Last week I posted about a roll of T-Max 100 “found film” I’d developed. In the post, I mentioned that I’d actually developed two rolls of film that day from my mystery box. This post is about that second roll. Unlike the T-Max, this roll wasn’t a manufactured roll of film. Instead, it was a roll of bulk-loaded film put into an old film canister for Ilford XP1 400. A handwritten label on masking tape on the outside of the canister simply read, “TX EI 200.” My best guess prior to developing it was that it was Kodak Tri-X 400 rolled into the Ilford canister, but shot at ASA 200. Tri-X 400 was introduced in 1954 and is still widely available (and beloved).

I’d hoped there would be some visible markings on the film edges after development to confirm (or dispel) my guess, but there were none. I developed it in Diafine, by the way. Some research revealed that Kodak bulk film from the 60’s and 70’s often had minimal to no markings. But when I examined the scanned images, the photos appeared to be “newer” than that. Another clue as to the film’s “younger” age is that Ilford XP1 400 was introduced in the early 80’s and was replaced by XP2 Super about ten years later.

---

This image appears to be a scanned black-and-white negative. While there’s no hard timestamp, a few visual clues can help narrow down a possible timeframe:

Clues:

1. Cars:
   • The vehicles parked across the street (especially the mid-sized sedan and pickup) suggest a timeframe from the late 1980s to mid-1990s.
   • The silver coupe on the right also fits that general range.
2. Clothing:
   • The skateboarder’s baggy jeans and tucked T-shirt scream early-to-mid 1990s skater fashion, though the look lingers into the early 2000s.
3. Film grain and condition:
   • The high grain and scratches suggest either expired film or a rough development/scanning process, possibly older stock, or bulk-rolled film. It looks like it was home developed and scanned, possibly much later than when it was shot.
4. Setting:
   • The adobe-style architecture with vigas (wooden roof beams) suggests Santa Fe, New Mexico—most likely the Palace of the Governors, where Native American vendors often line up to sell art and jewelry.

Educated Guess:

This photo was likely taken between 1992 and 1997, give or take a few years.

---

I had ChatGPT analyze additional photos from this roll, and the final assessment was that they were taken in the late 80’s to early 90’s. Then I Googled, “Santa Fe Palace of the Governors.” ChatGPT totally nailed the location! It also nailed this: “It looks like it was home developed and scanned, possibly much later than when it was shot.”

An issue with this roll of film is that it appeared as if there was a problem when the film was advancing through the camera, or that the roll of film had been run through the camera two times. Most of the negatives were quasi double exposures. This made some of the photos kind of trippy. And I don’t hate that.