1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Old film ... anything worth keeping

Discussion in 'Everything Film' started by Fulvio2, Aug 21, 2019.

  1. Fulvio2

    Fulvio2 Member

    I am going back to B&W film for a spell as I want to simplify my life, after what seemed like three or four years using digital SLRs but is, in fact, 12 or so. They are brilliant, of course, but I want to use something I like more.

    I took my two Pentax MXs to be refurbed and the gent said he was doing £45k a year of business on servicing old film cameras. So, I guess it is a trend. Pentax MX was never the best manual SLR, but it was by far the prettiest and I loved them. (Pic of one being repaired below).

    I have nine four rolls of Velvia, maybe Exp 2006.

    Six rolls of Sensia from Exp Jan 2006.

    1 Ektachrome E100s. No idea Exp date.

    1 Jessops Diamond Everyday Exp March 2007.

    One Ilford HP5.

    One Ilford PanF

    Eight Ilford FP4 . Exp not known.

    The film has been kept in either cool dark cellar or boiling hot attic.

    My guess is the B&W is fine. But what about the colour? No point shooting stuff if it is worn out.

    Should I bin the colour or bin the lot?

    PentaxMXrepair2.jpg
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I'd try it. The boiling hot attic doesn't sound very encouraging but it is common to use out of date film. If you will scan the results prior to printing then you can correct the colours if needed.
     
  3. steveandthedogs

    steveandthedogs Well-Known Member

    Have a look in the Relic Challenge - PeteE just posted some shots made with PanF dated 1970.

    S
     
  4. nimbus

    nimbus Well-Known Member

    Actually it probably was one of the best manual SLRS. Easy to use and quite robust, as well as coming with a decent 50mm lens. Lenses were plentiful too. Consider it as an alternative OM1. It was after this that Pentax lost their way-and market share.
     
    Done_rundleCams and peterba like this.
  5. Fulvio2

    Fulvio2 Member

    Yes, lovely. I used with the 50mm 1.7. I disliked the 1.4 as it was too heavy for an MX. I carried around the MX 50mm, a 135mm and a 28mm - all in one smallish pouch. It was the perfect set up. The whole lot probably weighed less than my Sigma 50mm 1.4 Art.
     
    peterba likes this.
  6. peterba

    peterba Well-Known Member

    Precisely the combination I use!
    Small, light, excellent kit, which - in its entirety - cost less than a mid-range lens for a 'modern' system.
     
  7. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Use the black and white , the pan f might need an extra stop of light .

    The colour film could be put on eBay , in the listing title make sure to add the words "LOMO" " Lomography" " outdated" , and in the discription state it's been "matured" in an attic or cellar for interesting , unpredictable results .
    By the time you sell it , including postage , you'll be able to replace it with fresh film and probably have made a profit !
    The hipsters love the stuff !!

    I've used the Jessops Diamond stuff , from about the same time , stored in the pantry .
    Results are fine . Still have some , bought a load when Jessops were selling tons of stuff off and closing stores around 2007 .
    They were almost giving it away .
    I shoot mainly B&W in film , mostly 120 and 5x4 , so not as much 35mm is used , other than Rollei Infrared .
    So I sometimes buy fresh colour if I'm doing something specific , if not I just use up some more of my old stuff .
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    EightBitTony likes this.
  8. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    I agree completely - I used and loved an MX from 1980 until 2007 when I went digital with a Pentax K-10 because I could no longer buy Kodachrome (I never wanted to 'upgrade' from the MX - for me it was the perfect camera body). I kept my MX for 6 years after that in case I ever wanted to use it again, but I never did and eventually part-exchanged it, probably at the time when the prices were at their worst. A dealer in the latest AP is selling an MX with a 50 mm F1.7 (like mine) for about £200. My MX body and a Tamron Adaptall 28-200 manual focus lens together weighed about as much as my current K-5 'half frame' DSLR body alone.
     
    peterba likes this.
  9. Chester AP

    Chester AP Well-Known Member

    For the last few years of using an MX, I could fit all of the following in a small Jessops camera bag (the one they sold for about £20):

    MX body with attached Tamron Adaptall 28-200 and folding rubber lens hood (also used on other lenses stepping ring - see below)
    Pentax 50 mm F 1.7
    Vivitar 19 mm (F 3.8, I think - certainly very small)
    Hand held cds lightmeter for incident light readings
    Cable release
    Small brush (the one that looks like a lipstick)
    Linear polarising filter to fit the 18-200, plus stepping rings to use it with the 50 mm and 19 mm
    4 or 5 rolls of Kodachrome 200 in their plastic containers (boxes removed)

    I still have the lightmeter and brush

    For comparison, today I have a bag that is 2 or 3 cm longer, and fit in a K-5 body with attached lens (18-280 or 17-70) plus one other lens of similar size (10-20 or 30 mm prime), a folding rubber lens hood, spare battery and brush. But it's much heavier than the bag of MX kit was.
     
  10. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Taken five minutes ago, Thurs Aug 29th at 2:55pm (Pacific Time) ... My MX w/ Takumar SMC M 135/2.5 lens attached :)
    Aug29-19-AP-Thurs-JSGP4965 copy.JPG
    Cheers,

    Photo Taken with the above kit, Aug 2017 .... Revolver Cafe and owner ...

    Aug20-17-AP-Sun-000001 copy 2.jpg

    Jack ....... As for the old film, if you're processing yourself (B&W), what the heck, whaddya got to lose. As for the Slide Film /Colour Neg, personally, I'd give those a miss :)
     
    peterba and steveandthedogs like this.
  11. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    Hmmm, can't you treat the colour films as B&W and process them as such? I vaguely remember that being done years ago for some other reason.
     
    peterba and Done_rundleCams like this.
  12. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    I've developed C22 colour in Rodinal before - you get negs that look as though they've been stewed in cold tea, but they scan OK. Not sure about using it for transparency film.

    Adrian
     
    peterba likes this.
  13. spinno

    spinno Well-Known Member

    Probably look like they've been stewed in Whisky...or would that be the photographer:rolleyes:
     
    peterba likes this.
  14. SXH

    SXH Well-Known Member

    I think (could be wrong) that if you don't do the second exposure, you should just get a (murky?) negative image.

    Mind you, if you do , you could end up with B&W transparencies?
     
  15. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    True, you are, Steve, and, in fact, I used to (fairly regularly) process C-41 film in IlfoTec-HC with my Tmax 3200 :), albeit at 100F :eek:. The only dodgy bit was that there was one layer in the C-41 film that didn't get removed because the colour process has a Blix section where as B&W just has a Fix section :)

    Cheers,

    jack
     
    neilt3 and peterba like this.
  16. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    I've a few rolls of c41 I've been meaning to process in some rodinol .
    How did you process them compared to B&W ?
    Did you just treat them all the same as the TMAX 3200 , if so what c41 was it or did it not matter what ISO it was ?
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  17. gray1720

    gray1720 Well-Known Member

    Blowed if I can remember, Neil - I think I may just have used stand development as I had no idea whether I'd get anything and couldn't be arsed to shake every 30 secs for however long.

    Adrian
     
    neilt3 likes this.
  18. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Hi Neil,

    the reason I chose to some colour rolls was because I was just learning the colour process (w/ a Jobu machine and the reels)
    and the time for colour was 100F at 3.5 minutes or exactly the same time/temp to use if one was in a hurry to get your Tmax 3200
    done, i.e.: deadline was looming ;) So, one time I had a roll of colour that I'd shot at some concert but didn't process for reasons (still)
    unknown and pop it in with the rolls of Tmax 3200. They, the colour rolls, regardless of ASA, if exposed properly, turned quite well, albeit quite grainy
    and, of course, with one extra layer, due to only using a Fix section in B&W, as opposed to the Blix in the colour process ;)

    Of course, if I shot both colour and B&W for a newspaper job, I would develop them separately and only do the Colour/BW thing
    when I'd only shot the job in B&W and had a roll or two of colour kicking around and knew I already had my necessary colour stuff
    processed in the Jobu :)

    As for Rodinal or, any other developers, I'm not sure what the numbers or results would be :(

    Cheers,

    Jack
     
    neilt3 likes this.
  19. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the replying , I'll give them a dunking in Rodinol and see how they go on .
    One roll was in a camera whose back I opened after i forgot I'd shot half roll , the other was a part done roll in a camera I bought .
    Finished the rolls off but I've not got many colour films to develop to start a new kit on .
    B&W I've always got on the go , do I just want to develop it to see if anything was worth saving on one camera , and to check the other camera is in good working order.
     
    Done_rundleCams likes this.
  20. Done_rundleCams

    Done_rundleCams AP Forum Ambassador to Canada

    Good stuff, Neil, and I'll be curious to see how the colour rolls turn out :)
    Cheers,
    Jack
     

Share This Page