Found-film in "new" camera - good thing I checked...

[Luddite Frank]

Yesterday I received a "new" Ansco Automatic Reflex, version I, that I scored on the bay.

As I was playing around with it, I noticed through the red-window, that there was apparently film in it, and when I advanced the winder, it cued-up to # 1. 🙂


I assumed that the film would be Kodacolor II, probably from the 1970's or 1980's, as that is what I shot in such cameras back then.

After some thought, I figured that since it was only on exp 1, I might as well put it in the changing bag, and extract the film and rewind it back onto the supply spool, so that I could see for sure what film I had before shooting-out the roll....

Turns-out the camera was loaded with Kodak Tri-X Pan Prof. 120., on plastic spool 😱

That would make a difference in the exposure dept.

I was planning on shooting "color" at ASA 100, downgraded to ASA 50 to compensate for loss of sensitivity due to age. 😉

Assuming that "all Tri-X was ASA 400" in this era, I guess I will shoot it as ASA 200 ?

Unfortunately, the only info on the paper leader refers me to "the instruction sheet included with the film"... 😛


Opening the camera also revealed a yellow rubber-stamp date of " 7 10 47 " - this must be one of the earliest of Version I Automatic Reflex. 🙂

 

[sevo]

Tri X 120 has come in both 320 (TXP) and 400 (TX) for all my photographic life - at some time, only the former was "Professional", but that does only increase the likelyhood that yours was not ASA 400, but 320 to start with. But time will have wiped away that difference, and 200 should be good enough for either. Storage conditions account for more variability than age by itself, so any value is merely a starting value...

 

[Dwig]

Tri X 120 has come in both 320 (TXP) and 400 (TX) for all my photographic life...

+1

In the early days, Tri-X (TX) was rated at 200 and was later rated 400. That change was the result of a change in the rating system ( from "A.S.A." to "ASA") and not in the actual sensitivity of the film.

Tri-X Pan Professional (TXP) was rated 320 and matched the version used for sheet film. It has an additional retouch layer on the base side. Tri-X Pan (TX) was rated at 400 from the late '50s on and matches the version used in 35mm.

 

[Tom A]

I would rate it at 100 so and develop it in a dilute developer - Rodinal 1:100 as a stand developer for 30-40 min. Be prepared for some base-fog too. Generally I drop the speed by 1 stop/decade - so a 20-25 year old film would most likely show something printable - or scannable at 100 iso in this case.

 

[hamradio]

Tom's advice is what I do with most mystery film that comes in old cameras I buy. I was given a bunch of 220 Tri-X that expired in the early '80s, and have been rating/developing at 100 and still getting decent enough images over the base fog. The coolest found film for me so far was a Graflex 3.25x4.25" 'bag mag' with about six sheets exposed, on a Graflex SLR I picked up. It was kind of a bummer when the base fog was so heavy that no image was discernible, however.

Another kind of neat find was today, when I opened up three 'new' old 5x7 film holders in a changing bag, assuming they had film in them. No film, but cut up strips of prints were placed in each holder (I assume as spacers to allow 4x5 sheets to fit), and the strips of print were head & shoulder portraits of Navy men from the 1930s or 40s. It seemed to be stuff shot on the 5x7 Graflex that the holders came with.

 

[charjohncarter]

I would rate it at 100 so and develop it in a dilute developer - Rodinal 1:100 as a stand developer for 30-40 min. Be prepared for some base-fog too. Generally I drop the speed by 1 stop/decade - so a 20-25 year old film would most likely show something printable - or scannable at 100 iso in this case.

I agree....... Although I drop more for color negative, 1 stop for every 8-10 years.

Here is one I found in a non-metal body camera, that was forty years old: HC-110h, 20 minutes:

 

[kuzano]

Love the "Bubble Top" Chevy Hardtop

Love the "Bubble Top" Chevy Hardtop

Nice recovery on the pic. I suspect that 1961 Chevy tudor bubble top hardtop was probably near new when the pic was taken. It would be worth a fortune if found today and still in that condition.

Nice catch. One of my favorite 60's models of all.

Definitely early 60's belt buckles, and the high waist khaki's LOL. Homework and a lunch sack.😀

 

[Dan]

Reading this thread got me thinking about where the name "Tri-X" comes from? There was "Double-X", "Plus-X", "Panatomic-X"; what does the "X" refer to?

 

[sevo]

I agree....... Although I drop more for color negative, 1 stop for every 8-10 years.

Here is one I found in a non-metal body camera, that was forty years old: HC-110h, 20 minutes:

But that was exposed forty years ago, where you have to compensate for both film sensitivity and latent image loss. When exposing old film now, you only have to deal with the former. I have been using 20 year old carefully stored TX without any compensation, so it does not seem to be particularly prone to sensitivity loss.

 

[Ronald M]

Do a clip test . Then finish the film & process. 12" is 6 exposures.

I would just bin it
'

 

[sevo]

Do a clip test . Then finish the film & process. 12" is 6 exposures.

We're talking 120, where there is nothing to clip from - the loose part comes at the end, and you cannot rewind the film once you've gone that far.

 

[sevo]

Reading this thread got me thinking about where the name "Tri-X" comes from? There was "Double-X", "Plus-X", "Panatomic-X"; what does the "X" refer to?

Panatomic-X was introduced around 1933, as a successor to Panatomic. The X probably was marketing rather than having any meaning. It stuck and was applied to the consecutive faster films (Plus-X, Double-X, Tri-X and Four-X) appearing within the same main line of general purpose black and white panchromatic film, up to the time they introduced T-Max.

 

[Stuart John]

Wasn't Four X a beer?

 

[tunalegs]

I just received a Ciro 35 with an old canister of Super-XX Panchromatic in it. I'm not sure that's what the film is though since the leader was hand cut, it may have been reloaded with something else.

Somewhere I have an old booklet describing the kodak films, I'll see if I can dig it out and find out what the X signifies.

 

[sevo]

Wasn't Four X a beer?

Kodak certainly sold two (ASA 640-800) cine films (neg and reversal) under that name.

 

[Dan]

Panatomic-X was introduced around 1933, as a successor to Panatomic. The X probably was marketing rather than having any meaning. It stuck and was applied to the consecutive faster films (Plus-X, Double-X, Tri-X and Four-X) appearing within the same main line of general purpose black and white panchromatic film, up to the time they introduced T-Max.

The marketing angle makes sense. Might be short for 'exposed' or 'exposure'. In terms of mystique, the letter X certainly holds sway.

 

[Luddite Frank]

But that was exposed forty years ago, where you have to compensate for both film sensitivity and latent image loss. When exposing old film now, you only have to deal with the former. I have been using 20 year old carefully stored TX without any compensation, so it does not seem to be particularly prone to sensitivity loss.

I have no idea as to the storage conditions of the Ansco Automatic Reflex that this film came with.

The camera shows some spot-corrosion here and there on the steel bits, and some greening of the brass bits on the ever-ready case, but no must or mold ?

I will assume the camera and film lived in a closet...

Will probably shoot it @ 100, per Tom A's suggestion...

🙂

 

[charjohncarter]

But that was exposed forty years ago, where you have to compensate for both film sensitivity and latent image loss. When exposing old film now, you only have to deal with the former. I have been using 20 year old carefully stored TX without any compensation, so it does not seem to be particularly prone to sensitivity loss.

Very sorry that you are upset, I just enter the discussion because I thought that some members would like to know about my experience (limited) with un-stored.