Expired Kodak Tri-x pan 4164 ISO?

[timnext]

Hi.

I have an open box of 4x5 Kodak Tri-x pan 4164.
Expiry date unknown. Likely 20 years old or more.
It came with my recent purchase of a Calumet 4x5 camera.
I would like to expose a couple of sheets.

Does anyone know the ISO rating of this film.
Surprised that it is not printed on the box.

 

[koraks]

400 or 320.
Opened boxes of sheet film several decades old usually forebode disappointing results, but can't hurt to try - it's free film after all.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How it was stored can influence its outcome. I believe it's ISO is 320. Only one way to find out and that's to shoot a sheet or two. One at 320, another at 160. You might need some benzo to suppress high base fog.

 

[timnext]

Thanks for the info. It would be disappointing if it is no go as there is approximately 75 sheets left.

Will be fun to try anyway.

 

[MattKing]

The 1996 version of the XTol datasheet for rotary processing lists various times for various EIs - search on 4164: http://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf
Looks like 320 is/was the recommended EI.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'm sure you'll get something. I went through two boxes of Kodak 4x5 HIE, expired in '67. It had high base + fog, but I was still able to pull of some lovely images with it, even without having to add any benzo to the developer.

 

[timnext]

I'm sure you'll get something. I went through two boxes of Kodak 4x5 HIE, expired in '67. It had high base + fog, but I was still able to pull of some lovely images with it, even without having to add any benzo to the developer.

Thanks. Will do.

 

[timnext]

How it was stored can influence its outcome. I believe it's ISO is 320. Only one way to find out and that's to shoot a sheet or two. One at 320, another at 160. You might need some benzo to suppress high base fog.

Thanks. Will research this benzo.

 

[retina_restoration]

Thanks. Will research this benzo.

Specifically, benzotriazole. It's used as a fog suppressant, but note that it also eats into film speed, which is already going to be an issue with your Tri-X.

In case you don't know already, the commonsense rule about aging of films (especially fast films: 400 ASA and faster) is that the film speed is cut in half for every decade out of date the film is. So, if it started as 320 ASA when new, if it's 20 years expired, that makes it about 80 ASA now. If you add benzotriazole to the developer to suppress fog, you may want to start at 50 ASA. If the film is 40 years out of date, your speed rating is going to be very low, like 25 ASA or even less. Test it and find out.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

If you do have considerable base + fog, mix up a 1% benzotriazole solution with distilled water. Start by adding about 5ml per litre of working developer solution, and go from there.

 

[Disconnekt]

I have a Kodak Professional B&W Films book from 1990, it shows that its Kodak Tri-X Pan Professional 320. Here's some photos of the datasheet (some dev times for Tmax RS, hc110, D76 (stock) microdol-x, dk-50 (1:1), characteristic curves, contrast index cur es)

 

[Bill Burk]

I would confidently expose as if the speed was 64. You might be able to get away with higher speed like 125 but I always find it easier to shoot above the fog than try to suppress it.

 

[F4U]

If one wanted to salvage 65 year old Kodabromide paper, at least as a down-and-dirty contact proof stock, which one would be more aggressive on the fog problem, benzotriazole or bromide? Thank you.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

The 1996 version of the XTol datasheet for rotary processing lists various times for various EIs - search on 4164: http://125px.com/docs/techpubs/kodak/j108-1996_09.pdf
Looks like 320 is/was the recommended EI.

I have some older bulk load Tri X.
I have yet to achieve good results with it even developing it as per the massive developer chart recommendations but using constant agitation.
To add to my confusion I am using a new batch of XTOL which I have not used for years.
I will give it one more try and if the results do not improve it's Xtol and Tri X to the bin.
Hello again HP5 and ID11.

 

[MattKing]

I have some older bulk load Tri X.
I have yet to achieve good results with it even developing it as per the massive developer chart recommendations but using constant agitation.
To add to my confusion I am using a new batch of XTOL which I have not used for years.
I will give it one more try and if the results do not improve it's Xtol and Tri X to the bin.
Hello again HP5 and ID11.

Your Tri-X is a very different film than 4164!

 

[Bill Burk]

If one wanted to salvage 65 year old Kodabromide paper, at least as a down-and-dirty contact proof stock, which one would be more aggressive on the fog problem, benzotriazole or bromide? Thank you.

Ah, for printing you 'need' a restrainer if the paper grays in development. I tend to use potassium bromide for it, think of it like feeding goldfish, a couple pinches in a tray usually does the trick.

For film, if it is 'new exposure' as I would shoot above the fog when I know the film is going to fog. That's where 64 for old Tri-X comes in. It doesn't matter if the film fogs because you can print through it.

For found film with 'vintage exposure' that you know was shot normally but a long time ago, it's a race against time. Cold strong developer, and if you can, develop by inspection.

I also throw in some benzotriazole from time to time.

 

[timnext]

Specifically, benzotriazole. It's used as a fog suppressant, but note that it also eats into film speed, which is already going to be an issue with your Tri-X.

In case you don't know already, the commonsense rule about aging of films (especially fast films: 400 ASA and faster) is that the film speed is cut in half for every decade out of date the film is. So, if it started as 320 ASA when new, if it's 20 years expired, that makes it about 80 ASA now. If you add benzotriazole to the developer to suppress fog, you may want to start at 50 ASA. If the film is 40 years out of date, your speed rating is going to be very low, like 25 ASA or even less. Test it and find out.

Good info. Will start tests for fog and ISO speed. Thanks again.

 

[timnext]

I have a Kodak Professional B&W Films book from 1990, it shows that its Kodak Tri-X Pan Professional 320. Here's some photos of the datasheet (some dev times for Tmax RS, hc110, D76 (stock) microdol-x, dk-50 (1:1), characteristic curves, contrast index cur es)

Thanks for the book info.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Jeez, I used tons of this stuff. ISO 320 but rated at E.I. 250. Since it's old, test at 160. The enemy is age fog. If you have a fairly clear base, you can get the image up out of the fog by exposing more (rating slower) and then just printing through the base density. This old TX had a very long toe, so overexposing will give you better shadow separation anyway. You should be able to rate all the way to 80, maybe even 64 without blocking up highlights.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Don_ih]

You can test using one sheet. Determine your exposure for iso80. With a single sheet in the holder, pull it out 1/3 of the way (figure out how far these distances are beforehand). Click the shutter. Pull out another 1/3 of the way and click again. Pull out the rest of the way, click again. The last strip will be iso80, the middle strip iso160, the first strip (top of image) - not really iso240? Anyway, you'll get an idea where to head.

Also, you say some of the film is used. The film from the unsealed pack will possibly be much worse than the film in the three remaining sealed packs.

Phenidone-based developers with benzo are a bit more effective than metol based with potassium bromade dealing with fog - but benzo slows developing drastically. For your first test, develop normally for that film. Look up an old data sheet if you can. I have Tmax 400 in a box like that and the developing times are different than they are now (longer). Check under the film packs in the box for a data sheet.

 

[chuckroast]

Hi.

I have an open box of 4x5 Kodak Tri-x pan 4164.
Expiry date unknown. Likely 20 years old or more.
It came with my recent purchase of a Calumet 4x5 camera.
I would like to expose a couple of sheets.

Does anyone know the ISO rating of this film.
Surprised that it is not printed on the box.

View attachment 394149 View attachment 394150

That film is rated ISO 320.

I have had very good results with nearly 30 old Tri-X shooting it at that speed using semi-stand or Extreme Minimal Agitation processing in Pyrocat-HD 1.5:1:250.

Depending on how the film has been stored, you may- or may not see some fogging, but I've never seen any that was material to the image being properly printed.

These days, I've switched to Pyrocat-HDC but I'd expect the results to be pretty much the same.

 

[timnext]

You can test using one sheet. Determine your exposure for iso80. With a single sheet in the holder, pull it out 1/3 of the way (figure out how far these distances are beforehand). Click the shutter. Pull out another 1/3 of the way and click again. Pull out the rest of the way, click again. The last strip will be iso80, the middle strip iso160, the first strip (top of image) - not really iso240? Anyway, you'll get an idea where to head.

Also, you say some of the film is used. The film from the unsealed pack will possibly be much worse than the film in the three remaining sealed packs.

Phenidone-based developers with benzo are a bit more effective than metol based with potassium bromade dealing with fog - but benzo slows developing drastically. For your first test, develop normally for that film. Look up an old data sheet if you can. I have Tmax 400 in a box like that and the developing times are different than they are now (longer). Check under the film packs in the box for a data sheet.

Thanks. I never heard of a camera film test strip. Will check the bottom of the box for a data sheet. Initially I should have mentioned I was a beginner as many of these chemicals mentioned are new to me. No problem though, will do some research.

 

[Don_ih]

Well, 4x5 is a great way to begin.