Author Topic: Developing very old Agfa roll (Read 7907 times)

johan_lindgren · « **on:** August 14, 2015, 01:28:13 PM »

I searched around and was a little surprised not to find pretty much anything on "agfapan", so here goes..

About six months ago me and a few friends shared a very old stash of film, now after a while, I have shot two of these "Agfa Agfapan 100" which was expired in the early eighties. My initial thought from the beginning was to go for Rodinal (compard r09) 1+100 for a couple of hours (semi-stand) but since I noticed that some here shoot very strange/old film I might aswell ask if anyone have experience or tricks with developing this?

Any particular developers which fits old film better?? The other day a friend of mine was advised against developing some strange old roll in rodinal which adds to this question.

Before me, I have been told that it was stored in a basement, so I think it might give me some pictures

Terry · « **Reply #1 on:** August 14, 2015, 02:59:03 PM »

Johan,
I haven't encountered Agfapan. But yours is only 30 years out of date! I recently shot some Tri-X from 1972, and all I did was divide the ISO in half and process normally in Rodinal (Compard R09 actually). I would imagine that stand or semi-stand processing in Rodinal would get you some decent images, especially since the film has been stored in sealed foil bags in a cool place. I believe that black and white emulsions last far longer than color, and since the time-related degradation is affected by the date of exposure you should be on pretty safe ground.

Here's a frame from a roll I found in a camera from the 60s. Most of the roll was water-damaged but the last frame had the ghost of an image. I stand-developed in R09 and I think it did pretty well, considering the condition of the film.

img882 par Terry B, on ipernity

And here's one from an old camera that was shot on Isopan (was this related to Agfapan?) from the late 1950s. This roll I souped in HC-110 dil. H and I quite like the results.

img638f par Terry B, on ipernity

Bryan · « **Reply #2 on:** August 14, 2015, 03:54:17 PM »

I always do Semi-Stand in Rodinal 1-100 for old films like that.

Indofunk · « **Reply #3 on:** August 14, 2015, 04:02:17 PM »

Here are a couple of Plus-X 100 expired in 1961. I believe I exposed it at box speed and tried to "super stand" it in Rodinal at 1:83 for 1hr 50min. They turned out quite overdeveloped and there was quite a bit of bromide drag off of the sprocket holes, so I'm sure 1:100/1hr would have been completely sufficient.

Old film, old scene by Satish Indofunk, on Flickr

Chinatown garage by Satish Indofunk, on Flickr

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #4 on:** August 14, 2015, 05:54:43 PM »

Seems I was on the right track then!

Anyone tried D76? I also asked a friend which had developed one of the rolls he got from the same stash and he went for continuous agitation in D76 and with a push of two steps. I don't know much of which timings he had found though.

Peter84 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 15, 2015, 10:19:48 PM »

I love very expired film!

What I've read/heard is that rodinal is an old recipe thats's been around for quite a while and thus will work better with old film.
Btw Satish if my memory is correct I developed the '61 plus-x in Xtol stock and added a minute developing time for every decade it is expired.
So normally that would be 5,25 min. (mass dev chart) and roughly added 5 minutes, since it's a little over 5 decades expired, making about 10 minutes developing. Though it was heavy on the grain.....

(1st Photo)
So using 'old style' developers seems the smart thing to do for old film, also keeping in mind 'Satish's-rodinal-1:100-will-develope-anything

, since you might not want to take the risk losing a film. Oh and newer Agfa apx films love Rodinal, but not so sure if that is any help
I'm still looking for an excuse to give this (2nd photo) ago, but both my bulk loaders are still full of recordak dacomatic (exp. 1976) and double-x so...

Photo_Utopia · « **Reply #6 on:** August 16, 2015, 01:21:25 PM »

Agfapan was my go to film in the 1980's I used quite a bit of the 25 speed stuff and some 100. They develop well in Rodinal unsurprisingly as that was the recommended combo on the sheet in the box.
They might have some fogging or roll backing print through, I'd develop them in either Rodinal or HC110.

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #7 on:** August 16, 2015, 10:15:12 PM »

Great to read about your experiences!! I finally developed this, in compard r09 I had at home - but I was unsure if semi-stand 1+100 would give me what I wanted, I read that 1+50 should be good too, and so I did.

The closest I could find was the ORWO NP20 (iso 80) and for development I gave it a push to iso 400, chemistry at 20C, one minute initial agitation and then for 10 seconds each minute for a total of 35 minutes.

I always rinse a lot before developing and so I did now.

When the developing time had finished and I should pour out the old developer, I found some bubbles at the top and I feared that some old cleaner was left and that the roll was blank... which is why I was very surprised to see this result afterwards!

Terry · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2015, 01:48:20 AM »

Success!!! (What format is that?)

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2015, 08:33:44 AM »

It is 6x12, from a Holga WPC120 (pinhole camera)

moominsean · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2015, 01:00:00 PM »

I always had good results from Diafine with really old film. And the times don't really change since it's Diafine.

Ansco 1963

Ilford 1957

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2015, 02:23:48 PM »

Quote from: moominsean on August 17, 2015, 01:00:00 PM

I always had good results from Diafine with really old film. And the times don't really change since it's Diafine.

Ansco 1963

Ilford 1957

I suppose those images were exposed a few decades ago too right?

Here is the result of yesterdays experiment, I think it went well

Agfapan 04 by Johan, on Flickr

Terry · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2015, 02:28:51 PM »

Excellent results. I want to see that photo of a church!

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2015, 03:48:42 PM »

Quote from: Terry on August 17, 2015, 02:28:51 PM

Excellent results. I want to see that photo of a church!

This is the one

Agfapan 05 by Johan, on Flickr

Terry · « **Reply #14 on:** August 18, 2015, 01:06:55 AM »

That really turned out well, Johan. Very slight loss of latitude (perhaps) but clean and very good detail. How many rolls did you get?

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #15 on:** August 18, 2015, 01:33:27 AM »

Quote from: Terry on August 18, 2015, 01:06:55 AM

That really turned out well, Johan. Very slight loss of latitude (perhaps) but clean and very good detail. How many rolls did you get?

Yes I am perfectly satisfied! I think I got about 5 or 6 rolls of this particular film, 30-40 films all in all! I know there were a bunch of all kinds of films, like tri-x, orwo, adox, and some color films too.

This is a bag of it all when I got it

moominsean · « **Reply #16 on:** August 18, 2015, 01:55:05 AM »

[/quote]
I suppose those images were exposed a few decades ago too right?

[/quote]

I guess almost 10 years ago now! but shot by me...

Terry · « **Reply #17 on:** August 18, 2015, 01:46:03 PM »

Quite a grab-bag Johan. That'll be fun!

I took a closer look at the neg of the church shot and the scanned positive image, too. It seems to me that any lost detail in the dark part of the neg (the blown-out brightly lit wall in the positive) is more likely attributed to the scanner than the film. I don't think there's anything missing at all!

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #18 on:** August 18, 2015, 09:17:04 PM »

Quote from: Terry on August 18, 2015, 01:46:03 PM

Quite a grab-bag Johan. That'll be fun!

I took a closer look at the neg of the church shot and the scanned positive image, too. It seems to me that any lost detail in the dark part of the neg (the blown-out brightly lit wall in the positive) is more likely attributed to the scanner than the film. I don't think there's anything missing at all!

I use vuescan and scan pretty basic in black&white, to a 16bit tif file. But I have heard that the color inversion in vuescan is not all that good, perhaps thats the problem? I have yet to find a reliable workflow for color images, but when I scan color negs, I make sure that vuescan does not invert the colors.

Terry · « **Reply #19 on:** August 19, 2015, 01:43:45 AM »

I didn't mean to criticise your scan--just to say that I think your neg turned out very well indeed. Seems like you got the development exactly right!

johan_lindgren · « **Reply #20 on:** August 19, 2015, 06:10:24 AM »

Yeah, will hope the next roll will turn out just as good then