Pushing or Pulling? Help please!

[pepeguitarra]

I just obtained a 20-roll package of Tri-X 120 PAN. They expired in October 1974 (43 years ago). However, they were well kept and when I open them, they look like new. The individual boxes and plastic wrap are intact and "new". They assured me they were in a dry and cool environment. I would like to tray one of those rolls, but I am not sure if I should assume ASA 400, or less. I read that one has to reduce one stop by every ten years, that would rate the film at EI 25. That sounds a bit drastic. Any advice on how should I rate it? Thanks, Pepe.

Also, once I take the roll, what EI should I develop the roll for? Will this be a case of PULLING the film? Should I develop at EI 400? How does it work? Thanks.

 

[x-ray]

I bought 20 rolls of 35mm dated 1981 and was assured the film had been frozen. I actually bought from 3 different batch from three different sellers all assuring it was refrigerated since new or frozen.

I shot a roll from each batch and the fog level was so hight it was unusable. It wasn't just a little fogged it was seriously fogged. Even scanning it the grain was terrible and the tonal range very limited.

The higher the speed film the faster it fogs even kept in a freezer. I had some Ilford 3200 that was less than 5 years out of date and I kept it in my film freezer the whole time and shot and ran a roll and the fog was as bad as the TX or worse. This weekend I shot a roll of 25 Efke that was 8 years out of date and had been frozen too. I ran it and it was perfect.

Fast films fog easily even frozen.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Answer to my question please!

Answer to my question please!

Anyone with an answer to my question on how to rate the film and how to develop it? Thanks, Pepe

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Anyone with an answer to my question on how to rate the film and how to develop it? Thanks, Pepe

He did answer your question. The film will be worthless no matter what speed you shoot it at because the fog level will be so high. Put the film on a shelf as a historical display.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

There's no guarantee the film will be very usable. If you have 20 rolls of it, and want to get the best out of it, I suggest the best approach is to use the first for testing and to expose the various frames at different EI. I would personally develop it for at least the recommended time or slightly more and ideally using a developer that won't exacerbate base fog such as HC-110. I'd expect it to have shed a lot of speed. How you choose to expose it is up to you, but if I was shooting it I'd probably try it at EI 25 to 100 and take it from there. But the bottom line is you'll have to try it out and see what you get. There's no certainty with such an old film regardless of how it has been stored, or even any guarantee it may be usable at all.

 

[michaelwj]

Anyone with an answer to my question on how to rate the film and how to develop it? Thanks, Pepe

You're going to have to test it. You are the only one with the film you have, everyone else's experience is for a different film kept in a different way for a different time.

I had a bulk roller that had ~15m of FP4 (not +) that had been kept in a garage for I don't know how long. I ran a test roll, exposed at 80 with a slight increase in development time and it came out a treat - not as good as fresh stuff, but more in line with Fomapan 100. But that's just another n=1, you have to do your own tests.

 

[x-ray]

He did answer your question. The film will be worthless no matter what speed you shoot it at because the fog level will be so high. Put the film on a shelf as a historical display.

Thanks Chris.

The film will be almost black. As. This said it makes absolutely no difference how you rate it or process it.

Take a roll and run it normally without exposing it and you'll see. Experience is the best teacher.

 

[x-ray]

My suggestion is to run an unexposed roll as I advised above so you can see for yourself and then return the rest for a refund.

I have a degree in chemistry and have been a commercial photographer for fifty years. The chemical activity of the chemicals in the emulsion coupled with bombardment from natural background radiation is sufficient to totally expose the film over this period. It doesn't matter how nice the package looks or if you were assured it was kept cool and dry, it will be heavily fogged beyond use.

As to the film I bought, it was a curiosity to see just how fogged it would be. I got it dirt cheap. I wound up keeping a couple of rolls for nostalgia and returned the rest.

I bought a couple of rolls of Panatomic X that was early 80's. I don't know if it had been refrigerated or not. I shot one roll and had some packets of microdol-x so I rated it normal and processed it normal and it was beautiful. I stuck the extra roll on the shelf with my film collection. PX that age I'd guess would be moderately fogged but not like the TX.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Thank you guys.

Thank you guys.

I appreciate all the answers and suggestions. Few months ago, I bought some TriX expired in 1997. I took one roll and rated it as follow: 3 shots at 400, three at 200, three at 100, and three at 64, when I shot them. I developed the roll at 400, using the Massive Dev.Chart. I really do not know how to develop at 50, 100, unless it is in the Massive Chart. That is the reason I was asking. At that time, the shots did not come with fog. They did have a lot of grain, except or the one developed at EI 100 or EI64 (I will post some examples of that case below).

These current rolls expired in 1974. I bought some to at least use TriX (the old formula), I am new to film photography and I wanted to discover why everyone venerates the old TriX so much. Just plain curiosity. I just developed the one roll rated at EI 50 and has a dark veil (fog?). I developed using the Massive Dev. Chat at 200 (as I said, it is not clear to me what to do when developing a pushed or pulled roll. However, I am waiting to see what I can scan after it dries. I will post the results. Thanks for your help.

From the TriX expired in 1997:

Tri-X pan 400 - Exp. 11/1997 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

Tri-X pan 400 Exp.1997-EI200 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


Tri-X Pan 400 Exp. 1997 by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr


The Art of Aging @ the door of my shop by Palenquero Photography, on Flickr

 

[Highway 61]

I bought a couple of rolls of Panatomic X that was early 80's. I don't know if it had been refrigerated or not. I shot one roll and had some packets of microdol-x so I rated it normal and processed it normal and it was beautiful. I stuck the extra roll on the shelf with my film collection. PX that age I'd guess would be moderately fogged but not like the TX.

Ah, let's remember the ads in the magazines of the 80's for the Panatomic-X. Probably the most beautiful Kodak ad ever (nostalgia, nostalgia...).

To Pepe : seen from today, 1974 vs 1997 makes a huge difference as for natural film fogging, as x-ray told you.

Now that we're in 2017 I'd tend to consider that any 100 to 400 film expired earlier than 1997 would have to be discarded. In 2011, I shot a couple of FP4+ rolls I had forgotten in my fridge door and which were expired since 1998. The results were just perfect. But I guess this wouldn't be quite the same if I was to use those films today.

Recently I used a 120 roll of ORWO 25 film expired since 1982 and which had not been refrigerated. The fogging amount was on the medium level and the photos are usable but the tones range is poor and the contrast is very high :

Also, the paper left many stains on the film and the film itself strangely shrank a bit during drying.

Another point you can think of is that your rolls of 1974 expired Tri-X in 120 may very well come out with all the paper markings permanently printed on the film.

Films from the 1970's are for the Lomographers... 😉

 

[x-ray]

TX was my standard film in the 60's and 70's. I don't know why Kodak did whathey did in 06 but they totally ruined it. The only thing TX about it now is the name. Sadly folks wanting to try the original emulsion will just have to believe us on how good it was.

I wasn't a PX fan but it was a good film and FX (panatomic x) was superb. FX in microdol x was a winner but even microdol x is gone now and the formulas have never been published. People speculate as to what it is but it remains a secret.

There are new products coming on the market so I remain optimistic.

 

[Highway 61]

I don't know why Kodak did whathey did in 06 but they totally ruined it. The only thing TX about it now is the name.

The same here. I don't use it any more and won't come back to it.

Recently I grabbed some rolls of (quite hard to find and not really cheap in spite of being said to be an alternative product) Ilford PAN 400 and I found it to be close to what Tri-X was before the pesky new formula.

 

[x-ray]

The same here. I don't use it any more and won't come back to it.

Recently I grabbed some rolls of (quite hard to find and not really cheap in spite of being said to be an alternative product) Ilford PAN 400 and I found it to be close to what Tri-X was before the pesky new formula.

I really liked Neopan 400 and have about 150 rolls left in my freezer but It'll be gone one day. It's a unique film and looks similar in tone to what I was getting from old TX in the custom mix I developed in. As it stands now I'll probably go to HP-5 when the Neopan is gone.

I used to modify an off the shelf developer for my TX. I got full speed and the most beautiful smooth tones with very low grain. I've tried it with new TX and several other films and it just doesn't work like old TX.

 

[Mackinaw]

.......FX in microdol x was a winner but even microdol x is gone now and the formulas have never been published. People speculate as to what it is but it remains a secret.........

Freestyle offers something called "LegacyPro Mic-X" film developer which delivers results similar to Microdol-X. I tried some last year and was pleased with the results. Used straight, the results were very similar to Microdol.

Jim B.

 

[x-ray]

Freestyle offers something called "LegacyPro Mic-X" film developer which delivers results similar to Microdol-X. I tried some last year and was pleased with the results. Used straight, the results were very similar to Microdol.

Jim B.

I'll have to try that. A friend gave me everything that was in her father in laws darkroom when he passed away and there were several packets of Microdol x. I hadn't used it in years but mixed a quart when i picked up a couple rolls of FX. That was all it took to bring back that love affair of Panatomic an Microdol.

I bought some of their L110 and was pleased but found once opened it went bad in a couple of months. It is however much lower viscocity than HC110 and easier to measure.

I'll have to get some of the Mic-x when I use the last of the real stuff. I've qot a stash of Efke 25 in 120 and 35 that would be great in that.

Efke 25 is another great product that's gone. I was especially fond of the 50 speed in sheets. Still have a little in 5x7.

I've decided this is why old guys live in the past. It's a comforting place to be. Unfortunately I can't take my camera when I visit. 😀

 

[Mackinaw]

.......Efke 25 is another great product that's gone. I was especially fond of the 50 speed in sheets. Still have a little in 5x7..........

Agreed on Efke 25. A real unique look. I never tried it in 4X5, but still have three 100’ rolls in 35mm in the freezer. I shot a roll just the other day. This new Ferrania P30 really interest me too. I like the look I’m getting. Ferrania has plans, someday, of making it in 120 and 4X5. I really hope that happens.

Jim B.

 

[x-ray]

Agreed on Efke 25. A real unique look. I never tried it in 4X5, but still have three 100’ rolls in 35mm in the freezer. I shot a roll just the other day. This new Ferrania P30 really interest me too. I like the look I’m getting. Ferrania has plans, someday, of making it in 120 and 4X5. I really hope that happens.

Jim B.

My first experience was with KB14 and KB17 in the late 60's. I fell in love with fine grain film then and never got over it.

I'm really looking forward to trying P30. It looks like it has promise. I was seriously disappointed in Foma Retro 320. I see no use in my future. I'm not sure where they got the idea a retro film would be grainy, mushy tones and unsharpe. The Bergger 400 might be ok. I need to shoot more and try different developers before I judge it. Right now it's not going to replace anything I'm using now. In any case I'm happy to see new films coming out. That indicates that people are buying film again.

 

[Nokton48]

Freestyle offers something called "LegacyPro Mic-X" film developer which delivers results similar to Microdol-X. I tried some last year and was pleased with the results. Used straight, the results were very similar to Microdol. Jim B.

I've standardized on Legacy Mic-X and I love the tonality, not much different from Perceptol or Microdol-X. It's not expensive and the replenished stock solution seems to last forever. Mine is over four years old and still going strong.

I just reduce the amount of H20 and add Sodium Carbonate, according to the Kodak Microdol-X data from the internet, to make Legacy Mic-X replenisher.

It simply works, I use it for 4x5, 120, and my Eastrman 5222. Even my 70mm

 

[john_s]

My first experience was with KB14 and KB17 in the late 60's. I fell in love with fine grain film then and never got over it.
...........

I remember Adox KB14 (20ASA) well. Exposed and developed according to the instructions gave A LOT of contrast. After taking portraits of friends on a mountain top in bright sunshine I gave up on it. In those days (~1970) there wasn't much information about increasing exposure and reducing development to deal with contrast. And I didn't work that out for some time. Panatomic X was much nicer, and a stop faster.

 

[x-ray]

I remember Adox KB14 (20ASA) well. Exposed and developed according to the instructions gave A LOT of contrast. After taking portraits of friends on a mountain top in bright sunshine I gave up on it. In those days (~1970) there wasn't much information about increasing exposure and reducing development to deal with contrast. And I didn't work that out for some time. Panatomic X was much nicer, and a stop faster.

I ran my KH14 in Neofin Blue and liked the results. Your light may have been more contrasty where you are. I live in a valley where there's always a haze layer. The sunny 16 rule doesn't apply here. We lose a half stop due to haze on average. You don't notice it but metering almost always indicates 1/2 stop less light. When we have a cold front or strong winds sweep through them we use the sunny 16 rule.