Silberblick
Hello everyone,
Whilst researching the development of expired or poorly stored black-and-white negative film, I came across a few questions.
Background: I have various black-and-white negative films that are well past their use-by date, ranging from Plus-X and HP5+ to Delta 400 and 3200. I don’t want to sell them off or throw them away; I’d rather use them for mood shots and various tests, such as whether I can load the films onto my new stainless steel spools without creasing them.
It’s clear that a Delta 400 that expired 15 years ago and was stored at room temperature will produce unpredictable results that are usable at best.
The questions – which factors play a role when it comes to developing negatives with as little fog as possible:
- Developer chemicals: According to various sources online, HC110 is said to work well with expired films; I’ve read similar things about XTOL, whilst there are warnings against Rodinal. Are fast developers such as HC110 (Rodinal Special also springs to mind) generally better at reducing fog? Does a particular substance in the developer promote or reduce fog? Are balanced developers (including two-bath systems like Diafine or Emofin) less suitable than developers with a steeper action?
- Dilution: Examples include D76/ID11 and concentrated XTOL versus 1+1 or 1+3 dilutions, or HC110 at various dilutions
- Developer temperature and agitation: do these factors influence fogging?
Instinctively, I would increase the exposure for the old films (400 plus one stop, treating the Delta 3200 as if it were a 400) and use a rather steep-acting developer (Rodinal Special at standard dilution, for example) for the standard development time, at around 20°C and with normal agitation. I would be grateful for any technically sound advice; the interrelationships between agitation, dilution and developer ingredients, for instance, are still a mystery to me ;-)
Thanks and best wishes for good light, Georg.
Morte
I can’t tell you anything about harem veiling, but I can speak from my own experience.
I once used a long-expired roll of Delta 3200 (from the 90s, I think) because I didn’t have any other film to hand at the time. I was fully expecting the worst (i.e. nothing at all), especially as I happened to be out in the park just as dusk was falling. The result was not only surprising, but absolutely delighted me. To this day, I believe that with that ‘broken’ film – which, alongside other ‘artifacts’, also had grain-like defects – I managed to capture images that I could never have achieved with such atmosphere using ‘proper’ film. They resembled charcoal drawings, etc.
?
I exposed the 3200 Delta at 800 ASA and developed it in A49 (standard). Unfortunately, I no longer have any notes on the development time. However, I’m fairly certain that I divided the package instructions’ time by the corresponding pull factor for 2 stops; that’s what I always do.
?
The negatives (I’ll show them here shortly as processed negative scans) can even be processed into very nice positives in the darkroom, which did surprise me.
?
Perhaps this will be of some help to you. Have fun?!
?
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
[ATTACHMENT NOT FOUND]
Urnes
Well, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that you can perform the exposure on the 400 Delta normally. Even an older roll of film that I accidentally exposed at 400 and 100 ASA produced usable results for me. The same applies to the 3200 in A49 at 1000 ASA. So no problem.
I’d give A49 a go; it’s pretty forgiving and gets pretty much all the speed out of it that it’s capable of. A 1+1 dilution, and then calculate the time for the higher gradient or ask again, then I’ll pop down to the basement to have a look.
Regards, Sven.
bernhardmangelsgmxde
It’s a bit of a tricky one; I don’t have any experience with the Delta, but the TMAX 400 seems to me to lose quality relatively quickly (I’d need to take a closer look at that; I recently developed a fresh roll and a three-year-old TMY-2 together, and you could see the differences without even looking for them).
Silberblick
Thanks for the tip about Atomal/A49!
I don’t have any at the moment, but I’ll order some with my next film and chemicals order. I once tried an expired roll of Delta 3200 in Diafine, but the fog was really bad and I didn’t like the results (in this case, negative scans). I’ve rarely had problems with classic ISO 100 films and would conduct their development as usual.
€
I’ve never tried A49 – which category of developer does it fall into? The current name suggests it’s comparable to Microphen and Ultrafin SF??
I’ve since consulted ‘The Negative’ again, where I found a reference to potassium bromide and benzotriazole (apparently previously marketed by Kodak as ‘Anti-Fog No. 1’) as fog-reducing developer components. Are there any developers that naturally contain a higher proportion of these substances?
Potassium bromide seems to be readily available, but I’d prefer to steer clear of experimenting with it.
€
And what effects do dilution, agitation and temperature have? I’m not just interested in the development of my remaining film stock, but also in the development of my knowledge ;-)
€
Thanks, Georg.
Morte
There’s actually a wealth of information available here about A49. Alongside Rodinal, it’s probably the classic developer par excellence. It produces balanced results with a fine grain and is also well suited to push/pull processing. What’s more, it’s very affordable and has a long shelf life as a stock solution.
Wolfgg
Hello,
Whether a film that has long since passed its expiry date is still any good depends mainly on how well its ‘memory’ works – in other words, its Schwarzschild behaviour. For astrophotography, I once had an extreme case: one of Kodak’s special films (called 103aO), which still retained its full speed even with a 2-hour exposure time. The result: thanks to this excellent memory, the base fog was already unbearable after just one year’s storage (in the fridge).
So, as a rule of thumb: the better the black-shield behaviour, the higher the base fog over the storage period (who owns a mine like Kodak used to, for radiation-protected long-term storage?).
Examples of films that, in my experience, can be stored almost indefinitely: Agfa Ortho, Agfa Pan 25, Agfa Pan 100, APX 25, APX 100 (originals from Agfa)
and the opposite, which deteriorate particularly quickly: Tri-X, T-Max 400.
Regards, Wolfgang
Urnes
A49 is probably the only developer that genuinely boosts sensitivity. Mirko recommended it to me back then because I was looking for a replacement for the HC-110 when I switched from Kipp to a rotary system and my throughput wasn’t high enough to justify a litre of HC-110. I basically only use film from 400 ASA upwards and was looking for something like a ‘reportage developer’. So the main focus is on exploiting the film’s sensitivity. It works a treat. It also has a balancing effect, so it handles high contrasts well. I always run it at 21°C in a rotary processor. But it works fine for stand development too. One hour at 1+2, agitating for the first minute.
One more thing about the Delta 3200. I don’t know how you developed it. However, under normal circumstances it doesn’t go beyond 1000 ISO. If you want to go up to 3200, you’ll have to push it. That’s why it was never really an option for me, as the 400 film performs better when pushed to the same value in A49.
Regards, Sven.
Silberblick
Sven, thanks for the info.
Do you use a 1+1 dilution for the rotation? And does the rule of thumb of a minimum of 100ml of concentrate per film also apply to Atomal 49 (i.e. regardless of the dilution used)?
I wouldn’t buy the Delta 3200 myself these days either; as I said, I just want to use up the residues. I used to really like the Neopan 1600 for indoor sports photos and concert shots, but unfortunately that’s a thing of the past and it certainly didn’t have the genuine 33 DIN either.
Wolfgang, thanks for your tips. The genuine 100 APX films have never let me down, even years after their expiry date, but my stock is slowly running out. I’m also confident about a few old Orwo NP22 sheet films. To be honest, I haven’t had much trouble with expired Tri-X (320 and 400). Your rule of thumb about good black-and-white performance = rapid fogging clearly argues against the Acros, which surprises me a bit. But I haven’t used or developed it in a layered process yet either.
Morte, thanks! I’ve since read more about the A49 (it’s mentioned alongside the original Atomal and the old Promicrol) and I’m already looking forward to the first tests with it.
PS: I found the anti-fog additive benzotriazole (old Kodak ‘Anti-Fog No. 1’) mentioned by Ansel Adams online, but I’m staying well away from it. And as a complete novice at chemistry, I’d better not mess about with potassium bromide either.
jochen53
Hello,
Potassium bromide and benzotriazole are no worse than a ready-made developer, so don’t worry about them. These almost always contain one of these anti-haze agents (with the exception of D 76). Developers containing phenidone usually produce a higher level of fog and sometimes cannot be controlled with KBr, requiring the more effective benzotriazole. However, it should be noted that as the quantity increases, the usable speed decreases. Potassium bromide is often used as a 10% solution (w/v) in water. This is easier to measure out, e.g. using a measuring pipette or a disposable syringe. If, for example, 0.1 g of KBr is required, 1 ml of this solution is used. Benzotriazole is also used as a diluted solution. It is much more effective than KBr and much less is needed; however, it is rather poorly soluble in water.
Silberblick
Thanks, Jochen, especially for pointing out that phenidone tends to cause a haze – good to know, and another plus point for A49.
I’ve just bought Otto Beyer’s book *Exposure and Film Development*; I’m sure it contains a few valuable tips on developing agents.
Over the next few days, I’ll be going through my old stock of expired films and will try the development without any extra anti-fog additive for now. It’s quite a mixed bag of films, so it’s probably not worth testing each one individually.
Silberblick
Update: Delta roll films are, at best, only suitable for testing film speed on old roll film backs.
A few tests reveal a strange texture on the Delta roll films (and a heavy fog on top of that). I would have put up with the fog alone for fun photos with box cameras, but the texture is nasty.
I still haven’t tried A49, but it’s only a matter of time.
Thanks to everyone who sent tips, Georg!
€
€
Delta 400 expired circa 2000, stored in a rather warm place, Fomadon Excel W27 (Xtol clone) 1+1
Renate
The texture comes from the paper of the roll film. This isn’t unusual with old Ilford roll films. I have negatives like that too. It happens particularly often on days when the humidity is high. In some cases, the writing on the back is also visible.
€
Best regards,
Renate
Silberblick
The texture comes from the paper of the roll film. This isn’t unusual with old Ilford roll films. I have negatives like that too. It happens particularly often on days with high humidity. In some cases, the writing on the back is also visible.
€
Best regards,
Renate
Thanks, the writing doesn’t show through on mine. The texture (and a slightly increased fog on the outer edges of the negatives) is enough for me. So the old Delta rolls are definitely unusable.€
Once again, I was pleasantly surprised by the good old Agfa APX 100. I found a 120 roll film exposed in May 2002, developed it in Diafine, and the negatives look really good on the light table. An HP5plus exposed around the same time had aged considerably more than the APX100 (fog, dull negatives).€
