5 Frames Rediscovered

It’s not often that I look back at my catalogue of scanned negatives.  Typically I’ll shoot a roll of 120 film in a 90 or so minute walk about or if I’m shooting 35mm – perhaps over a couple of days.  I’ll develop that film the same day or the next day.  When the negatives are dry, in about 2-1/2 hours I’ll scan them, again the same day or the next.  I’ve been proceeding in this fashion since March of 2023 when I purchased a second hand Epson V600 photo scanner.

The main purpose of the scanner was to help me evaluate my photos and decide which ones I want to print in my darkroom.  I find, the process of darkroom printing – as rewarding as it can be – to be tedious at times. I’m becoming more selective in my choice of print worthy negatives in order to produce images a little more effectively, more discriminating.  The scanned images are invaluable in that regard.  Once scanned, I let the images sit for a few days before returning to them with a more critical view and decide which, if any of the negatives, I want to print.   At this point also, print worthy or not, the occasional image, or five, or the whole roll inspire me to submit an article to 35mmc for publication. I’ll simply write the article, then uploaded scans from my files and send it off to Hamish.  That has been the extent of my use of the scanned images. They’re stored in files on my desktop computer by negative roll number that matches the roll number I’ve given to the negative carrier sheets.  Simple.  Done. Filed and mostly forgotten.

But here’s the thing. The other day knocking about on Ebay, I came across some expired – 1991 rolls of Kodak Plus X Pan 120 film in five packs offered by a seller in Quebec. Over the fall of 2025 and into the early winter I had shot a number of rolls of expired Plus X with great success.  But that was “less expired” film from 2005.

I took a shot and ordered a five pack.  Including shipping, the cost was about $56 Canadian. I received the film in just three days, shot, developed and scanned it the next day.  The negatives turned out quite thin.  Useable but thin.  I had developed these in 1:25 Rodinal.  My previous use of the film, the 2005 batch – as I recalled, looked quite good by comparison.  So, back to the scans of last fall I went.  They did look good. Quite good in fact.  I found that I had developed those in PMK Pyro for 12:30. Pyro would be my solution to the thin negatives in the 1991 expired Plus X Pan!

The thing is though, in searching through my files of just last fall, I had rediscovered some rather satisfying photos.  Out of that roll of 12 images here are five.  These were taken using a Bronica GS 1 with 6×6 film back.  Kodak Plus X Pan film, expired in 2005.  These were shot at ISO 100 and developed in PMK Pyro for 12:30.  The use of a yellow filter in the first three photographs produced effects one might expect with infrared film with the very bright foliage.

And so, five here from that roll of 12 exposures.  Retrospection can work both ways for me.  Looking back at what I thought at the time were good photographs can seem like misses with fresh eyes.  On the other hand, overlooked photographs seen with fresh eyes can sometimes yield a pleasant surprise.

Share this post: