View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 2:06 pm Post subject: 15-year-old B&W chemicals... still usable? |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
I'm going to be picking up an auction lot tomorrow afternoon, and the seller mentioned that she had a batch of B&W development chemicals if I wanted them. The catch, however, is that she hasn't developed any film or paper for about 15 years.
Apparently some of the bottles had been opened, but some are still sealed.
I've done some searching, and it seems as though the chemicals go bad more quickly when they are opened (exposed to air), when they are mixed/diluted, and of course when they are used... but I can't find any real accounts for what the "ultimate" shelf life is for chemicals that are still sealed & unused...
Also, do the different chemicals (developer / stop bath / fixer / hypo clear / wetting agent) have different shelf lives? Are there any in particular that would be more or less likely to be usable? _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marty
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 767 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 4:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marty wrote:
Hello. I'd say it's largely depending on the kind of chemical and it's form.
Powders tend to last way longer then liquids. A notable exception is rodinal, which keeps to go even when totally brown (someone say it gets stronger with age, though I've not verified this myself). Among liquids the developers are the ones to go first, if they're dark and or muddy they're probably gone. Stop baths seems to have no problems. Fixers I've used them from opened bottles even in a period of two years (I get them in 5 lt tanks). Powders are usually ok if they're still white and with no coagulation. (In sealed packs I expect them to be good in long periods, 10 years or more even maybe).
Cheers, M. _________________ Canon FD
Bodies: AT-1, A-1, T-90
Lenses: nFD 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, FD 50 f1.8 S.C., 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Thanks Marty. I'll definitely look for any powders, and check them out. I think most of them willl be liquids though, from the sound of it. Otherwise, I'll try to open the bottles and check the color. Is there anything else to look for?
Also, when the chemicals "go bad", do they just weaken, or do they fully stop working? Would I get any image at all?
Thanks. _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mo
Joined: 27 Aug 2009 Posts: 8979 Location: Australia
Expire: 2016-07-30
|
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mo wrote:
Only one way to find out ...try them and then you can let us know... Sounds like you got a great deal. _________________ Moira, Moderator
Fuji XE-1,Pentax K-01,Panasonic G1,Panasonic G5,Pentax MX
Ricoh Singlex TLS,KR-5,KR-5Super,XR-10
Lenses
Auto Rikenon's 55/1.4, 1.8, 2.8... 50/1.7 Takumar 2/58 Preset Takumar 2.8/105 Auto Takumar 2.2/55, 3.5/35 Super Takumar 1.8/55...Macro Takumar F4/50... CZJ Biotar ALU M42 2/58 CZJ Tessar ALU M42 2.8/50
CZJ DDR Flektogon Zebra M42 2.8/35 CZJ Pancolar M42 2/50 CZJ Pancolar Exakta 2/50
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 1.8/55 ...Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 2.8/50 Auto Mamiya/Sekor 200/3.5 Tamron SP500/8 Tamron SP350/5.6 Tamron SP90/2.5
Primoplan 1.9/58 Primagon 4.5/35 Telemegor 5.5/150 Angenieux 3.5/28 Angenieux 3,5/135 Y 2
Canon FL 58/1.2,Canon FL85/1.8,Canon FL 100/3.5,Canon SSC 2.8/100 ,Konica AR 100/2.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Farside
Joined: 01 Sep 2007 Posts: 6557 Location: Ireland
Expire: 2013-12-27
|
Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
Farside wrote:
All you can do is make up some test dilutions and try them out on some test strips of neg. I'd be surprised if all the chemicals are dud. _________________ Dave - Moderator
Camera Fiend and Biograph Operator
If I wanted soot and whitewash I'd be a chimney sweep and house painter.
The Lenses of Farside (click)
BUY FRESH FOMAPAN TO HELP KEEP THE FACTORY ALIVE ---
Foma Campaign topic -
http://forum.mflenses.com/foma-campaign-t55443.html
FOMAPAN on forum -
http://www.mflenses.com/fs.php?sw=Fomapan
Webshop Norway
http://www.fomafoto.com/
Webshop Czech
https://fomaobchod.cz/inshop/scripts/shop.aspx?action=DoChangeLanguage&LangID=4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
motorfingers
Joined: 09 Jan 2011 Posts: 3 Location: USA
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 7:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
motorfingers wrote:
My experience is that things depend on what's what and how it's stored.
Developers in liquid form tend to oxidize with time. If their color is wrong, they may be worthless, particularly if it's very dark. Regardless of color, I would shoot a test roll and cut it up into test frames in the darkroom and use it to test multiple developers. Use fresh stop and fixer to test developers.
Powdered developers go bad too if they are not perfectly sealed. If the powder is caked hard, it's not a good sign, although condensation inside a sealed container can do that.
In summary, I would test any developer before I used it on critical film.
Some fixers can go bad too on exposure to oxygen, particularly liquid. Powdered fixer must, like developers, be perfectly sealed or it will oxydize. Quick fixers are usually ammonia based and the ammonia can easily evaporate over time if the container is not well sealed.
In summary, I would test any fixer before I used it on critical film. If you can take film or paper that you have fixed with the old stuff and re-fix it with fresh fixer, then test the fresh fixer for silver, that's the best test.
Stop bath is easy. Just go by the vinegar smell. If that is gone, it's bad. But, acetic-acid-based stop baths keep very well, if sealed.
Rinses and wetting agents usually keep very well.
Color developers do not keep well, particularly when in liquid form.
Sometimes an old developer that has been found to fog film a bit can be controlled by adding potassium bromide and/or iodide. Tired developer can sometimes be used by mixing it stronger and/or using longer development times. You are in uncharted territory, though.
Sometimes you have better luck with old chemicals by decanting off the top inch (2.5 cm) or so of the bottle. Powders may work better if you spoon off the top mm or so, removing the crust that is a different color than the powder underneath.
I would not trust old color chemistry of any step in the process of C-22/41, E-2/3/4/6, or paper processing, particularly film developer. The color processes are just too intolerant of differences in the development process for good results. _________________ -motorfingers- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sevo
Joined: 22 Aug 2008 Posts: 1189 Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Expire: 2012-12-03
|
Posted: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sevo wrote:
It very much depends on what substance in what packaging. Stuff not subject to internal reactions will essentially last as long as the packaging can protect it against the access of humidity and air.
Kodak powder-in-a-can chemistry is pretty much for eternity - they stopped packing in cans some time in the nineties and everything I still have or ever bought as new old stock was perfect, like new. _________________ Sevo |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
motorfingers wrote: |
My experience is that things depend on what's what and how it's stored.
Developers in liquid form tend to oxidize with time. If their color is wrong, they may be worthless, particularly if it's very dark. Regardless of color, I would shoot a test roll and cut it up into test frames in the darkroom and use it to test multiple developers. Use fresh stop and fixer to test developers.
Powdered developers go bad too if they are not perfectly sealed. If the powder is caked hard, it's not a good sign, although condensation inside a sealed container can do that.
In summary, I would test any developer before I used it on critical film.
Some fixers can go bad too on exposure to oxygen, particularly liquid. Powdered fixer must, like developers, be perfectly sealed or it will oxydize. Quick fixers are usually ammonia based and the ammonia can easily evaporate over time if the container is not well sealed.
In summary, I would test any fixer before I used it on critical film. If you can take film or paper that you have fixed with the old stuff and re-fix it with fresh fixer, then test the fresh fixer for silver, that's the best test.
Stop bath is easy. Just go by the vinegar smell. If that is gone, it's bad. But, acetic-acid-based stop baths keep very well, if sealed.
Rinses and wetting agents usually keep very well.
Color developers do not keep well, particularly when in liquid form.
Sometimes an old developer that has been found to fog film a bit can be controlled by adding potassium bromide and/or iodide. Tired developer can sometimes be used by mixing it stronger and/or using longer development times. You are in uncharted territory, though.
Sometimes you have better luck with old chemicals by decanting off the top inch (2.5 cm) or so of the bottle. Powders may work better if you spoon off the top mm or so, removing the crust that is a different color than the powder underneath.
I would not trust old color chemistry of any step in the process of C-22/41, E-2/3/4/6, or paper processing, particularly film developer. The color processes are just too intolerant of differences in the development process for good results. |
Welcome motofingers! Nice to see you here! _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
motorfingers
Joined: 09 Jan 2011 Posts: 3 Location: USA
|
Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
motorfingers wrote:
Attila - thanks for the welcome. The people over at the POTN Canon forum recommended this forum. I have a large system of Canon manual focus gear and have lost enthusiasm about selling it on eBay and didn't see any classic gear for sale there, and they recommended your Marketplace. I think I'll hand around and get to know the people before I post anything, though. I always did my own film and print processing, mostly color, so I'm very much at home here.
I have been burned by old chemicals a time or two, hence my recommendation to be tentative about developers and fixers, particularly color. It was good to see Sevo's post about Kodak chemicals in original packaging. _________________ -motorfingers- |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Thanks for the help everyone!
I gave the developer a try tonight... and it worked! Well, sort of... I wasn't really expecting much, so I decided to do a quick test just to see if the developer was OK. The dilution on the bottle is anywhere from 1:9 to 1:14, so I decided to just wing it and skip the measuring.
The stuff that came out of the bottle was dark dark brown, and a bit gritty/chunky as well - sort of like what you get at the bottom of a pot of coffee. I mixed in some warm water, but found that they didn't really want to mix well - the developer stayed separate until I gave it a good stir. Once it was mixed, it was still a dark brown color, and had some sediment at the bottom of the tray.
For paper, I pulled out a few sheets of mystery paper from a pack I bought at a thrift store. The black bags had been opened, and the lid to the box wasn't closed, so I really wasn't expecting any of this paper to be any good. So this was really two tests in one. I laid a pair of scissors, a coin, and a paperclip on top of the paper, and made shadow exposures using lights from above.
For the first print, I used a small LED torch (flashlight), and probably gave it about 10 seconds of exposure. I placed the print into the tray, and after a short while it became a bit cloudy, with a bit of an image forming, but it never really made it very far. The image is faint, and the background is uneven... it almost has a "dirty" look to it?
For the second print, I gave the paper a good 40+ seconds of exposure, and poured more developer into the tray. This one gave a much better print, but it still only developed to a medium grey, nowhere near black. Come to think of it, it almost looks like it has a purple tint? The developing was much more even as well.
For the third print, I gave the paper ~40 seconds of exposure again, but this time from an overhead incandescent light (the garage light), and again poured in more developer to raise the concentration. I suspect that the final concentration was somewhere around 1:4? The print from this one is a bit worse... with similar symptoms to the first print (an uneven "dirty" look).
To be honest, given that the chemicals were old and the paper was unknown, I wasn't expecting any usable results. I didn't even bother getting a tray of fixer ready, so the prints have just been developed and washed... anyone have any guesses as to how long they will last? _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marty
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 767 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marty wrote:
The developer is probably gone as you've guessed. If you're serious about printing I would try the paper with fresh developer you might get usable images. 40" (and no neg) under incandescent light should make the processed paper solid black. Unfixed prints (exposed to light) should start to stain in few time and consequently discolor to a light brownish.
Cheers, M. _________________ Canon FD
Bodies: AT-1, A-1, T-90
Lenses: nFD 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, FD 50 f1.8 S.C., 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Scheimpflug
Joined: 06 Feb 2010 Posts: 1888 Location: New Zealand / USA
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Scheimpflug wrote:
Thanks Marty.
I'm not too serious at this point - mostly just using these old supplies as a cheap way to get back into things, as it has been ~ 10 years since the last time I've been in a darkroom. So basically, any result is a good result, and I'm keen to learn as much as I can from what I have.
I checked on my print this morning, and it looked just the same as last night. I then brought it outside, and it only took about 5-10 seconds before a visible change was apparent. After about 40 seconds in the sun, the white spots were almost the same shade as the rest of the image- and only an outline was visible.
Do you have any thoughts on why my print would be purple tinted? The areas which should be black are *almost* grey, but sort of a dingy grey with a hint of purple. The portions which were previously white, but now darkened from the sun, are a distinct lavender color - definitely not a grey.
Also, is it possible that the developer would not work as well if the concentration was too high? (ie: does the dilution affect anything other than the developing time?) _________________ Sigma DP1, Nikon D40 (hers ), Polaroid x530, Pentax P30t, Pentax P50, (P30t/P50 K-A to Nikon F body mount conversion)
Nikon: 18-55/3.5-5.6 "G ED II DX" (F) Soligor: 28/2.8 (FL->F converted), 135/3.5 (F), 3x TC (F, modified) Kalimar: 28-85/3.5 (F)
Vivitar: 70-210/2.8-4.0 Version 3 (F), Tele 500/6.3 Preset (F), 19/3.8 (F) Minolta: 300/5.6 (SR/MC/MD pending F conversion)
Tamron: 28/2.8 (Adaptall) Panagor: 28/2.5 (FD) Aetna: 300/5.6 (F) Osawa: MC 28/2.8 (F)
Vintage Lenses: Dallmeyer: 1940s A.M. 14in 356mm f4 (ULF->M42) 1930s Adon Telephoto Taylor, Taylor & Hobson: 1880s Rapid Rectilinear 8 1/2 x 6 1/2 11.31in f/8 (LF->?)
Parts Lenses: Nikon 35-135/3.5-4.5 (F), Sigma 70-210/4.5 (F), Nikon 50/1.8 Series E (F) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marty
Joined: 09 Apr 2009 Posts: 767 Location: Italy
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marty wrote:
The tinting is due to being unfixed and exposed to light. I'm not sure about why purple/lavender, my guess is it's depending on emulsion composition. About the concentration too high I don't think that would be the problem I would expect the opposite, that is a too weak solution not working. A higher concentration, other than developing time, should or might alter the contrast making it higher.
Cheers, M. _________________ Canon FD
Bodies: AT-1, A-1, T-90
Lenses: nFD 20mm f2.8, 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, 35 f2, FD 50 f1.8 S.C., 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8, 135 f2.8, 200 f4, 300 f4
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
|