How to deal with varying amounts of age-fog in B&W films (and papers)

I received a query from a subscriber concerning how to process age-fogged films. One need not have to deal with printing through this morass of density, Instead, David Lyga (in his never-ending 'experimentation voyage') has truly saved the day. My methods are decidedly unorthodox, but they do work. You are going to have to learn differently if you want to follow this, as my methods avoid wastage, and my sense of political correctness as to what 'must' be done, is decidedly radical. Read, heed, and you will no further need. - David Lyga


OK, try this, as my method is confusing (even to me) and does change when it seems to get better by changing. For some damn reason the combination of both sodium bicarbonate (henceforth, SB) and Benzotriazole (henceforth, BZ) is synergistic. It really works. To this I now add some serious hydroquinone (Henceforth, HQ) because the one thing that you want with age-fogged materials is contrast.

First, make two solutions and keep them separate. ONLY the HQ solution needs to be kept airtight. Do this (and when I state milliliters (mL) use that, and when I state grams (g) use that. To mix solutions, I use a PET plastic capped bottle and shake vigorously, even for developers. Always.

First, the restrainer solution (henceforth, RS). Take 3.5 g BZ and 30 mL of SB (baking soda). Mix those thoroughly in almost 1000 mL of water, until it becomes a full liter of solution. That is your RS and it does not have to be kept airtight.

Second, make a HQ solution: take 40 mL sodium sulfite, anhy plus 20 mL HQ plus 20 mL sodium carbonate, mono (washing soda) and mix thoroughly in almost 1000 mL of water to make a full liter of solution. This is your HQ solution which MUST be kept completely AIRTIGHT.

Now, what I do is use diluted Dektol as my primary film developer, diluted 1 + 4 (henceforth, 'dev'). So, if you wish to experiment, use clip tests (because you are a damn fool if you use full rolls). Expose about a foot (eight frames) of 35mm film at, say, EI 100 for 1990 Tri-X (of course I do not know how it was stored). Now, I use plastic film cans to process only about one single frame in 10 mL of working solution, so follow me: ALL in mL here: (NOTE: Please understand that even if the film cans are black, the newer ones are not fully light-tight, so I recommend that you do not 'add to the fog' by using them in room light. Process in total darkness. Have the stop and fix ready to reach in the dark. Waste not. All below add up to 10 mL for processing about one frame. Prorate for larger quantities.

This is for moderately fogged film. Here is the formula: 2 dev plus 1 HQ plus 0.5 RS plus 6.5 water

For HEAVILY fogged film, use this: 3 dev plus 3 HQ plus 2 RS plus 2 water. (The extra HQ and RS work to add contrast.)

Other combinations are as follows: (dev / HQ / RS / Water): no fog Tri-X = 3 + 0 + 0 + 7 // light fog: 2.5 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 6.75 // 'impossible fog', especially very bad TMAX 400: 3 + 4 + 3 + 0. This will cure anything but requires about EI 25 or thereabouts.

I work with 80 Fahr temp and the timing is from 6 to 8 minutes. Since 10 mL fills the canister only about halfway, I seal the canister and roll it continuously on its side, back and forth under water, for the full development time in a tempered water bath. (Make sure to press the film against the inner side of the canister so it will be well drenched.) I find the 80 Fahr about ambient, so you probably will not have to do anything to raise or lower the temp, but beware, your hands will tend to increase the temp. A degree or two either way is no disaster.

This is how I work, without wastage, to determine exposure and timing for fogged films. - David Lyga

Bookmarked for future reference. The idea of using film can for developing a single frame with minimal developer solution is both cute and very useful.

Good work, can you show some examples of how it works. For example, how much will it reduce the base fog.

One error crept into my formula: I have already edited the original, so heed this:

FIRST: I had said that my 'dev' was Dekol 1+9. It is, instead, 1+4. Thus, if you take a one liter package of Dektol and mix it to make five liters, you will have five liters of my 'dev'. Of course, that 'dev' gets further diluted with what you add to it (ie, HQ, RS, WATER).

SECOND: the HQ MUST be kept AIRTIGHT. I should not have to state this but I want my explanations also to be 'airtight'.

I have, also, formulae for age-fogged paper as well, using the same general type of formula: Here it is but remember strongly that for both film and paper, my stuff is strictly 'one shot': And don't rile me with "you can't store diluted Dektol" because I will start getting angry, as I have zero time for 'protocol bullshit'. You CAN store it FOREVER in PET PLASTIC bottles, capped tightly, filled to the brim. NO FURTHER QUERIES about this 'mistaken' possibility, please.

The ratios are as follows, heeding to an 80 Fahr temp and strictly 'one shot' with a generic two minute development time. Please don't complain to me that you cannot do 'one shot' with paper because I will ignore such nonsense. I use but ONE TRAY and empty it after each chemical, into a 'dump' vessel, rinsing well after fixation. I use less water than most 'educated' darkroom people. If you don't want to do that, do what you have always done, with large working solution quantities and you will lack the one-shot consistency I have come to be addicted to, but don't ask me to 'educate myself' with your nonsense about how I cannot possibly be correct. I use about 100 mL of working solution for an 8 x 10 print, about 50 mL for a 5 x 7 print. I gently rock the tray continuously in TOTAL darkness, with print emulsion downward and never trusted 'safe' lights. I am paranoid and proud. I am David Lyga.

PAPER: in this order of age-fog: N, L, M, H, HH (translating degree of age-fog into none, low, medium, heavy, very heavy)

Using the same format: (Dev, HQ, RS, Water); This makes a liter of working solution, You, hopefully, are intuitive enough to prorate smaller or larger quantities, (so don't ask). I spoon feed only up to a certain point.
N: 500, 0, 0, 500
L: 500, 0, 50, 450
M: 500, 100, 100, 300
H: 500, 200, 150, 150
HH: 500, 300, 200, 0

This will get you through most any predicament. When I say "HH" I mean paper that most would throw out, as it is so badly age-fogged. that it is difficult (or impossible) to see even a facsimile of an image. Remember, I said AGE-fogged, not LIGHT-fogged. Don't make me repeat that warning.

ic-racer said:

Good work, can you show some examples of how it works. For example, how much will it reduce the base fog.

Click to expand...

To do this after spending so much time typing this thorough directive is really asking for a lot, racer. If I get an opportunity, I will, but this is a lot of time spent. Please understand that and be patient with me, as I am not set up for scanning, etc. - David Lyga

Raghu Kuvempunagar said:

Bookmarked for future reference. The idea of using film can for developing a single frame with minimal developer solution is both cute and very useful.

Click to expand...

This is my standard procedure for discovering how to expose and develop questionable film. I wish that this idea were not so 'quaint', because it is highly practical. Too many are tethered to 'what this book said or what is generally imparted'. Instead, I delve into reality and am often skeptical with generic hearsay. There is much disinformation within the analog realm that I take pleasure with assassinating.. - David Lyga

David, it might be possible to show "before and after" examples of age-fogged paper in each of the categories which would be helpful. Thanks

pentaxuser

This is the best I can do. I am not high tech proficient and not set up for scanning. Cheap digital camera took this, not retouched, no photoshop. You guys can't have it all.

Further info: Why measure BZ in grams? Because of the physical iterations of this chemical. Through the decades it has been 'feathers', or dense and sticky powder, and finally, now, granules. These granules (maybe specifically made for David Lyga) CAN be measured by volume and this is how you do it if that is what you have. There are 1.5 mL per gram of BZ GRANULES. So, instead of 3.5 grams, you can use about 5.25 mL per liter of RS (don't forget to add the SB).

When you use age fogged paper you will have to remember to give more exposure. How much? Start by using this assumption (which might change depending upon your particular paper). Development time remains two minutes. L AF: one stop, M AF: two stops, H AF: three or four stops, HH AF: five or even a whopping six more stops of exposure. You see, this is no picnic but can save the day anyway.

The image represents (though my low tech efforts) how TMZ 3200, room temp for 20 years, can be revived, as long as you are willing to rate it at EI 32 (or thereabouts). My working solution ratio was 3, 4, 3, 0 and the development time was 8 minutes. The right frame was developed normally at the same EI 32 exposure.

Prints are even easier to do. Follow my guidelines and do not be afraid to experiment; don't be afraid to touch up with highly dilute Farmer's Reducer after fixation to enhance the whites even more. (But, unless your paper is bad as can be, you will get bright prints using only my formulae.) If you are still getting too much base fog, use a higher level formula. If you are getting only a little density, give more exposure to your print. With age-fogged papers the trick is to see how much devlopment you can give without getting intense base fog. A little is OK as Farmer's will save the day (as long as you remember to give more exposure in order to counter the reduction in print density from Farmer's.) My Farmer's is as follows: BLEACH: 3 mL Potassium Ferricyanide in wtm 200 mL. FIX: about half strength film fixer, previously unused. Mix 1 + 1 PLUS as much water as you have determined will do the job. A typical mixture that for reduction of base density is 1 bleach + 1 fix + from 0 to 9 parts water. Any of these dilutions will work, but time will determine how fast you want it too work. The ideal timing is about three to five minutes, agitate continually. Remember, this stuff when mixed will not last more than 15 to 60 minutes, depending upon strength. Experiment with SMALL SMALL quantities with one square inch sections of paper for tests. We waste so much paper, film, chemicals. David Lyga is decidedly frugal (but not cheap).

Use your head: it is still glued onto your shoulders. I do not have all the answers: some of the answers lie within your trials. I have worked hard over the years for my efforts and have been laughed at continually. But, I now fear age-fogged materials no more. So, they can laugh all they want to, The only thing I ask is not to ASSUME that, technically, I am up to snuff within the digital realm. (For young people, this caveat is utterly and absolutely true as this convenient assumption becomes an unbelievable albatross yielding severe impediment towards a fuller understanding of what I say, because the young ones saw an app as soon as they emerged from the womb and decided that everyone had already seen it beforehand.) I am not Bill Gates and you are going to have to revert to the 60s and 70s in order to deal with me. 'Nuff said? Yes, 'nuff said.

Later, when I get to a scanner, I will post my updated 'photo data' sheets, for the express purpose of driving you crazy. This will represent decades of experimentation and is represented by common sense, as defined by David Lyga. My dilutions for developers, stop bath, and fixer, are amazingly criminal, in a prosecutorial sense. - David Lyga

Here are my photo data sheets just updated. Read them if you want to torture yourself. NOTES: everything is in mL unless specified. Also, I rate film by the exposure values needed for either 'sunlight' or 'high tungsten'. Thus, for example, fresh Tri-X is rated 16 for sunlight, meaning EI 250. For bright indoor tungsten light it is EV 9. - David Lyga

NB: If you wish for a better copy via excel attachment to your email, contact me.

David, seems to be pretty successful based on the film examples. What I had in mind was the same before and after pictures of unexposed age fogged paper with maybe a fixed only strip as the yardstick. As benzo in the developer works quite well with lightly fogged paper but not in my experience with M,H and HH paper, what really interested me was how white your formula gets paper that is M,H,and HH

Thanks

OK, just be patient. Wait a few days. After all, I am God's gift to mankind, thus so popular! (NOT) - David Lyga

Thanks, David. No rush, the world will not stop in the meantime

pentaxuser

PRINT TEST:

First things first: from now on, let's use "P" as the term for "dev", as P is the designation that I use on my photo data sheets. Thus, the film and paper formulas' format is now: P, HQ, RS, WATER.

OK, for this print test I decided to use an HH paper that is so bad it should be arrested for being obscene. This X-rated garbage is so disgusting that even the reverse side is now strong buff-yellow (like an old newspaper) and even the emulsion shows some occasional streaking. It is the familiar Ilford Multigrade II RC and must have been lying on someone's hot radiator for five years or more. I doubt that any of you have ever experienced such detritus and, no, Simon Galley, you do not have permission to sue me, especially when I state that fresh MG is one of the best papers extant. Thus, I begin with something so terrible (that you will never have to use), in order to prove a valid point.

For this test I used the original negative from the HH TMZ 3200 film shown in the first image that was developed in my HH film formula. Thus, what you are about to see is HH film printed upon HH (really HHH?) paper. With no question, this is a marriage transacted in Hell. Remember, carefully, this technical caveat: For both this film and this paper, the printer is allowed use of only the shoulder area of the Characteristic Curve. The rest of the Curve is buried in age-fog. That says a LOT.

Here are four prints, each made at about 4X magnification. Each had a penny placed onto its top-right corner in order to provide a tiny area of the emulsion that received no light exposure. This circular area demonstrates the extent of age-fog for that particular formula. I did not state this previously, but with intense paper fog you must give more development time, up to four minutes total.

FIRST PRINT: processed in my 'standard' formula, as if the paper were considered brand new. (You remember the formula: 500, 0, 0, 500.) As you can see, the image is almost completely black, but if you look very carefully you will see a facsimile of an extremely faint image. Maybe this will not manifest in the scan, but it is faintly there and can be barely seen if the print were held in your hand. Exposure was 2 minutes at f8 and the quality is genuinely disastrous.

SECOND PRINT: processed in my HH formula (500, 300, 200, 0). This is my best attempt, with needed developmental density forcing fog to manifest greatly in the competition for differentiated density, but showing an image that is at least readily visible (albeit one that is bad, and of low contrast). Few would have been able to get even this far with this terrible paper. Exposure was 3 minutes at f8.

THIRD PRINT: HH formula, again, but with one stop more exposure. After fixation, a few minutes in dilute Farmer's Reducer allowed the print to begin looking halfway decent. Exposure, a one stop increase to allow for the Farmer's reduction, was 3 minutes at f5.6. With this attempt, the quest for contrast was desperate and the combination of the HQ, RS, Farmer's, and adequate exposure and development time seemed to bring somewhat positive results . But, don't downplay the second print's merits: to achieve even that paltry amount of contrast was amazing for the given paper. However, this third print I consider to be the eighth wonder of the world. Notice that the right edge is washed out because of streaking; the emulsion has an embedded inconsistency. Who knows what that paper previously went through? With this 'worst case' paradigm presented, merely M or even H paper should pose no problem for obtaining presentable prints. That might be stretching it a bit with regard to H paper, but you will be amazed at what you can obtain if you experiment with exposure times, development times (2 to 4 minutes).

FOURTH PRINT: To set the record straight, I wanted to show a good print (on a relatively good paper) from an HH negative. I printed this HH negative onto Adorama VC RC paper which was hanging around at room temperature for 'only' about a dozen years. It is lightly age-fogged, but for David Lyga THAT is brand new paper. Often, when I print with L AF paper I don't bother to use the L formula. Instead, I process normally (500, 0, 0, 500) and use a very dilute Farmer's after fixation, in order to clear the base and brighten the whites. I did this here. What I wish to emphasize is that the exposure was 10 seconds at f5.6. This is four to five stops less exposure than the second and third prints had received. That extreme difference in paper speed is a point that might not be readily recognized. The addition of RS robs sensitive materials of speed, plus, like film, papers lose tremendous speed as age-fog progresses. You need this added exposure density in order to make up for the reduction in development density caused by the addition of RS, as well as for the age.

A lesson to be observed here is that my standard paper developer uses Dektol at a 10x dilution (at 80 Fahr). Few will heed this directive because the literature says not to believe such nonsense: It says "you MUST use Dektol at a 1 + 2 dilution"; (indeed, to defy such instilled mandate is to ask one to re-enact the Spanish Inquisition). Remember: P = Dektol 1 + 4. Then, the added 'same volume' of water for my standard paper formula (500, 0, 0, 500) turns this 1 + 4 effectively into double the dilution, or 1 Dektol + 9 Water. Admittedly, this high dilution leaves no leeway and, if adhered to, you must not cut corners. In other words, if the temperature is a bit colder than an ambient 80 Fahr, and/or if your standard development time were to be, say, only 1.5 minutes, you might start seeing compromised blacks. But if strictly adhered to, the dilution is adequate to give a full black. Obviously, as you can see, it works, despite hearing from those who say it can't work. (At least TRY to understand that, when thinking about such technical matters, proof is more important than passion ). So, you see, a first class print CAN be garnered from HH film, and, just as importantly, at a Dektol dilution of 1 + 9 if the paper evidences little inherent age-fog. (However, "'one-shot' or you will be shot" becomes the absolute maxim against reuse.) And, in addition to yielding a negative that is able to be printed more easily, the HH film development, with all that RS, reduces the grain. By the way, I routinely use fixers at about half the 'required' strength. In other words, I use paper strength fixer for films (yes, even T MAX) and half paper strength for papers. You CAN reuse these diluted fixers as long as you reuse only a little. Stop baths (STRICTLY 'ONE-SHOT') I dilute greatly: 2.5 mL glacial acetic (or 9 mL of the 28%) per liter. This high dilution stops development in its tracks and COMPLETELY obviates the fear of 'pinholes' in the film. Sometimes common sense is more important than anything.

I do hope you have learned from this episode that sometimes, with much persistence (and a bit of madness), blood really can be squeezed from a stone. It is not so much that I am inclined towards saving money as it is that I am obsessed with going through life dealing with the worst scenarios beforehand, and then allowing 'normalcy' to be experienced as a delightful bonus. This has allowed me to survive for the 68 years in which I have experienced much personal enmity. If you want quick answers that I might be able to help you with, you may call me (as some have, already) at 215.569.4949 (mobile is 215.820.1560 but please try land line first).

My new Avatar (taken two days ago) is quick to demonstrate that it is not only this paper that is showing its advanced age. - David Lyga

Also, here is another test. This paper is Polycontrast Rapid II RC and I rate this fog at at least H. However, the exposure times were much less than for the other paper. Print 5 was processed in the standard formula and given an exposure of 10 seconds at f8. Development time was two minutes. Print six was processed in the H formula (perhaps formula HH would have yielded a bit better print). The exposure was two stops more, at 20 seconds at f5.6. Print seven was given the same processing, except the exposure time was 25 seconds at f5.6. Diluted Farmer's reducer was used after fixation. - David Lyga

Tagged for reference. I have some 60 year old Velox that is lightly fogged which will be an excellent case study for trying out your methods.

Velox dies a SLOW death. I will surmise that my "L' will be sufficient. -David Lyga

David:
Have you any suggestions for dealing with photographer's age-fog ?

MattKing said:

David:
Have you any suggestions for dealing with photographer's age-fog ?

Click to expand...

You are asking the wrong foggy person. Last Wednesday morning I went to my safe deposit box and promptly left the key somewhere in the bank. I returned an hour later and both I and a police officer looked for it and asked every one of the bank personnel, to no avail. I then left but not before emptying the box of its contents, using my second key. The following day, in the afternoon (30 hours later) I get a call from the bank telling me that a 'teller' found my key. I asked why the delay but was met with nothing but vagueness. I then promptly went to the bank to get the key, but that Sunday (yes, they are open on Sunday) I returned to the bank with both keys and promptly closed the box. A duplicate key could have easily been made in the intervening 30 hour delay. Yes, I am foggy, but not THAT foggy or stupid. - David Lyga

David Lyga said:

PRINT TEST:

OK, for this print test I decided to use an HH paper that is so bad it should be arrested for being obscene. This X-rated garbage is so disgusting that even the reverse side is now strong buff-yellow (like an old newspaper) and even the emulsion shows some occasional streaking.
....
FIRST PRINT: processed in my 'standard' formula, as if the paper were considered brand new. (You remember the formula: 500, 0, 0, 500.) As you can see, the image is almost completely black, but if you look very carefully you will see a facsimile of an extremely faint image. Maybe this will not manifest in the scan, but it is faintly there and can be barely seen if the print were held in your hand. Exposure was 2 minutes at f8 and the quality is genuinely disastrous.

View attachment 204698

Click to expand...

David, you gave me hope. Thanks.
We have 400-500 kg of Kodak Policontrast paper in 1m rolls that look like print 1 on your example. Probably mid-1990.
And till we didn't find any economical way to take out silver from it we use rolls as a base for the big table to work on.

I send a sample to our chemist with the same task - find a way to deal with fog. But he returned "no way".

Will come back with tests soon.

Serg Lavrenchuk said:

David, you gave me hope. Thanks.
We have 400-500 kg of Kodak Policontrast paper in 1m rolls that look like print 1 on your example. Probably mid-1990.
And till we didn't find any economical way to take out silver from it we use rolls as a base for the big table to work on.

I send a sample to our chemist with the same task - find a way to deal with fog. But he returned "no way".

Will come back with tests soon.

Click to expand...

Mix the HH formula. Then, take a tiny piece of the paper (about 3 cm x 3 cm) and expose HALF of the piece to room light for a few seconds, keeping the other half under a flat, opaque object so that THAT half receives NO light. Process in my HH formula for two minutes. Stop and fix. Then look at what you have. If the black is black and the unexposed part is (up to) halfway black, this is a success. If the unexposed part is more than halfway black, you need to develop for less time, (you have no choice, regardless of compromising the exposed black). However, if the unexposed part is less than halfway black, you have the possibility of developing for a longer time in order to get the exposed part more fully black (then place the paper in Farmer's: this will draw down the unexposed part (more than the black part) to make the paper (hopefully but maybe not quite) black and white. - David Lyga

"Do this (and when I state milliliters (mL) use that, and when I state grams (g) use that.....Take 3.5 g BZ and 30 mL of SB (baking soda)....
Second, make a HQ solution: take 40 mL sodium sulfite, anhy plus 20 mL HQ plus 20 mL sodium carbonate, mono"

David, you have expressed SB, sod. sulfite, anhy and HQ in Ml rather than in grams. Should I assume that you meant to refer to grams?

newcan1 said:

"Do this (and when I state milliliters (mL) use that, and when I state grams (g) use that.....Take 3.5 g BZ and 30 mL of SB (baking soda)....
Second, make a HQ solution: take 40 mL sodium sulfite, anhy plus 20 mL HQ plus 20 mL sodium carbonate, mono"

David, you have expressed SB, sod. sulfite, anhy and HQ in Ml rather than in grams. Should I assume that you meant to refer to grams?

Click to expand...

I do not have a scale, so I use volume measurement (mL). Each particular powdered chemical has a specific weight per so much volume. It works just as well. For older versions of benzotriazole, you must use grams (because the 'feathers' that constitute the older physical configuration of that chemical cannot me measured by volume), so what I did was go to the main post office and, with the older version of benzotriazole in a clear food storage bag, weighed it on the sensitive postal scale. I then went home and converted the avoirdupois weight into grams. (I succeeded in not getting arrested for weighing 'cocaine'.)

The NEW version of BZ comes in granules, so they can be easily measured by volume. - David Lyga

Ah, got it. So you are using volume as an approximation of weight. I was confused.

Thanks for taking the time to write all this out, show examples and lessons learned... I vote we make this page sticky in the forum.

kreeger said:

Thanks for taking the time to write all this out, show examples and lessons learned... I vote we make this page sticky in the forum.

Click to expand...

That would be a 'first', as nothing from David Lyga ever seemed 'to merit' such aplomb from APUG / PHOTRIO.

Yes, this hard-won information is useful. Make certain to know that development times (thus, print exposure times), must be curtailed. Development to completion is not going to be done here because development time must be determined primarily by fog level, not as with normal printing, where subject density levels are the prime determinant and there is little trouble with over development. It is easy to forget: with fresh paper, development time should be complete, not curtailed, as is necessitated with age-fog paper. You might have to sacrifice some max black in the process of doing this (actually, many pictures offer greater aesthetic merit when printed 'high key'). Getting fog to be NO MORE than halfway between white and black, hopefully much less, (before any Farmer's Reducer is applied) is the goal here.

Of course, because of the extent of restrainer and baking soda used, this curtailed development might be LONGER than for normal developer and normal paper, so, with my fog formulas 'two minutes' is less development than with normal developer. - David Lyga