So my friend gives me this box. (no, not spam).

Uzytkownik "Some Dude" napisal w wiadomosci

What I meant by "how to develop the film" wasn't to say I am going
to
ship it out. Afterall, this is a darkroom newsgroup I am
curious
as to what *chemicals* and times to use to develop such a film.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Look for Kodak Tri-X and then for the _original_ version_
AFAIK, the emulsion of the film did not change much since the 1950's
until 2003 when Kodak decided to improve it (slightly).
So the chemicals listed there should work. Personally, I swear by D23
for Tri-X, other people opt for D76/ID-11
When you develop it, please share the results !

Regards,
Magdalena

Uzytkownik "Some Dude" napisal w wiadomosci

What I meant by "how to develop the film" wasn't to say I am going
to
ship it out. Afterall, this is a darkroom newsgroup I am
curious
as to what *chemicals* and times to use to develop such a film.
http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html

Look for Kodak Tri-X and then for the _original_ version_
AFAIK, the emulsion of the film did not change much since the 1950's
until 2003 when Kodak decided to improve it (slightly).
So the chemicals listed there should work. Personally, I swear by D23
for Tri-X, other people opt for D76/ID-11
When you develop it, please share the results !

Regards,
Magdalena

"Laura Halliday" wrote in message
om...
Some Dude wrote in message
. ..

Rocky Mountain Film Works. Developing old film is
their business.

That shouldn't be necessary ... this is a pretty common black and white
film. It will have more fog than usual, but adding restrainers inhibits
shadow detail, so it's better just to live with it. The negatives will
probably be too thin to be easily printable, but why not develop the film
and find out?

Jim

"Laura Halliday" wrote in message
om...
Some Dude wrote in message
. ..

Rocky Mountain Film Works. Developing old film is
their business.

That shouldn't be necessary ... this is a pretty common black and white
film. It will have more fog than usual, but adding restrainers inhibits
shadow detail, so it's better just to live with it. The negatives will
probably be too thin to be easily printable, but why not develop the film
and find out?

Jim

Some Dude wrote:
Hi Laura,

Thanks for doing research for me.

What I meant by "how to develop the film" wasn't to say I am going to
ship it out. Afterall, this is a darkroom newsgroup I am curious
as to what *chemicals* and times to use to develop such a film.


I've got the data sheet in the booklet "Kodak Films" from 1956.
Kodak's recommendation for Tri-X film was 11 minutes in D-76
at 68F (small tank 30 sec. agitation).

Kodak's time and temperature charts tended to give pretty
contrasty negatives. I think 20%-30% less would be a good idea,
since extending development will only get you more fog.
Be careful with the temperature of your solutions and wash
water, the old films were less robust and it is relatively
easy to get reticulation compared to modern films.

Peter.
--

Some Dude wrote:
Hi Laura,

Thanks for doing research for me.

What I meant by "how to develop the film" wasn't to say I am going to
ship it out. Afterall, this is a darkroom newsgroup I am curious
as to what *chemicals* and times to use to develop such a film.


I've got the data sheet in the booklet "Kodak Films" from 1956.
Kodak's recommendation for Tri-X film was 11 minutes in D-76
at 68F (small tank 30 sec. agitation).

Kodak's time and temperature charts tended to give pretty
contrasty negatives. I think 20%-30% less would be a good idea,
since extending development will only get you more fog.
Be careful with the temperature of your solutions and wash
water, the old films were less robust and it is relatively
easy to get reticulation compared to modern films.

Peter.
--

Agreed. I never planned to ship it out. If I had I'd never have
posted that question on r.p.d But anyway, yes, thank you all for
your information. I especially inclined to use D76 for its historic
properties and will most likely do it that route. The times and temps
I'll have to guess on a little because I'm also assuming over 50 years
the film has probably been through some chemical changes which may
require some adjusting from the "default" published values.

I will most certainly post a URL to the developed photos (all 20 of
them, hopefully!).

Thanks again folks,
sd


That shouldn't be necessary ... this is a pretty common black and white
film. It will have more fog than usual, but adding restrainers inhibits
shadow detail, so it's better just to live with it. The negatives will
probably be too thin to be easily printable, but why not develop the film
and find out?

Jim


Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Agreed. I never planned to ship it out. If I had I'd never have
posted that question on r.p.d But anyway, yes, thank you all for
your information. I especially inclined to use D76 for its historic
properties and will most likely do it that route. The times and temps
I'll have to guess on a little because I'm also assuming over 50 years
the film has probably been through some chemical changes which may
require some adjusting from the "default" published values.

I will most certainly post a URL to the developed photos (all 20 of
them, hopefully!).

Thanks again folks,
sd


That shouldn't be necessary ... this is a pretty common black and white
film. It will have more fog than usual, but adding restrainers inhibits
shadow detail, so it's better just to live with it. The negatives will
probably be too thin to be easily printable, but why not develop the film
and find out?

Jim


Cheers,
-sd
http://www.zoom.sh

Some Dude wrote in message . ..
Hi Laura,

Thanks for doing research for me.

What I meant by "how to develop the film" wasn't to say I am going to
ship it out. Afterall, this is a darkroom newsgroup I am curious
as to what *chemicals* and times to use to develop such a film.

You asked for the "safest, most conservative" option.

A quick look through the available literature and
newsgroups (including this one) will tell you the
issues you are likely to face: loss of contrast,
base fog.

If I was doing it I would cut a couple of frame's
worth off the end of the roll, make a best guess
for development (i.e. Kodak's original specs) and
see what, if anything, I got before processing the
rest of the roll.

Laura Halliday VE7LDH "Que les nuages soient notre
Grid: CN89mg pied a terre..."
ICBM: 49 16.05 N 122 56.92 W - Hospital/Shafte

Some Dude wrote:

Hi Laura,

Thanks for doing research for me.

What I meant by "how to develop the film" wasn't to say I am going to
ship it out. Afterall, this is a darkroom newsgroup I am curious
as to what *chemicals* and times to use to develop such a film.

Based on my experience with found film, I'm going to suggest HC-110
because of its good antifoggant and otherwise generic nature. If it
were mine, I'd use Dilution H (half of Dilution B, 1:63 from USA syrup
or 1:15 from stock solution) for the equivalent of ten minutes at 68 F
-- though I find most folks seem to develop longer than I do (which is
probably an artifact of how I start and stop my timer); in any case, I'd
go for about twice the normal Dilution B time for current Tri-X, which I
recall as being around 5 minutes. Doubling that time in half the
developer strength will give a slight push, and ought to compensate for
latent image deterioration in a minimum of about 30 years (since Kodak
quit selling that film in metal cans) and more likely up to about 50
years ("Super Speed Safety Film" puts it before Royal-X, which was IIRC
introduced in the early 1960s). Tri-X is known for getting foggy over
time, and you'll probably just have to print through some fog; the push
will help compensate for the loss of contrast due to the age fog (that
HC-110 can't completely suppress).

Concentration shouldn't be a problem, but when diluting HC-110, make
sure each 135-36 film equivalent gets at least 3 ml of concentrate. For
your 20 exposure roll in a 35 mm stainless tank, you could use Dilution
G if you choose and not come up short; that dilution would require
around 20 minutes at 68 F. BTW, the more you dilute HC-110, the more
grain you're get, but also the more acutance.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.