Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,549   Posts: 1,544,645   Online: 722
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 33 of 33
  1. #31
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,027
    Quote Originally Posted by ricardo12458 View Post
    I was born in 1996.
    I think I have film in my freezer that is older than that....
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  2. #32

    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1
    Just got a box out of the freezer with May, 1977 expiration. I seem to recall that it was indeed something like 1000 ASA, although oddly, it doesn't say anything about that on the box. Does anyone know if it is processed in the same chemistry as Tri-X?

  3. #33
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,816
    Quote Originally Posted by ricardo12458 View Post
    It might not really matter, since I'm taking a long exposure with it.

    The only reason I would use this film would be for astronomical photography, especially for something this old, to get over the base fog.

    I don't develop my own film.
    Film is much better since 2475 days. I believe 2475, like other out-of-date high speed films, would have lots of base fog. The 2475 recommended exposure time for metered 1 second exposure is 1.6; for 10 seconds, 25, for 100 seconds, 500. It was even worse for the standard films of that day. A 1998 Kodak publication gives the increase for T-Max 100 as: 1 second, open aperture 1/3 stop; 10 seconds, 15; 100 seconds, 200. For T-Max 400: 1 second, open aperture 1/3 stopt; 10 seconds, 15; 100 seconds, 300. For T-Max 3200: 1 second, none; 10 second, 15; 100 second, 400. Even fresh 2475 would have little advantage over T-Max films in reducing expsoure times, and a great increase in grain.

    If I shot any 2475 that might be mislaid in all my junk, it might be to develop it in print developer for high contrast and gross grain, and reduce the negatives in potassium ferrocyanide to cut through some of the fog. Such post development reduction might be controlled better than using Benzotriazole with the developer

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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