Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,067   Online: 1012
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49
  1. #31

    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7
    Wow! Excellent and interesting advice. I'm humbled!

    This weekend I'm developing another roll and increasing development and blix times.

    I'll keep you posted on the results.

    Many thanks guys.


    Regards, Barry
    Nikon user 42 years! Mamiya RZ67 user 19 years! Dizzy from darkroom fumes all my life!

  2. #32
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,336
    Images
    225

    Old film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by smiggsy View Post
    Wow! Excellent and interesting advice. I'm humbled!

    This weekend I'm developing another roll and increasing development and blix times.

    I'll keep you posted on the results.

    Many thanks guys.


    Regards, Barry
    But decreasing temperature right?? Lol


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #33
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    STONE!!! YOU SAID (and you err): "The speed loss is often in the exposure level, so if the film was already previously exposed he wouldn't be losing any more speed"


    WRONG! Let me remind all, including Stone, that, true, the exposure was proper AT THE TIME. But with decades passed, THAT exposure is NOW GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT. The film has steadily been losing speed through the decades, INCLUDING THAT WHICH RECEIVED SUCH ANCIENT EXPOSURE. The ONLY way to ATTEMPT to resurrect it is to give a LOT of development in order to get WHAT REMAINS out of the waning, feeble, age-agonized, incapable-of-self-sustainment, halides! - David Lyga

  4. #34
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,336
    Images
    225

    Old film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    STONE!!! YOU SAID (and you err): "The speed loss is often in the exposure level, so if the film was already previously exposed he wouldn't be losing any more speed"


    WRONG! Let me remind all, including Stone, that, true, the exposure was proper AT THE TIME. But with decades passed, THAT exposure is NOW GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT. The film has steadily been losing speed through the decades, INCLUDING THAT WHICH RECEIVED SUCH ANCIENT EXPOSURE. The ONLY way to ATTEMPT to resurrect it is to give a LOT of development in order to get WHAT REMAINS out of the waning, feeble, age-agonized, incapable-of-self-sustainment, halides! - David Lyga
    Ok, I did say in some form that I could be wrong. But, I've also shot film that was half exposed 25 years ago and half exposed now, and this was on local pharmacy film not pro film, and the exposure and color on the 25 year old images was perfect, and the new shots were all shot at canister speed and all dark and the shadows went green and the highlights went a sort of orange. And this film had been sitting in an in-air conditioned attic for at lest 10 of those years in the northeast the roof attic temps reach 120 degrees F and so from practical personal experience I have to disagree with you.

    I know different film has different latent image failure rates, like PanF+ with its horrible 3 month after shot self life, but in general most other film seems to be recoverable without any adjustment if already exposed.

    Again I'm going off of actual experience here. This was a C-41 film emulsion to be clear not B&W or C-22 or CN17. But I would assume they have similar latent image failure characteristics.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  5. #35
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,236
    Stone, interesting how you claim that the 25 year old shots were fine. I wonder if they were overexposed from the onset. It really does not make sense but I am glad that you brought that monkey wrench into the equation. I have no direct answer for that but I continue to hold that very old latent images are prone to fading before they are developed. We'll see what others have to say.

    I really see no validity to your admonition about Pan F's 'latent image death after three months'. Do others agree with this? -David Lyga
    Last edited by David Lyga; 02-15-2013 at 08:53 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #36
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,336
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by David Lyga View Post
    Stone, interesting how you claim that the 25 year old shots were fine. I wonder if they were overexposed from the onset. It really does not make sense but I am glad that you brought that monkey wrench into the equation. I have no direct answer for that but I continue to hold that very old latent images are prone to fading before they are developed. We'll see what others have to say.

    I really see no validity to your admonition about Pan F's 'latent image death after three months'. Do others agree with this? -David Lyga
    You made me go to the computer AND go through my old files haha, found the images scanned by the lab not me, so I can't be sure of their correct scanning, but the first two snow scenes were from the beginning of the roll from years ago, the last two were from the images I shot. Sorry for the content (nude) AND for how bad they are, I was just messing around and wasn't really trying to be professional, this was after coitus and then after a discussion about her taking a film class in highschool and remembering she had an old camera somewhere that I was excited to see, after discovering it still contained film I shot a few images, but didn't expect anything to come out since it had no light meter and the film was so ancient, so it was more out of her wanting to feel like a model than an actual shoot, excuses I know but wanted to qualify the images weren't at all real work I would be shooting that I would use per-se.

    I've also attached snap shots of the "contact print" from the lab and a few negatives and examples of the prints, the cell phone pictures don't really show the green in the "black" areas as badly as it actually looks to my eye in the far away shots of the contact print so I did a close up of her head/hair you can see it better. I did this to show I'm not faking it just to be right.

    Yes I have an open ended model release from that time period and I've shot with her since (she's the B&W antique bedroom model) just so no one gets mad at me for "exposing" someone without their approval. She kept the negatives/prints that were hers though, I only have the scans on a CD so I Can't compare, but I'm fairly certain they are exposed properly. You can see that the images I shot that didn't have FULL black, were only slightly green, where the images that had BLACK blacks were almost a blue green. But if you look at the negatives they seem to be fairly exposed properly enough that it's not some miss-exposure trick. I think that's all the info... let me know if I missed something or if you need more info.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	04070002.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	788.1 KB 
ID:	64182Click image for larger version. 

Name:	04070005.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	767.5 KB 
ID:	64183Click image for larger version. 

Name:	04070010.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	635.5 KB 
ID:	64184Click image for larger version. 

Name:	04070021.jpg 
Views:	19 
Size:	819.2 KB 
ID:	64185Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image-1.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	730.6 KB 
ID:	64186Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image-2.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	693.5 KB 
ID:	64187Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image-3.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	542.5 KB 
ID:	64188

  7. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,464
    StoneNYC, what you present is a valid point but I would say the old-shot photos are not perfect.

    I found the roll of film I shot before my half-and-half roll and those were developed at the time. Compared to the 12 years later developed roll you can definitely tell the difference.

    Yes, the old-shot photos can look perfectly usable, but there is degradation.

    Even 40 year old found film can be processed to return usable results. But those old exposures degrade with every year they go undeveloped. They aren't losing speed they're losing strength.
    - Bill Lynch

  8. #38
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,336
    Images
    225

    Old film processing

    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    StoneNYC, what you present is a valid point but I would say the old-shot photos are not perfect.

    I found the roll of film I shot before my half-and-half roll and those were developed at the time. Compared to the 12 years later developed roll you can definitely tell the difference.

    Yes, the old-shot photos can look perfectly usable, but there is degradation.

    Even 40 year old found film can be processed to return usable results. But those old exposures degrade with every year they go undeveloped. They aren't losing speed they're losing strength.
    Oh I'm not arguing there isn't ANY degradation I'm saying you don't need to change development times as compensation the way you do for non-exposed old film where you have to compensate both for the exposure change in speed and development times. But the difference between the two is huge, maybe 60 yo film needs dev compensation but not really for what the OP is talking about I would start at standard dev times. That's all. I do agree some degradation happens.


    ~Stone

    Mamiya: 7 II, RZ67 Pro II / Canon: 1V, AE-1, 5DmkII / Kodak: No 1 Pocket Autographic, No 1A Pocket Autographic | Sent w/ iPhone using Tapatalk
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #39

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,464
    The OP, Smigsy, has 35-40 year old unprocessed film....

    I hope he isn't put off by this conflict and will report back with his findings.
    - Bill Lynch

  10. #40

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Daventry, Northamptonshire, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,965
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    The OP, Smigsy, has 35-40 year old unprocessed film....

    I hope he isn't put off by this conflict and will report back with his findings.
    Yes and based on his current findings which produced practically nothing at normal dev times of 3 mins 15 secs he certainly shouldn't be conservative this week-end with his next attempt. I'd certainly go with the very long times and lower temps suggested. Better that he develops the hell out of these films to see if that works. I see no reason why sticking to normal times or only slightly longer times shouldn't produce blank films again - not what he wants.

    pentaxuser

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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