Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development
Francis A. Miniter
As some of you may recall, I posted a query a few weeks ago about some
exposed, ancient film that I found when cleaning out my father's house.
The film was size 116 (2.5" x 4.5"), with 6 frames, on a wooden core
spool, and indicated "1A-FPK", which Richard Knoppow informed me was the
Folding Pocket Kodak, Model 1A, which was made up to about 1915. I am
writing, as requested by John Douglas, to apprise you all of the results
of my efforts to develop this film.
But first, a few words of appreciation. I would like to acknowledge the
good advice I received from Richard Knoppow and John Douglas, and later
from the Kodak Special Products people, and the encouragement I got from
Tim Rudman. I also spent a good bit of time reading Anchell and Troop,
"The Film Developing Cookbook" for that further bit of reassurance
before I stepped of the cliff and dropped the film into developer.
Given that D-76 was invented in 1927, I decided to use that as the
developer, on the hope that the film was less than 70 years old. Also,
I figured, if it was older, D-76 was probably developed to handle some
existing emulsions as well. Besides, Richard recommended it. I took
John's suggestion and did not add any restrainer. (Kodak's man
recommended I add some, but the comments of Anchell and Troop about
restrainers helped sway me back to John's suggestion.) John and
Richard both recommended 9 minutes or so. The Kodak representative
recommended starting with the time for Plus-X (7 minutes) and adding at
least 20% and maybe as much as 100%. In the end I went with 9:30 or
about 35% addition to the Plus-X time. John recommended that I develop
at 70 degrees, so I started at 72 degrees, figuring that cooling over 10
minutes time (the darkroom was ambient about 64 degrees) would give me
an average of 70 degrees.
Richard recommended that since I would not easily find any reels for 116
film, I should use a tray and put film clips on the ends of the roll. I
accepted this, but did not really want to use a 20x24 inch tray because
of the awkwardness and the volume of fluids. Besides, I really did not
know if the roll would fit in it, even diagonally. My wife went to
Photo Depot (aka Home Depot) and got me three film developing troughs
(aka plastic window planter inserts, about 33" long x 5" wide x 6"
deep). As it turned out these were just long enough to hold the film
and film clips stretched out.
Richard also suggested that the film was probably orthochromatic and
that I could develop it under a dark red (No. 2) safelight.
Unfortunately, I only have a No. 1A (light red), so I decided to do it
in total darkness and briefly turn on the light for inspection at the
end of the 9.5 minutes.
Finally, yesterday, with D-76 and F-24 freshly mixed, I took the leap.
I followed the above described procedure. At the brief inspection after
9.5 minutes, I could not discern any detail on the negative strip, and
it looked rather dark. So I removed the roll and proceeded to stop bath
and fixer.
When I inspected the roll under normal light, I observed the following.
Light had over the years got into the edges of the roll on both sides
for a distance of about a quarter to half an inch. The emulsion itself
was severely deteriorated in the middle of the roll, but less so at the
ends, especially one end, probably the start of the roll, which would
have been on the inside of the take-up spool. I obtained one
recoverable image, but the contrast on that was minimal. I should have
gone for about 13-14 minutes, but the necessity for that was not
foreseeable. So I soaked the roll in selenium rapid toner 1:10 for ten
minutes to try to heighten the contrast, then washed, used HCA, washed
and dried. Very little contrast seemed to have been gained by the use
of the selenium toner.
Tonight, I attempted to contact print the image onto Kodak PolyMax II RC
using my Beseler 23CII, with condenser head. (I probably will try again
with Ilford because of the harder contrast it can take.) Using all of
the magenta in the world (VCF filter #4 in the VCF filter drawer, 155
units of magenta CP filters in the filter drawer and a VCF #4 filter
held below the lens), with the lens wide open at f4 for 1:30 minutes
(elevation 18 inches), I got a poor but viewable image.
The image is of two children, about ages 6 to 8, both dressed all in
white with black stockings, the girl wearing a bonnet, and they are
standing on or in front of a low porch. The boy's outfit could be a
sailor's outfit. It is still hard to say. I am no expert in clothing
and its era, but having viewed a number of photos from my father's
collection, I would hazard a guess that the photo could be from about
1915. If so, it was probably taken by my grandfather not my father, and
I have been working on negatives over 80 years old.
My recommendation to others who may encounter this situation. Double
the time for a modern emulsion.
Interestingly, in today's newspaper, The Hartford Courant, there was an
article about a local man who is taking part in an expedition to Mt.
Everest. The group is going to try to find Mallory and Irvine, two
Englishmen who tried to scale the mountain in 1924. They were last seen
at elev. 28,230 feet, in tweed jackets with oxygen tanks, no less. In
1976 a Chinese man reported seeing "dead English in tweed jacket" at
about 27,670 feet, before he died in an avalanche. The current
expedition hopes to find the men and find the camera they took with them
- a Folding Pocket Kodak - and are hoping that if the men made it to the
top they took a photograph, which can then be salvaged.
ArtKramr
>From: "Francis A. Miniter" <min...@ibm.net>
>The Kodak representative
>recommended starting with the time for Plus-X (7 minutes) and adding at
>least 20% and maybe as much as 100%. In the end I went with 9:30 or
>about 35% addition to the Plus-X time. John recommended that I develop
>at 70 degrees, so I started at 72
The Kodak guy gave you the standard operational procedure for developing old
film. First, use a restrainer to supress fog caused by time, heat and ambient
radiation. Second, at least double the developing oime to compensate for the
loss of film speed due to aging. Of course inspection is always the best way to
go but that takes a lot of experience and practice to be able to do reliably
and consistantly. But thanks for the intersting story. :-)
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Richard Knoppow
>>Subject: Update on Unknown Ancient Kodak Film Development
>>From: "Francis A. Miniter" <min...@ibm.net>
>
>>The Kodak representative
>>recommended starting with the time for Plus-X (7 minutes) and adding at
>>least 20% and maybe as much as 100%. In the end I went with 9:30 or
>>about 35% addition to the Plus-X time. John recommended that I develop
>>at 70 degrees, so I started at 72
>
>The Kodak guy gave you the standard operational procedure for developing old
>film. First, use a restrainer to supress fog caused by time, heat and ambient
>radiation. Second, at least double the developing oime to compensate for the
>loss of film speed due to aging. Of course inspection is always the best way to
>go but that takes a lot of experience and practice to be able to do reliably
>and consistantly. But thanks for the intersting story. :-)
>
>Arthur Kramer
>Las Vegas NV
>
I don't know how "standard" this is but there are problems with it.
First, beside fogging old _exposed_ film has the problem that the
latent image is not stable. Even modern films suffer to some degree
from loss of latent image and the latent image on older films may
disappear after several years. The use of restrainers or anti-foggants
will certainly reduce the fog but will also tend to destroy whatever
is left of the latent image. For film, anti-foggants are not really to
useful in any case since the fog level is equivalent to a loss of
speed and increasing exposure will compensate for it unless it is very
bad.
Secondly, extending development time much will tend to increase the
fog level since, much beyond normal development, the fog will increase
faster than image density.
In the above case, the development shold have been extended longer
since the film required it when new. The old films had thick emulsions
and were mostly double coated. The recommended development times were
about 1.5 to 2x those for modern films. A look at Kodak or Ansco
development recommendations from the 1930's and 1940's will show times
on the order of 15 to 20 minutes being recommended for D-76 full
strength for most films. This is for a contrast index similar to the
one suggested now for contact printing.
Since I did not know the type of film the original poster had I
suggested he develop it by inspection. I should have been more exact
about what I had in mind. Namely to develop (in the dark) for about
ten minutes, check the film with an appropriate safelight, and if not
dense enough go for another five minutes before inspecting again,
repeating this until there is either a satisfactory image or good
reason to think none will ever appear. A dark green safelight is safe
for both pan and ortho materials if used intermittantly for only a few
seconds as indicated above. If one knows the film is ortho a dark red
safelight can be on continuously during development. Developers of
most types rapidly desensitize film so there is little danger of
fogging if the safelight is not used for about the first half of the
development period and used intermittantly thereafter.
Judging film by inspection has a learning curve but is occasionally
very useful as when developing very old film or film of unknown
characteristics.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, Ca.
dick...@ix.netcom.com
ArtKramr
>From: dick...@ix.netcom.com (Richard Knoppow)
>Secondly, extending development time much will tend to increase the
>fog level since, much beyond normal development, the fog will increase
>faster than image density.
The amount of fog accrued in 50 years of aging far exceeds the added fog
generated by a 20 minute development time by a very high exponent.
Tim Rudman
>development required for such a film, but I wouldn't have expected more
than
>half a grade or so intensification in selenium. Some of the other
>intensifiers could have given much more but I don't know if they will be as
>effective after full selenium intensification. Although it is not 'P.C.' I
>use mercury on occasions and it can be reversed too. Out of curiosity I
>wonder if you could lith print it? I have a very flat unprintable IR neg
>(due to inept processing by yours truly!) which can be lith printed well as
>the blacks progress separately. It might be worth a try.
>Tim
>
Francis A. Miniter wrote in message <371EA29D...@ibm.net>...