Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,561   Posts: 1,545,274   Online: 803
      
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    527

    Shot some TXP 320, expired in 1999

    Shot some Kodak Tri-X Pan 320 that I was given by a friend from her photo school days. Expired in 1999 but has been well stored. I wasn't using a meter but I believe I was trying to rate the film about ISO 200 or so. The negatives are darker than what I would expect, compared to what I normally shoot (Tri-x), even the film edges. Would that be normal or maybe fogged a bit?

    In any case I'm pretty happy with the results and have some more rolls of it to shoot.


    Toronto by Anthony DeLorenzo, on Flickr


    Toronto by Anthony DeLorenzo, on Flickr

  2. #2
    brucemuir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Metro DC area, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,264
    Images
    4
    Looks great!
    Some fogging could be expected with a 320-400 speed film after 10-14 years but as you can see I wouldn't sweat it.

    Youy did right, be generous with exposure and maybe select a low fogging developer like HC110 or similar but any will do really.
    The proof is in the prints.

  3. #3
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,278
    Images
    12
    Dark edges is fogging. If you have enough exposure, it doesn't matter* as you just print through it.



    * as long as it's not so severe that it consumes a significant chunk of the film's dynamic range. That's rare.

  4. #4
    Whiteymorange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,289
    Images
    26
    I'm shooting TXP 320 that went belly up in 1994 and 1996 and finding it fogged but useable. Plus X from the same era looks fresh. Neither was stored well after about 2007 but they both had spent years in a freezer before that. HC110 does help, especially when used at 65 degrees instead of 68. I started at 8 minutes with a 1:49 mix (Jason Brunner's simple set-up) and didn't change the timing for the temperature, but you may want to lengthen it a bit. YRMV.

    This is, of course, if you want to change anything about what you're already doing. No sure, since your images look great.

  5. #5
    viridari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, North Carolina [USA]
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    330
    Images
    22
    I managed to get my hands on a roll that had expired about 25 years prior to my use of it. My only misgiving with this shot is that I didn't use a contrast filter.


    Candid Fisherman by magnus919, on Flickr

  6. #6
    adelorenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Whitehorse, Yukon
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    527
    I think that the fogging isn't too bad and it sounds like a little extra exposure when shooting probably helped. When viewing the negatives they look dark but the images are clearly there. It scanned very well but as was mentioned, we'll see how it prints.

    @Whiteymorange That is exactly the recipe I use for Tri-X in HC-110. So you are saying develop at a slightly lower temperature? I might try that although I only have a few more rolls of this film so maybe I'll just stick to the usual routine.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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