Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,283   Posts: 1,534,926   Online: 856
      
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    pstake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    64

    Old Tri-X (exp 1964 and 1993)

    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?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img228.jpg 
Views:	98 
Size:	468.4 KB 
ID:	52316
    Tri-X expired Aug. 1964 exposed @ iso 25, dev'd in undiluted d-76

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img227.jpg 
Views:	91 
Size:	545.6 KB 
ID:	52317
    Tri-X expired Aug. 1964 exposed @ iso 100, dev'd in undiluted d-76

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img217_200ppi.jpg 
Views:	95 
Size:	987.2 KB 
ID:	52318
    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. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    429
    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. #3
    pstake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    704
    Images
    64
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by John Shriver View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Christopher Walrath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Milton, DE, USA
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    6,980
    Blog Entries
    29
    Images
    19
    On the older film I go light +1.
    Thank you.
    CWalrath
    APUG BLIND PRINT EXCHANGE
    DE Darkroom

    "Wubba, wubba, wubba. Bing, bang, bong. Yuck, yuck, yuck and a fiddle-dee-dee." - The Yeti

  5. #5

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    67
    Wow! The Tri-X from '64 looks like the picture was made back then -- instant historicity.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin