivity the film was shot at? Remember that for very old films prolonged development is a big no. If you had it shot at box speed you would inevitably had to extend the development by quite a bit to get something over the fog.
 
Thanks for the thoughts.

Unfortunately I don't know what speed the film was shot at, so I can only assume the box speed of 125 - these days I write it on the can with a Sharpie, but they hadn't been invented back then ;)

I'd certainly consider getting a different developer (it's always good to try new things anyway), so suggestions for a low-fog developer are welcome - but I don't see D23 available from any UK vendors.

http://foundfilm.livejournal.com/16982.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for that, it looks good - I like the test strip method for working out a development time.
 
Then stand development with the R09 would be a good option. I would go for a 1.5 hour semistand with R09 with no less than 5.5ml of R09 in 400ml of distilled water. That would get you something usable on the film providing that it has been stored under reasonable conditions.
You could cut the film in two and develop it in different ways. Take the first few frames and develop it with method A. If the results are fine, develop the rest of the film with the same method. If not, use another method by either altering the dilution/duration or ask for advice on how to get better results by those using method. A frame would be wasted this way, but for sure you can save a lot.
Forgot to mention that you should presoak the film as stated in that link. Soak it in plain water for at least 3 minutes and keep the temperature close to that of the development to avoid reticulation (although it has never occurred me on Kodak films).
 
providing that it has been stored under reasonable conditions
Click to expand...
For the past five years it's been in an attic room with wildly varying temperatures, and it's anyone's guess how and where it spent the previous 30 or so :D
You could cut the film in two and develop it in different ways.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think I might do that, thanks.
keep the temperature close to that of the development to avoid reticulation
Click to expand...
Fortunately my tap water is steady at a fraction below 20 deg C at the moment (and is always very soft), so everything should be fine on that score.
 
Ooh, and routing round the same attic I've found a 120 roll of Verichrome Pan, five completely unmarked 35mm films (which I think are home-loaded pre-E4 reversal that I was using back around 1976, complete with a reversal exposure), and a roll of Kodachrome.

I wonder if I'll be able to get any b&w images out of any of them? It'll be fun trying.
 
Lucky you! I no longer find exposed films to process as I have limited my GAS considerably! :) That is something to stir it up again!
 
Developing Plus-X, and others

Developing Plus-X, and others

Progress...!

Of the five rolls of probable color reversal film, one had the leader still exposed and it had "7 gone" written on it on pencil - so it seemed like the obvious one to try as a test.

I loaded it into a tank, and cut off a portion to test by dropping small cut-offs into HC-110 B at 1-minute intervals. Looking at the emulsion side, I reckoned on between 6 and 7 minutes should be about right. But something curious happened - the non-emulsion side went very black, having been grey to start with.

Then I remembered that this old reversal film originally required a few first development steps followed by a reversal exposure - so maybe the black reverse side was the reversal layer getting developed? (And it's coming back to me more - the film was made by 3M)

Anyway, I developed it for 6.5 minutes, and it has images! It's fixed and washing now, and the images are pretty faint and low contrast, but they're clearly there - and after around 40 years I'm amazed and delighted to see anything at all :D

There's no blackness on the opposite side, so maybe my speculation that it was the reversal layer was right.

On first inspection while wet, the base fog doesn't look too bad at all, so I think I'm safe to do another roll with a longer development time.
 
Luckily, now we have digital editing and scanning which can do miracles with almost any negative. I had some negatives that I developed 40 years ago that were copy film with long scale. When I tried to print them they were totally flat, even it I used high contrast paper something just was not right. Lately, I scanned and they look great after curves, headroom scans, levels. Here is one that finally looks normal:

PANAMA' 1972 by John Carter, on Flickr
 
Luckily, now we have digital editing and scanning which can do miracles with almost any negative.
Click to expand...
Yes, the first roll certainly looks good enough to scan. I'll do it later and will post a sample. I remember trying to rescue similar negs when I was doing wet printing - it was always a nightmare, and never really satisfactory.

I doubled up the development for the next film, and it's quite a bit better - still lacking in contrast as expected, but should scan fine. And I recognize the subject - a trip to Scotland in summer 1976 with a couple of friends.

That's the good news - the bad news is that the remaining three rolls are totally fogged. It's weird, like the reversal layer (if that's what it is) has completely gone off and turned black - if I hold the negs very close to a bright light I can make out the presence of exposed frames, as if they're seen through a near-black filter.

Still, I have about 45 usable shots where I wasn't really expecting any, which I think is a good result for some 39-year-old rolls of obsolete color reversal film.

I'll get on to the Plus-X next.
 
oscroft, it is like reading a murder mystery; finding what is on found film. Plus in your case images that you know but never saw the photos.

I developed a roll from an old plastic camera (the worst for fog). I did not know the images but one was like you describe your thin negative. Still, saved with digital editing, I wish I knew who these boys are so I could send it to them.


50+ year old Verichrome by John Carter, on Flickr
 
And scanning reveals the brutal truth - a mess of grain, reticulation, fungus, pinholes and fogging...

21715661831_d58c92aee3_b.jpg

21715661871_71bc7cd5f7_b.jpg


That's me, the frontmost of those two rugged mountaineers, aged 17. And I still have those same mountain boots today!

So, no prizes in any photo competitions are coming my way, but I'm happy to have recovered some old memories with these photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom