Thanks all. I'm not really into souvenirs or collecting such things. So I'll shoot it probably.
Ken: What does "elevated base fog" look like? Is it obvious?
Does everyone agree that I should overexpose and underdevelop?
I used some old panatomic x not too long ago. It was fine if shot and developed as usual in D76/ID11, albeit a bit foggy and low contrast. So I'd say rate it at 16 or 20 or so, and develop normally or perhaps cut the dev time a bit.
To see what the base fog is, you could just shoot a frame or two with lens cap on. Instead of getting a clear base, you'll see that it's a little bit greyish. That's your base fog. The more fog you have, the less density range you have available for your image, hence the loss in contrast. But it's not fatal and you may even like the subdued contrast. You might try it for portraiture even.
I will take a guess that the red sensitivity reduces over time, and therefore it might benefit by a yellow or red filter. But this is just a thought, I didn't try it yet, with my remaining panatomic x (I have several boxes of it from the 80s and a 100 ft roll from 1973).
A couple of years ago, I received numerous 100' rolls of 70mm Plus-X, expired in 1980. I think I will overexpose it, and use HC-110.
Originally Posted by jglass
What Keith said...
Originally Posted by keithwms
Base fog is the residual density present in an unexposed part of the film. It looks like a very pale neutral density filter. It builds up over time as film ages and is usually a greater problem for faster films. If it's not too dense, you can usually just print right through it to get at least acceptable results.
"When making a portrait, my approach is quite the same as when I am portraying a rock. I do not wish to impose my personality upon the sitter, but, keeping myself open to receive reactions from his own special ego, record this with nothing added: except of course when I am working professionally, when money enters in,—then for a price, I become a liar..."
— Edward Weston, Daybooks, Vol. II, February 2, 1932
I think this is an important notion. I once received a Kodak TMax 3200 roll of someone that was way (10 year or so) over date. As expected, it had huge base fog, which I wouldn't call "very pale" but more like "grey".
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Than again, of all things I read here on APUG, these extremely fast films seem to die first, and that was certainly the case with that roll, although with proper exposure and compensation for speed loss - in hindsight I estimated some 2 stops looking at the negatives - it would probably still be printable, but not great.
"The nineteenth century began by believing that what was reasonable was true, and it wound up by believing that what it saw a photograph of, was true.
" - William M. Ivins Jr.
"I don't know, maybe we should disinvent color, and we could just shoot Black & White.
" - David Burnett in 1978
"Analog is chemistry + physics, digital is physics + math, which ones did you like most?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I am not sure but maybe benzotriazole is the way to go, if you have a lot of base fog. Ron might have some suggestions there.
But my thought is to use the base fog and think about the kinds of images that could benefit by lower contrast. Besides base fog, you will see slightly larger grain and perhaps reduced red sensitivity.