 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / March 2005Agfa BW film expired in 1974; any sugestions how to shoot/process it?
A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from estate sale. In one of the bags, that he got with it we found this 120 BW film. It is Agfa Isopan ISS, asa 100; stil in original packaging- looks quite fresh ; )) I mean the box hasn't even faded and is bright orange. Its expiration date is Jan '74 : D I'd like to do some portraiture shots on it. So, I guess it has lost it's speed, probably a few stops. I'm thinking I should probably expose it at EI 25 at least, maybe even 15. Than... I guess I'll put it through Rodinal(?) Not sure what dillusion. Any suggestions on how to deal with this geriatric emulsion ?!? > A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from > estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'll put it through Rodinal(?) Not sure what dillusion. > Any suggestions on how to deal with this geriatric emulsion ?!? Throw it away. Moron. OK. Genius. > OK. Genius. > > -- > Message posted via http://www.photokb.com It's bad. Throw the sh.t away. >A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from >estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I'll put it through Rodinal(?) Not sure what dillusion. > Any suggestions on how to deal with this geriatric emulsion ?!? Give it a stop more exposure; ASA50. Develop it in Rodinal at recommended time, temp and dilution. Try the 1:50 first. You should get somethig useful. I assume this is just one roll and you're playing around. Whatever don't listen to the jerk who tells you to throw it out. You can't learn without experimenting. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from > >estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA Don't waste time on 30 year-old film. It's bad. > >A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from > >estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA I guess that during your courses on your way to that 'MFA' of which you are so proud, they neglected particle physics. Gamma rays (and other factors) ruin film over time. That's why there's an expiration date on the stuff. > A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from > estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'll put it through Rodinal(?) Not sure what dillusion. > Any suggestions on how to deal with this geriatric emulsion ?!? What is the point? There is newer, better, cheaper B&W film that will give you good images, which this will not. If the box is pretty put it up on a display shelf or in a shadow box with other vintage stuff.  SignatureMichael | "You're going to need a bigger boat." Use the film if you want to. We are the experts in this field. We process all types of antique and outdated film, and our current overall success rate is 97.8%. We have recovered film from the 1920's, and offer 'old film+dev' packages for students and those who want to experiment. It CAN work, like it or not. The aim of our business is disproving the mistaken theory that old film should be thrown away. From the professionals who actually DO the job, film from 1974 can be used and processed if desired, for experimental purposes. In fact, one of our popular packages for students is E-4 roll film. I would like to add one further note. We hardly ever post to this group, even though we could offer a veritable amount of good advice on film. This is because of those who seek to ruin the experience for everyone else. The photographic newsgroups are for those who wish to seek and/or give useful information on the art and science of the subject, not for flaming or posting abusive messages to those who want advice. Traditional photography is sadly in decline and we should not seek to discourage those who want to try something different. I would ask on behalf of most of us, that in the future those Posters who cannot say anything nice or helpful should refrain from saying anything at all. Please do not ruin this unmoderated group for everyone else. We all believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom of abuse. Dominic Roberts, proprietor Process C-22 info 'at' processc22.co.uk > Use the film if you want to. We are the experts in this field. We > process all types of antique and outdated film, and our current [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > info 'at' processc22.co.uk You're full of sh.t. Cosmic rays/gamma rays ruin film, and after 30 years, it's thoroughly ruined. This is the reason we don't come onto these forums much (if at all) anymore. I urge everyone else to do the same, to get rid of this fool. Check out this page from our old website (this one no longer maintained, so disregard all other pages) These images were recovered over 2001-2002 from films sent in to us for developing. http://processc22.stormpages.com/gallery.html We know our business well and we know what is right, period. We will NOT be contributing to these newsgroups anymore from this date, due to the foul, abusive and offensive language and manner of 'uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com' and a minority of others. Those readers who would like sensible and courteous advice on the subject of film, old or new, should contact us via email. Other helpful and courteous individuals to consult and search for include Richard Knoppow, Francis A Miniter, and Greg Miller. Kind regards, Dominic Roberts, proprietor 'Process C-22' info 'at' processc22.co.uk -------------------------- > You're full of sh.t. Cosmic rays/gamma rays ruin film, and after 30 > years, it's thoroughly ruined. > This is the reason we don't come onto these forums much (if at all) > anymore. I urge everyone else to do the same, to get rid of this fool. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > You're full of sh.t. Cosmic rays/gamma rays ruin film, and after 30 > > years, it's thoroughly ruined. Your ignorance is as proufound as it is wide. 30-year old unexposed film is useless. You deal with exposed old film, to try to rescue something for your customers. There is no earthly reason to use 30 year old unexposed film. It's sh.t. Greetings; As I have pointed out a couple of times before, Scarpitti / Uraniumcommittee, you really do not encourage or assist anyone at all with the gross majority of your comments. It would be revealing to establish a count of constructive and meaningful words in your vocabulary and subtract from that count the number of offensive and/or vulgar words contained in your vocabulary. As it happens I came across a package of old Ilford PAN-F 120-rollfilms a few months ago with an expiry of 1980; I rated it at 2/3 box speed and it worked fine. I will not be throwing this film out - it will be very handy for checking my various medium-format gear for light leaks etc., and also for taking shots from my storage oscilloscope. I would suggest to the original poster that they (a) ignore your line of derogatory remarks and (b) try a roll at 2/3 box speed like I did. My regards - F.C. Trevor Gale. >>This is the reason we don't come onto these forums much (if at all) >>anymore. I urge everyone else to do the same, to get rid of this > > fool. <snip> >>>You're full of sh.t. Cosmic rays/gamma rays ruin film, and after 30 >>>years, it's thoroughly ruined. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > something for your customers. There is no earthly reason to use 30 year > old unexposed film. It's sh.t. Greetings; As I have pointed out a couple of times before, Scarpitti / Uraniumcommittee, you really do not encourage or assist anyone at all with the gross majority of your comments. It would be revealing to establish a count of constructive and meaningful words in your vocabulary and subtract from that count the number of offensive and/or vulgar words contained in your vocabulary. As it happens I came across a package of old Ilford PAN-F 120-rollfilms a few months ago with an expiry of 1980; I rated it at 2/3 box speed and it worked fine. I will not be throwing this film out - it will be very handy for checking my various medium-format gear for light leaks etc., and also for taking shots from my storage oscilloscope. I would suggest to the original poster that they (a) ignore your line of derogatory remarks and (b) try a roll at 2/3 box speed like I did. Many folk are getting sick and tired of your splutterings. My regards - F.C. Trevor Gale. >>This is the reason we don't come onto these forums much (if at all) >>anymore. I urge everyone else to do the same, to get rid of this > > fool. <snip> >>info 'at' processc22.co.uk >>-------------------------- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > something for your customers. There is no earthly reason to use 30 year > old unexposed film. It's sh.t. > This is the reason we don't come onto these forums much (if at all) > anymore. I urge everyone else to do the same, to get rid of this fool. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > You're full of sh.t. Cosmic rays/gamma rays ruin film, and after 30 > > years, it's thoroughly ruined. 1. There sia big difference between trying to salvage something useful from old, exposed film (your business) and using 30-year-old film to make new images on. 2. Would you design a meal around roadkill? The best thing to do is ignore scarpitti (uranium). He's a troll desperate for attention. : This is the reason we don't come onto these forums much (if at all) : anymore. I urge everyone else to do the same, to get rid of this fool. : Check out this page from our old website (this one no longer : maintained, so disregard all other pages) These images were recovered : over 2001-2002 from films sent in to us for developing. : http://processc22.stormpages.com/gallery.html : We know our business well and we know what is right, period. : We will NOT be contributing to these newsgroups anymore from this date, : due to the foul, abusive and offensive language and manner of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : individuals to consult and search for include Richard Knoppow, Francis : A Miniter, and Greg Miller. : Kind regards, : Dominic Roberts, proprietor : 'Process C-22' : info 'at' processc22.co.uk : -------------------------- : > You're full of sh.t. Cosmic rays/gamma rays ruin film, and after 30 : > years, it's thoroughly ruined. SignatureKeep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- fwp@deepthought.com Friend: I do appreciate your perspective. What harm is there in trying out old film? Will someone be maimed or killed as a result of such use? Film photography, most regretably, has been increasingly marginalized by digital photography. When film disappears, so will a whole photographic culture that can trace its origins bacl to the mid 19th Century. So, let everyone use old expired film; it may be all that is left to us in the not too distant future. :( Best You could perhaps try 4 parts of saturated solution of potassium oxalate and one part of saturated solution of ferrous sulfate. Mix it together just before developing. This is a slow developer (15 min) so you may need to increase your exposures by 2 or 3 stops. It could work with very little fog density. Nothing ventured nothing learned. Smitty >> A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from >> estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > you good images, which this will not. If the box is pretty put it up on a > display shelf or in a shadow box with other vintage stuff. Mike...You may want to try using 4 parts of saturated solution of potassium oxalate and 1 part of saturated solution of ferrous sulfate. It will be slow about 15 minutes. You may have to over expose the film by 2 or three stops. Smitty >> A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from >> estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > give you good images, which this will not. If the box is pretty put it > up on a display shelf or in a shadow box with other vintage stuff. > A friend of mine bought a bunch of vintage photographic equipment from > estate sale. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I'll put it through Rodinal(?) Not sure what dillusion. > Any suggestions on how to deal with this geriatric emulsion ?!? Burn this sh.t! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.