cold bw film does it really make that much of a difference ?

[cliveh]

How you keep your film is dependent on where you live on the planet. In England I would suggest all colour film is kept in the fridge and all black & white film is just stored in a cupboard.

 

[MattKing]

One of the big advantages of cold storage for film is that it is controlled temperature storage.

It is the uncontrolled variation in temperature that makes it difficult to predict reliability.

Some people have cool storage larders in their basements where temperatures remain exceptionally stable (and cool). Subject to humidity concerns, they are excellent film storage solutions.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

I have a film freezer because my policy is to buy a bunch of film when either it is cheap, and unlikely to stay cheap, or available and unlikely to stay available.

As a result, I have a couple hundred rolls of Arista Premium, aka Tri-X, which will likely last a few years. I also have over a hundred rolls of APX100, which was my favorite slow speed B&W film before it was discontinued. That will also likely last a few years. There are also bunches of since discontinued films in there, such as Neopan 1600 and Fuji Reala. Recently, I picked up a hundred rolls of Kodak Pro 100 with a 2015 expiration at a good price.

If you have space in your basement for a freezer, I think it makes sense to buy when these deals pop up and just not worry about how long it will take to shoot them...

Rolfe

 

[BetterSense]

I was taught that film was fogged by cosmic rays and there was no way to avoid that.

I keep a camera and film in my truck. When I lived in TX it would get above 100 F for weeks in the summer and when I developed the rolls after perhaps a year they were always very foggy. So I know heat can increase fog. The question then is whether the fridge/freezer is really better that a "cool dry place", and I don't have any proof of that.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

I was taught that film was fogged by cosmic rays and there was no way to avoid that.

I keep a camera and film in my truck. When I lived in TX it would get above 100 F for weeks in the summer and when I developed the rolls after perhaps a year they were always very foggy. So I know heat can increase fog. The question then is whether the fridge/freezer is really better that a "cool dry place", and I don't have any proof of that.

Yes, all film is eventually fogged by cosmic rays but if it is well stored, that can take decades, especially for slower films. Worst case are films like TMax 3200.

Freezing is how the manufacturers treat their master rolls, and I expect they know something about it.

 

[Urmonas]

This is a question I have pondered for some years but never found a good answer to. There are plenty of examples that hot conditions can degrade film, so at least the film should be stored in cool conditions. If it was a simple chemical - temperature effect then colder conditions (such as a freezer) will reduce degredation of the film. The ultra-high speed films are labelled regarding cosmic rays, and these will also affect slow films, just at a slower rate. There is also background radiation which will fog film. Both of these will not be temperature related (at least I do not expect them to be). For a given film there will be a temperature where the chemical-temperature effects will become less than the non-temperature effects and there is no point going any colder. So that is the real question, at what temperature is there no benefit going colder. Unfortunately I move home quite often so have not been in a position to do any tests.

A further thought in this process that I have pondered are the detrimental effects of freezer storage. Food that has been stored in the freezer for some time can come out with ice crystals. This is a dessication process. Film is gelatine based and so will suffer a similar effect. Now it may be slow as the film is tightly coiled and so the exposed surface is small, but I would still expect it to occur. Another experiment ot conduct!

Of corse the real answer is that we should be shooting the film fast enough that storage time is never a concern!

 

[markbarendt]

Of corse the real answer is that we should be shooting the film fast enough that storage time is never a concern!

Yes.

 

[removed account4]

Yes, all film is eventually fogged by cosmic rays but if it is well stored, that can take decades, especially for slower films. Worst case are films like TMax 3200.

Freezing is how the manufacturers treat their master rolls, and I expect they know something about it.

hi rolfe

what makes me wonder about freezing, isn't freezerburn/freeze drying ( the ice crystals mentioned above )
but there are different levels of coldness, and maybe consumer freezers or even commercial freezers
don't get down cold enough to make a difference ... MAYBE the cold has to be about -100ºF or -50ºF to make the difference
between leaving it in a 60ºF room and putting it in an UBERcold environment ?
as i have stated earlier in this thread, while my storage isn't extremely HOT, ( never above 80ºF ) it is never exceptionally cold ( never below 60ºF )
i have never had trouble with fog, even with tmz3200. granted i get speed loss, but that is a different bowl of soup.

attached find a few images from the roll of 10years old tmax3200 i have alluded to.
the story about the morning is on my blog if you want to read the backstory: http://nanianphoto.com/blog/?p=58
i've also uploaded a papernegative from 20year old shelf stored polymax rc paper as well ...
while the common sense chorus chants "buy a freezer to put your film into it"
i'm not planning on changing my ways since my "proof" seems to be my results besides i've sworn off mass manufactured film and paper
so someone else will have to do the tests from today until 2024

 

[cmacd123]

On a revious thread, Simon Galley of Harman did offer that he asked his experts and they see advantages in REFRIGERATING film, but that freezing has mixed results.

Most of the Older PROFESSIONAL films called for storage under 55F, which for most of us means the fridge.

I try to follow the advice given in the Kodak Publication referenced above, eve though it is for Motion Picture film, just because I cannot imagine Kodak of old giving bad advice to their Biggest customers (Hollywood) and the technology between Movie and still film is generally only slightly different.

I have however seen some folks who I consider they know what they are doing caution about freezing film once the seal is opened. One of the folks I am thinking of was a Movie Film engineer at Kodak, who used to give advice on Cinematography.com. Unfortunately the gentleman died several years ago from cancer.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I freeze or refrigerate film. All the camera store I worked in froze or refrigerated film. When I worked for Kodak, I was told that freezing film will extend the life by at least ten years. Yes there are research papers on the subject.

Just freeze the unopened film. Refrigerate the opened film is sealed zip lock plastic bags.

 

[removed account4]

steve

you said you were told this, but did they have any examples of film
that was from the emulsion batch that was just stored in a not too varied environment ?

i am kicking myself that i didn't put some of the tmx/tmy sheets i bought fresh in 2001 in the freezer
to compare to what i have been shooting ... so i can compare 2 sheets from the exact same batch
stored in the 2 different conditions ...
while i believe that they told you this stuff and like most people you do what your boss tells you
but i would love to see the difference between the 2 storage scenarios because i have been shooting
this shelf stored stuff which has a clear base and no adverse affect after 13 years of storage, and i've been shooting
tri x that expired in the mid 1990s also sheets ( 5x7 ) that is stored the same way, again, clear base ...
its not that i don't believe it might be helpful to have film stored in an environment that isn't too hot nor too cold
as goldielox says " just right"
i have a hard time believing that it will add 10years to its lifespan .. it just sounds too exact a number and my guess is not true.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I found through experience and then later working at Kodak that you can bank of what Kodak advises, especially since they always took the most conservative approaches.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Gibberish...

I have personally observed examples of 400-speed b&w film that were ambient-temperature stored* for four-plus years past the expiration date that showed a fb+f level of ~0.15 higher than the same film that was freezer-stored (at ~5F/-1.5C, w/periodic defrost cycles). Densities were measured on a calibrated Heiland TRD-2/02 instrument. Both films were unexposed and were developed in the same tank.

The unexpected testing opportunity presented itself when I inadvertently freezer-stored some, but not all, of a film purchase lot. When I discovered the omission years later (I found the missing rolls), I was able to make a quick check. The results, while not rigorously scientific in methodology, are nevertheless more compelling than a simple anecdotal observation subject to observer bias.

So do as Steve advises. Freezer-store unopened film in plastic bags. Refrigerate opened films in plastic bags. Especially higher ISO films and color films. Unless, of course, you know you will be using it comfortably within its expiration date window, and will be storing it while unused at recommended ambient temperatures.

Ask yourself this. If someone anecdotally told you they had once flown with their film riding in checked baggage without any ill effects, would you do the same on your next trip?

Ken

* In the greater Seattle region of western Washington State. If daily summertime temperatures here even reach 80F/27C for two consecutive days, it's front page news. Today is June 16th at 2:26pm as I write this. The outdoor thermometer currently reads 53.2F/11.8C.

 

[BrianShaw]

...i have a hard time believing that it will add 10years to its lifespan .. it just sounds too exact a number and my guess is not true.

But John asks a great question. With any technical standard it is often asked, "Where is the data to support that exact value?" Sometimes the background research exists in open literature; sometimes not. Sometimes the specific value derives primarily from the collective widsom known as 'engineering judgement of subject-matter experts'. Source credibility is often paramount... and this may be one of those situations where that is largely all we have to go on WRT this question.

I'm sure the real value was "approximately 9.784638546362 years"

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I'm sure the real value was "approximately 9.784638546362 years"

That's where the "observer bias" part comes in. For some people the additional fog resulting from "approximately 9.784638546362 years" is still good enough. Thus the anecdotal claim of seeing "no adverse affect after 13 years of storage."

But what's good enough for one individual is rarely good enough for the rest of us. Hence the conservative nature of the expiration dates. Which is really a least common denominator approach. Make sure it's perfect from the get-go for everyone.

Then if a few users see some sort of artistic value in abusing the materials through improper storage, they are free to do so without similarly constraining the rest of us who do notice the differences. And everybody ends up happy.

Ken

 

[BrianShaw]

It always makes me very happy when everybody ends up happy!

 

[removed account4]

If someone anecdotally told you they had once flown with their film riding in checked baggage without any ill effects, would you do the same on your next trip?
.

yes i would believe them, in a heartbeat
... i had 100 rolls of film go through carry on scan 18 times in one trip going and coming ..
and 64 of those rolls, including a roll of 800 speed color negative film go through checked baggage exposed with no adverse affect.

sounds like you are speaking gibberish as much as everyone else who claims freezing film will add 10 years of life to it.
by the way i keep getting "better than botox" spam should i try it ? :munch:

( .. they also have "scientific proof" that it will make me look 10 years younger )

---

thanks brian

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

yes i would believe them, in a heartbeat

Exactly...

sounds like you are speaking gibberish as much as everyone else who claims freezing film will add 10 years of life to it.

That's not what I said, John. This is what I said:

"I have personally observed examples of 400-speed b&w film that were ambient-temperature stored for four-plus years past the expiration date that showed a fb+f level of ~0.15 higher than the same film that was freezer-stored (at ~5F/-1.5C, w/periodic defrost cycles). Densities were measured on a calibrated Heiland TRD-2/02 instrument. Both films were unexposed and were developed in the same tank."

Translated, that means:

I saw the background density of unfrozen film increase by about 0.15 density units after 4+ years beyond expiration, as objectively measured using a densitometer.

And not:

It "will add 10 years of life to" the film.

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

I said that the Kodak film people who conducted scientific analysis stated that they had research that showed that freezing can extend the life of film by ten years. I did not conduct a full scope polygraph on those people. Perhaps jnanian will conduct the polygraph tests.

 

[removed account4]

Exactly...

if my personal experience corroborate with the teller of experience i am supposed to say " both of us are exceptions to the rule, and all the people
who suggest things, and follow those ideals blindly must be right when they have personal no experience with anything"
sounds like the internet to me!

most people who give advice on things have no personal experience with what they are the advisor, and parrot someone else and suggest blindly to follow ...

That's not what I said, John. This is what I said:

"I have personally observed examples of 400-speed b&w film that were ambient-temperature stored for four-plus years past the expiration date that showed a fb+f level of ~0.15 higher than the same film that was freezer-stored (at ~5F/-1.5C, w/periodic defrost cycles). Densities were measured on a calibrated Heiland TRD-2/02 instrument. Both films were unexposed and were developed in the same tank."

Translated, that means:

I saw the background density of unfrozen film increase by about 0.15 density units after 4+ years beyond expiration, as objectively measured using a densitometer.

And not:

It "will add 10 years of life to" the film.

Ken

right, and you were going along with personal "experience"
with what steve suggested, and other people blindly accepted as gospel that freezing film will enhance its life...
THAT is what other people suggest ... i didn't say YOU suggested that.

at least you has personal experience to back it up ... most people don't, they just repeat what someone else told them ...

i have personal experience to back up my beliefs ... and i will go by personal experience before i go by
things i find to be nonsense spouted off by people who heard/read ... it somewhere and have nothing to back up what they say.

other people in this thread chimed in with personal experiences as well, hot car, hot truck hot house hot is not good .
and yes, i agree with that, and have had personal experiences to corroborate what they have said ...

i'm still not drinking the freezer kool-aid seeing i have shot close to 2000 sheets of film and probably 1000 rolls of film
expired, no known freezer history, and none from me that don't exhibit enough fog that is "noticeable" ... for intents and purposes ...
and i have better things to put in my freezer or fridge ...( like food. ) i also have film that lived with me in a building that used to get to 130 in the summer
and the tmz i posted photos from was part of that film ... again no adverse affects.

.15 density units .. i don't even know what that means ..
it sounds "barely noticeable unless you have a calibrated Heiland TRD-2/02 instrument " to me



thanks steve i might take you up on that but maybe
i'd have to call squidward..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdcxtaxDXjM

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

John, you are (once again) confusing "personal experience" with "objective data". The two are not the same. The former is subjective, dependent upon the observer. The latter is objective, independent of any observer.

You are allowed to make subjective observations to your heart's content about anything, and no one will challenge you. Thus you can claim that you traveled around the world a gazillion times with film in checked baggage and you can see no adverse effect. Or you can claim to have used 13-year-old film or paper and you can see no adverse effect.

Your subjective observations, however, are valid only for you. And their validity beyond you solely dependent upon your credibility as an observer. Perhaps the x-ray machines were always out of order when your film passed through them. Or more likely, your definition of no adverse effect is less rigorous than everyone else's definition of no adverse effect.

But objectively, if a properly calibrated density-measuring instrument indicates there is truly a difference in any of these cases, then there truly is a difference. And that difference exists no matter how loudly you stomp your feet in protest that it doesn't. Or how many people you can find that you can convince to agree with you that it doesn't. Because you are not allowed to change the objective data to match your personal experience.

If we are standing on a hill in the pre-dawn darkness waiting for the sun to rise, I don't care if you and a million others are facing west in anticipation. I am facing east because that's where the sun will rise. No amount of righteous protest, or artistic license, or earnest yearning, or sense of personal entitlement, or Facebook "likes", will change that fact. As a by-product of celestial mechanics, it is what it is. Objectively.

If my calibrated and correctly applied densitometer indicates a 0.15 difference, then that difference exists. It might not matter to you. Or to a million others. But it exists nevertheless. And it's not the result of a subjective observation, or wishful thinking, on my part. Nor will it disappear due to a subjective observation, or wishful thinking, on your part. And just because the difference doesn't matter to you, does not mean it doesn't matter.

You would do well to consider the court martial answer of Mr. Spock to the question of how he "knew" something to be true:

"If I drop a wrench on a planet with a positive gravity field, I need not see it fall, nor hear it hit the ground, to know that it has in fact fallen."

The reason being, of course, that gravity is not a subjective phenomenon. There is an enormous amount of unexpected wisdom in that screenwriter's simple line, much of it directly applicable in this thread...

Ken

 

[Urmonas]

Ken: Thank you for providing some useful data on the effect of storage. I at least now have an idea of how much fogging may occur.

jnanian: Thank you for confirming Ken's results. Though you seem a little unclear on what is going on, so let me explain. Refering to your previous posting:

i have never had trouble with fog, even with tmz3200. granted i get speed loss, but that is a different bowl of soup.

From you comments following this posting, it appears you do not have access to a densitometer. I thus conclude that your "speed loss" is based on visual "loss of shadow detail". This is due to increased fb+f of the film. Thus confirming Ken's measured results.

At least I now know that storing film in the freezer is worthwhile. Thank you!

 

[Xmas]

Normal film cartons have a little icon with 13C or 20C for best before date it depends on film.

If you live in igloo Id not bother

If you live in death valley ask medic how much salt to add to drinking water otherwise cut salt from diet.

My HP5+ cine and APX400S from more than ten years ago has easily detectably higher fog than fresh it had been stored in UK ambient.

 

[Xmas]

Ken: Thank you for providing some useful data on the effect of storage. I at least now have an idea of how much fogging may occur.

jnanian: Thank you for confirming Ken's results. Though you seem a little unclear on what is going on, so let me explain. Refering to your previous posting:




From you comments following this posting, it appears you do not have access to a densitometer. I thus conclude that your "speed loss" is based on visual "loss of shadow detail". This is due to increased fb+f of the film. Thus confirming Ken's measured results.

At least I now know that storing film in the freezer is worthwhile. Thank you!

Well freezer is different from fridge or trunk of auto. Frozen carrots are different from ones just dug up from garden. Salad drawer of fridge in zip lock bag is safest for mono, don't open the 120 seals or 135 tubs, fresh bag of silica gel in zip lock with film.

And loss of speed can occur rapidly with IR or ultra fast film independent of an increase fog level. Id not bother with

delta3200 shoot it now... don't fly with it
delta400 fridge 5C

I ve had old roll films for processing that were impossible because the emulsion layer and backing paper were stuck together. The cameras they were in were ok.

 

[Dennis S]

Was doing an order and I ran across a few tips from a manufacturer of film. Orwo. Gives a few tips on humidity. Always found it best to stick with the recommendations instead trying to out smart an engineer.

Storage:
Raw Stock: up to 12 month: 18°C or lower
more than 12 month: 13°C or lower
recommended relative humidity: 50 to 70 %
Exposed film: process as soon as possible
Processed film: store at ≤ 21°C or lower with 40 to 60 % relative humidity for normal
periods
long term storage: according to the standards ISO 5466, SMPTE RP131
and ANSI IT9.11
Substances such as sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide, formaldehyde vapours,
radioactive radiation, and X-rays have a negative influence on films.
Warranty: 24 months provided the storage conditions specified above have always
been observed.