1993 hp5 plus

[Rogier]

Any idea what to expect from this Ilford HP5 that is almost 10 years old and has NOT been stored in the freezer?

[sienarot]

Probably just some loss of contrast?

[coelacanth]

Here you go. Expired in 1991, unknown storage history, PUSHED to 1600.

[Rogier]

Originally Posted by sienarot

Probably just some loss of contrast?

Hmm that would be an improvement from my point off view :-)

[BobYIL]

I have one tin-can 30m roll of HP4 (not even HP4+) from 1971! Surfaced out while moving my house , 41 years outside of a fridge. But I will not throw it away before testing.

As for your case: Go ahead, increase the development time about 15-20%, at the most you get little more contrast.

[k__43]

I used even older HP5 (the stuff with 72 frames per roll) .. worked, lots of basefog but not as bad as expected, still quite even development

[Pherdinand]

you mean almost 20 years old, right?
(closes Calc)

[Ronald_H]

It is probably still ok for all but the most critical of work. I would advise you to expose it as ISO100 and maybe increase development a little. You'll soon find a sweet spot where it will be ok.

I have to develop a roll of APX400, expired in 2003. Will post some results when it is done.

[taylan]

Also it might be lots of spots on the film. I faced lots of time with this problem at old films.

[k__43]

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

It is probably still ok for all but the most critical of work. I would advise you to expose it as ISO100 and maybe increase development a little. You'll soon find a sweet spot where it will be ok.

I have to develop a roll of APX400, expired in 2003. Will post some results when it is done.

I can't advice you to overexpose and over develop, especially not when you plan to scan it .. the neg is already quite dense thru the base fog.

I used a lot (about 30 rolls) of APX400 of similar vintage (I believe even older). I found I got the best results when shooting at 400 (rather even underexpose a bit) and stand develop in Rodinal 1+100 for one hour. Don't trust the claim Rodinal (1+25/1+50) and APX400 only get you ISO 320 .. that is true for the newer version maybe but not for the old Agfapan.

[Moriturii]

I got some Tri-X, produced in 1984, expired 1986. I got it as a 100ft bulk roll, unopened package. It's ISO is about 100 I think. @ E.I. 200, developed in D76 1+1, I get little to no shadow details.

[wkkato]

I would also overexpose a bit to push your exposure above the increased base fog that comes with old age and also push development a bit to compensate for the loss of sensitivity over the years. There's a lot of latitude in BW film that you can use. The only problem comes with scanning the resulting dense negatives.

Warren

Originally Posted by Ronald_H

It is probably still ok for all but the most critical of work. I would advise you to expose it as ISO100 and maybe increase development a little. You'll soon find a sweet spot where it will be ok.

I have to develop a roll of APX400, expired in 2003. Will post some results when it is done.