# Processing Verichrome Pan film



## OldManJim (Sep 11, 2017)

I recently acquired a Kodak Brownie Flash camera (vintage 1950s?) and found it had a roll of Verichrome Pan in it with 8 exposure made.

I'd like to process this film and need some advice. I'll be using a Jobo with Sprint developer (a D-76 clone) and I'd like to know if I should make any adjustments to the developing time at 20C because of the age of the film?

Thanks in advance for any input.


----------



## timor (Sep 11, 2017)

Some possible help here
Old film development: my process


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 11, 2017)

I do many of those rolls at work. It's a gamble no matter how you develop it. Kodak X-Tol at 1:1 will help a little with the base fog.


----------



## OldManJim (Sep 11, 2017)

Thanks for the replies. I agree it's a crap shoot and I may not get anything useful, but I figure it's worth a try - who knows, they might be interesting.


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 11, 2017)

I would do an hour stand development with a very dilute developer. Stand development will cope with partial loss of latent image well. I use Rodinol 1:50 for this but any really dilute developer should work.


----------



## OldManJim (Sep 15, 2017)

Well, just to update everyone, I processed the film using a dilute developer noted above, there were 6 images? on the roll, but all were badly focused and very blurred. The background fog was high, as expected, but I think the major problem was that the original shooter wasn't very steady or the subjects were in very low light. All in all, an interesting exercise, but nothing much came of it.

Win some, lose some.....


----------



## timor (Sep 15, 2017)

Ha. All the same I got with my attempts to develop old found in Brownies film. Brownie type cameras need at least 160 foot-candles with iso 100 for usable exposure and static subject. 
Nevertheless good attempt.


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 15, 2017)

Sometimes it can work out fine but most are like you described, badly shot in the first place. 

This reminds me of a customer in the late 90's that came in to the lab I worked at with a roll he found in his footlocker from WWII. I processed the film and there were images of him and his buddy's in France. Some were still alive and some never made it back home. He cried for being happy and sad at the same time. I printed a bunch of 8x10s so he could send them to his surviving buddy's.


----------



## OldManJim (Sep 17, 2017)

A number of years ago, my son & I had a business processing B&W & E-6 film for a local camera store. (All of this was pre-digital.)

A customer came in one day with a German camera he bought at a garage sale. It had a roll of film in it and he wanted to see if we could develop it. Long story short, it turned out to have close up images of Herman Goering, Adolph Hitler, Rudolph Hess and other Nazi bigwigs on it, attending a parade in Berlin, pre WWII. Apparently the original owner was also a Nazi big wig, since most of the photos looked to have been taken from the reviewing stand.

We made a bunch of 5X7 and 8X10 prints for him. The film was in amazing condition with almost no fog. As near as he could learn, the camera was a "bring back" by a GI who kept it in a trunk in a basement.

After the veteran passed, the family decided to clear out "pop-pop's old military junk" at the garage sale. I don't know if the customer ever let them know what treasure they sold for a song.

Ever since then, I've looked very closely at every garage sale camera I could, but never found anything remotely close to this. The Kodak Brownie I posted about was the only one I found with film in it and that was a bust! Still, hope springs eternal......


----------



## webestang64 (Sep 17, 2017)

I wish I could remember how many found rolls I have developed in the last 35 years....? I've have customers that still bring in 15 sometimes over 25 rolls of found film....how can you find so many rolls...LOL

I personally have a nice collection of found in camera bought or gifted rolls of film that I developed and assume I own the photos to do what I wish.


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 18, 2017)

webestang64 said:


> I personally have a nice collection of found in camera bought or gifted rolls of film that I developed and assume I own the photos to do what I wish.


you certainly do not own the copyright - neither by buying the camera nor by developing the film.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

An interesting legal question. Does copyright law apply to a latent image on undeveloped film whose ownership has been relinquished before it was developed into a visible image?

In other words, is an invisible latent image considered by law to be a photograph and thus protected by copyright?

I wonder if there are legal precedents on this point.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

Can you share a quote from the reference you found on this point?


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

compur said:


> An interesting legal question. Does copyright law apply to a latent image on undeveloped film whose ownership has been relinquished before it was developed into a visible image?
> 
> In other words, is an invisible latent image considered by law to be a photograph and thus protected by copyright?
> 
> I wonder if there are legal precedents on this point.



Latent images are the property of the photographer that took the image.

Undeveloped film and files on a memory card are included.  Precedent is in the US Copyright law already.


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 18, 2017)

compur said:


> An interesting legal question. Does copyright law apply to a latent image on undeveloped film whose ownership has been relinquished before it was developed into a visible image?
> 
> In other words, is an invisible latent image considered by law to be a photograph and thus protected by copyright?
> 
> I wonder if there are legal precedents on this point.


If the latent image was not copyright, then the various proceedings labs around the world would own the bulk of photographic copyrights!


----------



## OldManJim (Sep 18, 2017)

I've always assumed that if I didn't take the image, I don't own it. This isn't a legal opinion (I'm not a lawyer), just my personal philosophy.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

Title 17

§ 101 · Definitions
 “*Pictorial*, graphic, and sculptural *works*” include two-dimensional and three dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, *photographs*, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans.


§ 201 · Ownership of copyright
(a) Initial Ownership.—Copyright in a *work* protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> If the latent image was not copyright, then the various proceedings labs around the world would own the bulk of photographic copyrights!



I don't think so. Dropping off film at a lab for processing doesn't give the lab ownership of the film any more than dropping off a car for service means the garage now owns your car. Only if the owner abandons it does the service provider have a right to take possession.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

webestang64 said:


> compur said:
> 
> 
> > Can you share a quote from the reference you found on this point?
> ...



You're missing my point about LATENT images which was that whooshing sound you may have heard above your head but never mind. It's probably all moot anyway.


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 18, 2017)

compur said:


> john.margetts said:
> 
> 
> > If the latent image was not copyright, then the various proceedings labs around the world would own the bulk of photographic copyrights!
> ...


Ownership of the physical film has nothing at all to do with copyright. My point was if the latent image was not copyright before development but is after then the act of development would be the defining action in the creation of the image thus giving the developer the copyright. Perhaps you also heard a wooshing sound? [emoji38]


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

john.margetts said:


> Ownership of the physical film has nothing at all to do with copyright.



I know. You have once again missed my point.

I only wished to express a curiosity regarding copyright law as regards latent images.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

webestang64 said:


> A copyright is created at the moment a work is made into a fixed form. For authors, it is created when you type the words on your computer. For photographers, it is created at the click of the shutter (latent image).
> So yes, the latent image is copyrighted.



May I have a reference on that? I mean a specific reference regarding latent images? I am not arguing with you. I am just asking for a reference that mentions latent images if there is one.

The reason I ask is because a latent image isn't a photograph per any definition that I've seen.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

compur said:


> ............I only wished to express a curiosity regarding copyright law as regards latent images.



Latent images are copyrighted as soon as the shutter closes, and the rights belong to the photographer.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

Again, Title 17, § 101:
A work is“created”when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

Latent images are considered a fixed copy.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

480sparky said:


> Latent images are considered a fixed copy.



Considered by whom? They _aren't_ a fixed copy. They're invisible so how could they be considered "fixed"? They aren't even really an image by any definition that I know of.

I don't mean to be rude but courts of law require more than your personal assurance on legal points and I'm looking for an actual specific reference or precedent mentioning latent images if there is one.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

compur said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Latent images are considered a fixed copy.
> ...



It's fixed in terms of being a 'fixed' chemical reaction within the grains of silver on the film.  Just because you or I or any other human cannot SEE it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  There's LOTS of stuff we cannot see that certainly exist.  This includes the 'images' contained in computer files.

It's not just my 'personal assurance'.  It's the result of court rulings.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

480sparky said:


> It's fixed in terms of being a 'fixed' chemical reaction within the grains of silver on the film.  Just because you or I or any other human cannot SEE it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  There's LOTS of stuff we cannot see that certainly exist.  This includes the 'images' contained in computer files.
> 
> It's not just my 'personal assurance'.  It's the result of court rulings.



Well, that's what I'm asking. I would like to see something regarding these court rulings you mentioned. Not that I don't believe you -- I'd just like to read about it.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

Well, let's go back to the US copyright law.



> A work is “fixed” in a tangible medium of expression when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord, by or under the authority of the author, is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

^ Well that seems to be saying a latent image IS NOT fixed since it's not "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived."

So, I take that to mean, by the lettter of the law, that an unprocessed latent image is NOT yet in a form that can be protected by copyright. It becomes "copyright-able" when it is processed and then becomes "sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived."


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

Read the entire quote, not just the part that supports your view.



> ..sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived, reproduced, or *otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration*.



It's sufficiently permanent to be brought out with a developer.

Also, apply your logic to digital.  When does the automatic copyright start?


----------



## compur (Sep 18, 2017)

I just don't agree with your interpretation of the quote you posted. It doesn't make sense to me that something invisible could be considered perceivable but I don't care to argue about it. If it works for you then it works for you. It just doesn't work for me.


----------



## 480sparky (Sep 18, 2017)

It may not 'work' for you, but that's the way the world is.  Them's the facts. I can't help you if you fail to understand.


----------



## compur (Sep 19, 2017)

Yeah, right. 

Show me a latent film image and I'll agree with you.


----------



## compur (Sep 19, 2017)

Yeah, we know. That's not what's being questioned.


----------

