xwray
Newbie
Is there any chance at all of retrieving images from 40+ year old Panatomic-x exposed but undeveloped 120 film?
I would appreciate any feedback.
I would appreciate any feedback.
Brad Bireley
Well-known
send it to "the darkroom lab" . They just processed a roll of panatomic-x from 1982 for me. Came out perfect!
ornate_wrasse
Moderator
When I hear about situations such as yours, I remember the story of someone who recently discovered a camera in his attic with undeveloped film in it from the 1960's. The film was developed and it turned out to have pictures of a very young Bob Dylan.
To me, that sounds like it's a very good chance that the images will come out fine, depending, of course, on how the film was stored.
To me, that sounds like it's a very good chance that the images will come out fine, depending, of course, on how the film was stored.
Livesteamer
Well-known
In the past month I developed five rolls of Tri X that had sat undeveloped for 38 years as best I can tell. The first roll was too damaged. I was just able to recognize an outline or two. With that experience, I did the next two rolls adding some time to the development to boost contrast. The results were one roll very bad, one roll surprisingly good. I did two more rolls with a little extra time in the developer and they both came out nicely. Others here can give you more detailed instructions but I suspect much will depend on how the film has been stored. Good Luck. Joe
Steve M.
Veteran
Probably not, and living in Houston might be the deal killer. Heat is not going to be your friend. But what the heck, why not give it a shot?
DownUnder
Nikon Nomad
It depends. Panatomic-X has a very high survival factor. I have about 20 rolls (35mm) bought "fresh" in 1993, so probably from the last production batch by Kodak in 1987. Mostly refrigerated, but when we moved from Melbourne to Tasmania, forgotten and kept in a storage box at room temperature (in a temperate climate zone) for about five years.
It's now back in the fridge. I shoot a roll now and then, for nostalgia's sake. Results are fine, minimal fog, slower ISO (I meter at 25 and 20, not the original 32), so fairly limited in its usage - best for bright, sunny, harshly lit Australian landscapes.
Slow films appear to survive better than their high speed brethren, tho again, a year or so ago I processed four rolls of 35mm Tri-X found in a desk drawer during the clean out of a deceased friend's house. This film likely dated to the late 1970s or early 1980s. Cautious processing with, yes, D76 1+1 gave reasonable results. 3.5x5 prints from the negatives were acceptable if quite high in contrast. Not sure about larger prints, we haven't done any.
Ditto Pan F.I have, refrigerated for decades, five unused rolls of this film loaded in black plastic canisters in the late 1970s. As I've always disliked the high contrast and soot-whitewash tones of this film, I'll not be using it, but so far no-one I've offered it to has been interested in using it up. One of these days I'll use it to shoot set up portraits of our sleeping cats at home as the subjects befit the by now probably very slow speed of this film. Que sera, sera, as that blond dame in the 1950s movies once sang.
So you never know. Like Steve M. said, why not giving it a try and see? You have little to lose except a small amount of chemicals, a little time, and of course the film.
If interesting results appear, please scan and post. We are waiting.
It's now back in the fridge. I shoot a roll now and then, for nostalgia's sake. Results are fine, minimal fog, slower ISO (I meter at 25 and 20, not the original 32), so fairly limited in its usage - best for bright, sunny, harshly lit Australian landscapes.
Slow films appear to survive better than their high speed brethren, tho again, a year or so ago I processed four rolls of 35mm Tri-X found in a desk drawer during the clean out of a deceased friend's house. This film likely dated to the late 1970s or early 1980s. Cautious processing with, yes, D76 1+1 gave reasonable results. 3.5x5 prints from the negatives were acceptable if quite high in contrast. Not sure about larger prints, we haven't done any.
Ditto Pan F.I have, refrigerated for decades, five unused rolls of this film loaded in black plastic canisters in the late 1970s. As I've always disliked the high contrast and soot-whitewash tones of this film, I'll not be using it, but so far no-one I've offered it to has been interested in using it up. One of these days I'll use it to shoot set up portraits of our sleeping cats at home as the subjects befit the by now probably very slow speed of this film. Que sera, sera, as that blond dame in the 1950s movies once sang.
So you never know. Like Steve M. said, why not giving it a try and see? You have little to lose except a small amount of chemicals, a little time, and of course the film.
If interesting results appear, please scan and post. We are waiting.
Last edited:
xwray
Newbie
Thanks folks...looks like it might be worth a shot