Old Tri-X (exp 1964 and 1993)

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by pstake, Jun 10, 2012.

  1. pstake

    pstake Member

    Messages:
    714
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    From different sources, I was given expired bulk rolls. One came in a Lloyd bulk loader and the outside as marked "Tri-X, use b4 Aug. 1964."

    The other was still in its original tin and packaging, marked expired June 1993. It's a 50-foot roll.

    Question: Both dev'd films are marked Kodak Safety Film 5063. I know this was on Tri-X in the 70s / 80s ... but would it have been on there in the early 60s?

    I rolled some of each onto cassettes and here are the results. It looks like the really old 1960s-stuff is unusable, but the stuff from 1993 looks good at ISO 100 dev'd in undiluted D-76.

    First the oldest stuff ... I metered at ISO 25 and then bracketed. Including an underexposed frame here because it demonstrates the reason I can't use it.

    Anybody know what causes that streak on the bottom half? Is it just because it's old film or was this stuff at some point exposed to light?

    img228.jpg
    Tri-X expired Aug. 1964 exposed @ iso 25, dev'd in undiluted d-76

    img227.jpg
    Tri-X expired Aug. 1964 exposed @ iso 100, dev'd in undiluted d-76

    img217_200ppi.jpg
    Tri-X expired June 1993 exposed @ iso 100, dev'd in undiluted d-76

    These from 1993 came out mostly great ... but you can see some brownish specs to left of her ... those were on a couple of frames only ... and I'm not sure what they are.

    These are all neg scans from v500, no post-processing except to resize.
     
  2. John Shriver

    John Shriver Member

    Messages:
    448
    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Shooter:
    35mm RF
    Second negative I'd say is light-struck.

    Third negative has a thumbprint on her neck. So I'll guess the other spots are dirt as well.
     
  3. pstake

    pstake Member

    Messages:
    714
    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It's not dirt. There are bumps on the negative. These were test rolls to see if the film was any good and I wasn't particularly careful about handling. But there are two or three negatives that have those same bumps.

    Thanks for pointing out the thumbprint. That's easily remedied and has nothing to do with the age of the film.


     
  4. Christopher Walrath

    Christopher Walrath Subscriber

    Messages:
    7,129
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Location:
    Two inches to the left
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    On the older film I go light +1.
     
  5. jumbosilverette

    jumbosilverette Member

    Messages:
    67
    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Location:
    Los Angeles,
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Wow! The Tri-X from '64 looks like the picture was made back then -- instant historicity.