0
This topic is in the 2023 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2023How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
p.2 #1How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
jwpstl wrote:
Quick question....I recently found a roll of Tmax 3200 that I believe I exposed back in 2000 or 2001 but never processed. I'd like to see if the images are salvageable but I don't have the equipment to process it myself so will need to take it to a lab. What should I tell them to do with it to give it the best odds? Push?
#1 - do you remember what you rated the film at? 800, 1600, 3200?
Quick question....I recently found a roll of Tmax 3200 that I believe I exposed back in 2000 or 2001 but never processed. I'd like to see if the images are salvageable but I don't have the equipment to process it myself so will need to take it to a lab. What should I tell them to do with it to give it the best odds? Push?
#1 - do you remember what you rated the film at? 800, 1600, 3200?
Nov 20, 2023 at 12:26 PM
p.2 #2How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Desmolicious wrote:
#1 - do you remember what you rated the film at? 800, 1600, 3200?
Back then I would have used 3200 most likely.
jwpstl wrote
Quick question....I recently found a roll of Tmax 3200 that I believe I exposed back in 2000 or 2001 but never processed. I'd like to see if the images are salvageable but I don't have the equipment to process it myself so will need to take it to a lab. What should I tell them to do with it to give it the best odds? Push?Back then I would have used 3200 most likely.
Nov 20, 2023 at 01:30 PM
p.2 #3How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
jwpstl wrote:
#1 - do you remember what you rated the film at? 800, 1600, 3200?Back then I would have used 3200 most likely.
3200 is already a push two stops. I would say just ask them to develop it push 2 or push 3. Maybe 3...
Desmolicious wrote
jwpstl wrote
Quick question....I recently found a roll of Tmax 3200 that I believe I exposed back in 2000 or 2001 but never processed. I'd like to see if the images are salvageable but I don't have the equipment to process it myself so will need to take it to a lab. What should I tell them to do with it to give it the best odds? Push?3200 is already a push two stops. I would say just ask them to develop it push 2 or push 3. Maybe 3...
Nov 20, 2023 at 01:40 PM
p.2 #4How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Not sure it's worth the hassle but you could ask to do a clip test - cut off a few inches past the leader area that would have been exposed during loading in the camera and see what the rebate text looks like. If it's faint, then you'd want to develop longer.
I just checked TMZ negs I processed in the 90s and probably shot at ISO 3200 - the rebate text is pretty dark. But it's possible I may have shot/processed it for ISO 6400. No EXIF for reference, unfortunately.
I just checked TMZ negs I processed in the 90s and probably shot at ISO 3200 - the rebate text is pretty dark. But it's possible I may have shot/processed it for ISO 6400. No EXIF for reference, unfortunately.
Nov 20, 2023 at 01:47 PM
p.2 #5How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Push 3. Push it good, push it real good.
Nov 20, 2023 at 02:01 PM
p.2 #6How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
(cross post from the film images thread)
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
So of course this roll, and the next two were shot in my Fuji TX2 aka Xpan...
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
So of course this roll, and the next two were shot in my Fuji TX2 aka Xpan...
Nov 20, 2023 at 09:08 PM
p.2 #7How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Desmolicious wrote:
(cross post from the film images thread)
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
How dark is the text/numbering on the rebate? If you increase the developing time or temperature, will it also increase the base fog density?
I'm curious what the Tri-X negatives look like on the light table - how dense or faint the actual image is relative to the (fogged?) film base. Any chance of posting a photo?
(cross post from the film images thread)
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
How dark is the text/numbering on the rebate? If you increase the developing time or temperature, will it also increase the base fog density?
I'm curious what the Tri-X negatives look like on the light table - how dense or faint the actual image is relative to the (fogged?) film base. Any chance of posting a photo?
Nov 21, 2023 at 08:39 AM
p.2 #8How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Huss,
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
Desmolicious wrote:
(cross post from the film images thread)
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53344766492_5026c13aa2_z.jpg
So of course this...Show more →
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
Desmolicious wrote:
(cross post from the film images thread)
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53344766492_5026c13aa2_z.jpg
So of course this...Show more →
Nov 21, 2023 at 10:25 AM
p.2 #9How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
James Markus wrote:
Huss,
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
Considering this Tri-X is 35+ years old, grain becomes more apparent due to the need to digitally stretch out the likely very narrow tonal range of the negatives (high base fog plus apparently weak image tonality) by a significant amount to achieve a full tonal range in the final images.
I'm not sure how much better a modern ISO 400 B&W film would perform with similar post production (similar actual image tonality on the negative after subtracting base fog).
Huss,
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
Considering this Tri-X is 35+ years old, grain becomes more apparent due to the need to digitally stretch out the likely very narrow tonal range of the negatives (high base fog plus apparently weak image tonality) by a significant amount to achieve a full tonal range in the final images.
I'm not sure how much better a modern ISO 400 B&W film would perform with similar post production (similar actual image tonality on the negative after subtracting base fog).
Nov 21, 2023 at 10:36 AM
p.2 #10How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
James Markus wrote:
Huss,
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53344766492_5026c13aa2_z.jpg
So of course this roll, and the next two were shot in my Fuji TX2 aka Xpan...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53344939157_764ba90637_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346051198_d74f48b3e2_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346140379_1200b6de18_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346051228_c5972a369a_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346269125_d18ff08550_b.jpg
Thanks James. I only have one roll left of the 35 year old TriX. Actually one waiting dev, one to shoot.
Huss,
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
Desmolicious wrote
(cross post from the film images thread)So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53344766492_5026c13aa2_z.jpg
So of course this roll, and the next two were shot in my Fuji TX2 aka Xpan...
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53344939157_764ba90637_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346051198_d74f48b3e2_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346140379_1200b6de18_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346051228_c5972a369a_b.jpg
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53346269125_d18ff08550_b.jpg
Thanks James. I only have one roll left of the 35 year old TriX. Actually one waiting dev, one to shoot.
Nov 21, 2023 at 10:39 AM
p.2 #11How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
rscheffler wrote:
For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINKConsidering this Tri-X is 35+ years old, grain becomes more apparent due to the need to digitally stretch out the likely very narrow tonal range of the negatives (high base fog plus apparently weak image tonality) by a significant amount to achieve a full tonal range in the final images.
I'm not sure how much better a modern ISO 400 B&W film would perform with similar post production (similar actual image tonality on the negative after subtracting base fog).
Yeah to make the images 'presentable' I had to lean on LR to basically boost contrast etc and this increases grain size.
I like some of the results, so I'll pretend that was intentional.
James Markus wrote
Huss,For making the grain less apparent with Tri-X I always used Acufine film developer. It seemed to lower contrast a bit as well, and if I remember correctly, usually was used at a slightly lower temp, and longer time. Don't know if it is still available, but this link shows the exact cans I use to buy. In any case, changing developers would likely effect grain more.
LINK
I'm not sure how much better a modern ISO 400 B&W film would perform with similar post production (similar actual image tonality on the negative after subtracting base fog).
Yeah to make the images 'presentable' I had to lean on LR to basically boost contrast etc and this increases grain size.
I like some of the results, so I'll pretend that was intentional.
Nov 21, 2023 at 10:41 AM
p.2 #12How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
rscheffler wrote:
So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:How dark is the text/numbering on the rebate? If you increase the developing time or temperature, will it also increase the base fog density?
I'm curious what the Tri-X negatives look like on the light table - how dense or faint the actual image is relative to the (fogged?) film base. Any chance of posting a photo?
This is what I just developed last night with a boost in temp for dev. It seems to have improved the results.
The previous rolls have been put away and I really don't want to pull them out as they turn into tight twizzler rolls, while this one seems ok at the moment!
This roll was developed at 80 F in Cinestill DF96.
Desmolicious wrote
(cross post from the film images thread)So I rated this roll (and my next two) of 35 year old TriX at ISO 100. Frankly it made diddly difference. I think I need to extend the dev time which in DF96 Monobath speak means up the temp.
What I did learn, and I should have known because my previous roll did the same, is 35 Year old TriX curls like a very curly thing. So perhaps the worst choice to scan if you are going to use a Pano camera.
As good luck getting that flat for a decent scan:
I'm curious what the Tri-X negatives look like on the light table - how dense or faint the actual image is relative to the (fogged?) film base. Any chance of posting a photo?
This is what I just developed last night with a boost in temp for dev. It seems to have improved the results.
The previous rolls have been put away and I really don't want to pull them out as they turn into tight twizzler rolls, while this one seems ok at the moment!
This roll was developed at 80 F in Cinestill DF96.
Nov 21, 2023 at 10:52 AM
p.2 #13How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Hey, the Venice sign! I thought I recognized that building, haha!
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
Nov 21, 2023 at 11:11 AM
p.2 #14How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Here is an example of Tri-X grain from 1991 using Acufine. Scanned with an Epson V700 flatbed - plus how I imaged it back then. I guess that you already know that Tri-X is still being sold. I used both OEM, and bulk loaded - same great stuff.
http://www.photomatter.com/2023/Tri-X.jpg
http://www.photomatter.com/2023/Tri-X.jpg
Nov 21, 2023 at 11:18 AM
p.2 #15How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
I hand developed a half dozen rolls that I shot back in 2004-2005 during COVID. So close to 20 years since exposure. I had been dragging these rolls around in old boxes, sometimes refrigerated but most of the time not. I think most of these were AGFA consumer film which was probably rebranded Fuji at the time.
These were DSLR scanned but not with NLP so I should be able to rework the final image a lot better.
These were DSLR scanned but not with NLP so I should be able to rework the final image a lot better.
Nov 21, 2023 at 11:29 AM
p.2 #16How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
50 year old Pan X:
https://casualphotophile.com/2023/09/25/kodak-panatomic-x-35mm-film/
https://casualphotophile.com/2023/09/25/kodak-panatomic-x-35mm-film/
Nov 21, 2023 at 01:16 PM
p.2 #17How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
Ok, the 35 yr old TriX, rated at iso 100, developed 4 mins at 80 (normal is 75) w DF96 Monobath (the only dev I use).
Still has some base fog, but much improved by increasing the dev. Grain is much finer now. I think next roll (already shot) I may dev at +10 degrees. Or not, because frankly there is so much you can do w 35 year old film!
Still has some base fog, but much improved by increasing the dev. Grain is much finer now. I think next roll (already shot) I may dev at +10 degrees. Or not, because frankly there is so much you can do w 35 year old film!
Nov 21, 2023 at 06:04 PM
p.2 #18How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
rscheffler wrote:
Hey, the Venice sign! I thought I recognized that building, haha!
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
I think that is more "bromide drag" but in this case due to the film needing to be developed longer, as on most images it is not there.
Hey, the Venice sign! I thought I recognized that building, haha!
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
I think that is more "bromide drag" but in this case due to the film needing to be developed longer, as on most images it is not there.
Nov 21, 2023 at 06:08 PM
p.2 #19How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
rscheffler wrote:
Hey, the Venice sign! I thought I recognized that building, haha!
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
Desmolicious wrote:
I think that is more "bromide drag" but in this case due to the film needing to be developed longer, as on most images it is not there.
Is DF96 stand development? I thought bromide drag shouldn't be a problem with agitation?
The recent photos do look 'better' in respect to being more normal. Question then is: are the results much different from fresh B&W film? IOW, is there a benefit to shooting this old film if you had to choose between it and a fresh roll, ignoring costs, etc., strictly based on end results?
Hey, the Venice sign! I thought I recognized that building, haha!
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
Desmolicious wrote:
I think that is more "bromide drag" but in this case due to the film needing to be developed longer, as on most images it is not there.
Is DF96 stand development? I thought bromide drag shouldn't be a problem with agitation?
The recent photos do look 'better' in respect to being more normal. Question then is: are the results much different from fresh B&W film? IOW, is there a benefit to shooting this old film if you had to choose between it and a fresh roll, ignoring costs, etc., strictly based on end results?
Nov 21, 2023 at 08:40 PM
p.2 #20How long do you think a latent image lasts on undeveloped film?
rscheffler wrote:
Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!Is DF96 stand development? I thought bromide drag shouldn't be a problem with agitation?
The recent photos do look 'better' in respect to being more normal. Question then is: are the results much different from fresh B&W film? IOW, is there a benefit to shooting this old film if you had to choose between it and a fresh roll, ignoring costs, etc., strictly based on end results?
Yeah, bromide drag usually is from lack of agitation. But I am agitating plenty - as I always do... - and as it is greatly reduced with the increase in development, insufficient dev time seems to be the reason.
I'd pick the fresh stuff every single time. The old Tri-X is fun and a side effect of lowering film speed/increasing dev is the grain has become much finer. But the fresh film is a known constant, and so can be used like that. I know exactly what happens if I shoot it at 200, 400, 1600 etc.
rscheffler wrote
Hey, the Venice sign! I thought I recognized that building, haha!Those look pretty good considering the age of the film. Is the top edge of the film fogged more than the rest, or is the just a digital artifact? Looking forward to seeing your scans!
Desmolicious wrote
I think that is more "bromide drag" but in this case due to the film needing to be developed longer, as on most images it is not there.The recent photos do look 'better' in respect to being more normal. Question then is: are the results much different from fresh B&W film? IOW, is there a benefit to shooting this old film if you had to choose between it and a fresh roll, ignoring costs, etc., strictly based on end results?
Yeah, bromide drag usually is from lack of agitation. But I am agitating plenty - as I always do... - and as it is greatly reduced with the increase in development, insufficient dev time seems to be the reason.
I'd pick the fresh stuff every single time. The old Tri-X is fun and a side effect of lowering film speed/increasing dev is the grain has become much finer. But the fresh film is a known constant, and so can be used like that. I know exactly what happens if I shoot it at 200, 400, 1600 etc.
Nov 21, 2023 at 08:51 PM