From: Wendy Gollihue (wgolli@flash.net)
Date: 02/05/02-07:08:50 AM Z
Could you do a snip test?
Wendy (TX)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Kurzawa" <frank@kurzawa.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 10:39 PM
Subject: Re: 15 year's old, unprocessed
> Thank you Mark, Graeme, and Richard:
>
> Luckily this film has been (I believe) stored fairly safely (cool,
> dry, dark, sealed) for the past 15 years so I'm fairly hopeful. Well,
> maybe not that hopeful about the ASA 3200 Tri-X. <grin>
>
> I may do a little bit more research to better nail down how much
> further to extend the processing time (if any), etc.
>
> Regards,
> Frank Kurzawa
>
> At 10:13 AM -0600 2/4/02, Mark Kronquist wrote:
> >I have processed film dating back to 1930 with generally good results. A
15
> >year old roll of TXP or PXP should not pose many challenges as long as
they
> >have been kept dark and at least at room temperature.
> >
> >Heat, light and humidity are the killers here.
> >
> >There may be some increase in base fog, loss of shadow detail etc. A
> >slightly extended developing time is not a bad idea.
> >
> >Good luck...
> >
> >I found a roll of 120 VP in a Kodak 50th Anniversary I picked up over the
> >weeked wish me luck on this oldie
> >
> >Mark
> >
> >> From: Graeme Lyall <graeme.lyall@ntlworld.com>
> >> Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >> Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 05:41:38 +0000
> >> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> >> Subject: Re: 15 year's old, unprocessed
> >>
> >> I think the longest period of time I have left film undeveloped was
just
> >> about 15 years, unintentionally I should add, and it did process quite
well.
> >> I added to the development time, giving it about 1.5x normal. This
was
> >> guesswork, but has worked pretty well on several occasions.
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Frank Kurzawa - Austin Texas <frank@kurzawa.com>
> >> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
<alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
> >> Date: 04 February 2002 14:12
> >> Subject: 15 year's old, unprocessed
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Forgive my off-topic (?) posting.
> >>
> >> I joined this list b/c from the name I thought that it might help me
with my
> >> problem, but now, after reading a few posts I see that perhaps this
isn't
> >> the place. But I was still hoping that someone could steer me to a
list or a
> > > resource that might would some answers to this problem:
> >>
> > > I have some b & w film that was shot about 15 years ago but was never
> >> processed. It's mostly Plus-X shot at 250 although there is some shot
Plus-X
> >> at other speeds. And there is a little Tri-X shot at speeds as high as
1600
> >> or 3200 as well as some TMAX shot at 400.
> >>
> >> All this film was refrigerated for the majority of that 15 years. But
not
> >> for all of it. :(
> >>
> >> My concern is that I understand that quite aside from normal film
chemical
> >> degradation, that an unprocessed latent image will begin to disappear
from
> >> the film as time passes. Is this true? What is the best approach to
salvage
> >> this film? Should it be processed differently than if it was freshly
shot?
> >> If so how? Who would know about this strange problem?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> > >
> >> --
> >> Frank Kurzawa --- __@
> >> 1710 Bartoncliff Dr. ---- _`\<;
> >> Austin, TX 78704 --- ( )%( )
> >> _
> >> frank@kurzawa.com / )
> >> (512)342-2623 ext.2258(w)/ /
> >> (512)443-1014(h) _( (_ _
___________________________________
> >> (((\ \\ / ) / \
> >> (\\\\ \_/ / | This guy here. He's riding a damn |
> > > \ / | bicycle. OK, it's not Rembrandt, |
> > > \ _/ | just use a little imagination. |
> > > / / \___ ______________________________/
> > > / / |/
> > > / / /
> > >
> >>
>
>
> --
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:21 AM Z CST