Film from WW II Discovered and Developed with breathtaking results

[Herr Barnack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Interesting article; I guess I can stop fretting about what kind of results I will get when I process my backlog of now expired but already shot film...

 

 

These 31 Rolls Of Film From A WWII Soldier Were Found & Processed; The Results Are Breathtaking

 

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/whotube-2/31-rolls-of-film-from-a-wwii-soldier.html

 

 

[spydrxx]

Fascinating. I fellow by the name of GENE M, who frequents the Photo-Net forum has been doing something similar for years, usually people find old films and send them in to him, and what he has shown online have usually been 1950 era family and remote homestead pictures he has rescued. Having watched his output for a few years he seems to have pretty good success with HC110 in his endeavors.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Richardgb]

Interesting, and undoubtably a worthy project, but a few puzzles from the video:

1. Early on, the processing chap says you can't bulk process, but then develops 3 rolls (as shown in the video) at a time.
2. The negs are clearly very faint, and the images are 'rescued' via scanning. The latent images on films exposed 70 years ago would have suffered from regression.

Putting 1 and 2 together, did the processor do any tests on all or part of a film to judge the best developing time, or even the best developer? The type of film appeared to be identifiable, so there would quite likely be original manufacturer's processing info around (not that that would necessarily be a good guide to processing so much later). There's info on the web on processing 'old' film, exposed or not, and I recall Kodak once giving guidelines; the topic also used to be a favourite of the magazines.

 

Granted, this lack of technical information may be intentional in the video - to have gone into so much detail may have appeared to be 'nerdy', when (as I can hear the chorus baying) the images are what matters. But, to this Forum user at least, it leaves more questions than answers.

[Herr Barnack]

Interesting, and undoubtably a worthy project, but a few puzzles from the video:

1. Early on, the processing chap says you can't bulk process, but then develops 3 rolls (as shown in the video) at a time.
2. The negs are clearly very faint, and the images are 'rescued' via scanning. The latent images on films exposed 70 years ago would have suffered from regression.

Putting 1 and 2 together, did the processor do any tests on all or part of a film to judge the best developing time, or even the best developer? The type of film appeared to be identifiable, so there would quite likely be original manufacturer's processing info around (not that that would necessarily be a good guide to processing so much later). There's info on the web on processing 'old' film, exposed or not, and I recall Kodak once giving guidelines; the topic also used to be a favourite of the magazines.

 

Granted, this lack of technical information may be intentional in the video - to have gone into so much detail may have appeared to be 'nerdy', when (as I can hear the chorus baying) the images are what matters. But, to this Forum user at least, it leaves more questions than answers.

 

I'm not sure what people consider bulk processing, but I have a one liter size tank that will hold four developing reels of 35mm film at once.  IMHO, it's not bulk processing if I can do four rolls at once in one tank.  A lab that can process 50-100 or more rolls of film at a time in a bathtub size tank?  I would call that bulk processing.

 

It sort of sounds like he used standard processing, given the faintness of the negs;  I would have to do some research on this, but I have read that there are developer additives that bring out the images in very old film when it is developed.

 

I would have preferred that he give more technical information  - but given that the vast majority of photographers have no interest in film based photography these days, I suppose I can see why he didn't.  Hell, the vast majority of photographers have huge libraries of images that never make it off their hard drives into print form.  Even more never use anything other than their phones to make photographs; this state of affairs brings to mind an observation made by the late David Vestal: 

 

"Compensating for lack of skill with technology is progress toward mediocrity. As technology advances, craftsmanship recedes. As technology increases our possibilities, we use them less resourcefully.  The one thing we've gained is spontaneity, which is useless without perception."

Edited July 20, 2016 by Carlos Danger