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

[removed account4]

ken
i am well aware of what i wrote, and know the difference between scientific observation and personal experience.
i don't need you to 'splain it to me.
as i said, it works fine for me, and others have suggested it works fine for them as well.
no amount of densitometer readings will change my mind, i would rather not be a slave to sensitometric testing.
if it something you need to do, by all means do it to your heart's content, but there are a lot of people who don't bother and don't think it is necessary.
and regarding putting shot film in my baggage, i don't sweat it ... you might but i don't.. i have other things in my life to worry about ..


===

urmonas

the film i posted ( and i use ) has a clear base, clear to the edge with no fog.
your explanation for my "speed loss" is not correct.
i said it is a different kettle of fish because i use 1/15thS + wide open pretty much for every camera i have, whether it is iso400 or 3200 or 25 in bright sun
or slower in dimmer light not because the film has lost speed from poor storage i do that with new film as well. i use box cameras
with a fixed shutter ( I setting ) and fixed aperture, as well as small format and lf cameras (8x10 with film much bigger with paper ) ...
it has nothing to do with base+fog&c as you and ken claim. my developer causes speed loss as well ( sumatra coffee ) ... so while you may
think you know what is going on with my photographic situation, you and ken don't exactly have it right, and i don't really have the time or energy
or stamina to keep going with this. if you want to see what i am talking about feel free to follow the links in my signature and you will see my work.
be advised they are not dock scenes or sunsets or puppy / kitten shots or glamourous nudes but other things ... and some of them
i am paid to make, and others people pay me afterwards ... i used to have thousands of photographs in my gallery here, but i purge them about once a year
because i don't think it is fair to the site owner for me to hog his server.

as i have suggested, i am very clear about what is going on. for me ( and it seems true for others as well )
it is a waste of time, effort, and energy for me to freeze film ... shelf stored without a lot of temperature change seems to do fine for what i use it for ...
and it doesn't matter to me if the film is 30 years old or brand new ... and sorry to say, you are not going to change my mind ...

good luck with your sensitometric testing!
john

 

[markbarendt]

i would rather not be a slave to sensitometric testing.

Me neither.

 

[Xmas]

Fridges, or freezers, are supposed to contain food. Plus some emulsions get ruined by condensation or water cristalization when put in deep freeze.
Is it worthwhile?

If you live in Arizona where the diamond backs come indoors cause it is too hot and you have 2000 feet of plusx bulk. Yes

Zip lock with silica gel in fridge at 5C Id not think of freezer.

 

[Rolfe Tessem]

Fridges, or freezers, are supposed to contain food. Plus some emulsions get ruined by condensation or water cristalization when put in deep freeze.
Is it worthwhile?

Unopened film is not going to magically get water inside the closed containers, foil, or boxes.

Opened film should be put in ziplock bags and then refrigerated or frozen.

Who knew that this whole thing was a controversial topic?

Rolfe

 

[Urmonas]

jnanian: The dominant cause of apparent "speed loss" is increase of fb+f. There are some other possible causes, at least one of which I have experienced myself, but these are rare and it unfortunately takes an accurate densitometer to isolate them. As this does not affect your photograhpy that is great. Note that the change in fb+f will be visible in a side by side comparison, but may not be obvious in a "film on the lightbox" situation. Enjoy using your older films!

 

[removed account4]

SNIP SNIP SNIP

jnanian: Enjoy using your older films!

thanks, i will

===

rolfe:

i don't use stop bath either

 

[Xmas]

Unopened film is not going to magically get water inside the closed containers, foil, or boxes.

Opened film should be put in ziplock bags and then refrigerated or frozen.

I have four issues with your suggestion

- there is not going to be detectable difference in fog level over ten years at -10C compared to 5C
- unopened film inside closed containers , foil etc. needs to have been packed at zero relative humidity for there to be no ice at -10C
- Harman bulk and cine were not/are not sealed, they used to seal.
- once you open sealed film the relative humidity reaches ambient and I not recommend storage at 5C as the dew point may be above 5C, ie there may be free water by 5C.

You can say you have not had a problem, yet - if you want.

 

[removed account4]

xmas

stop poking holes in people's foolproof methods for adding
life to their film

===

i just mailed away for my better than bowtox shipment
im hoping i will be emotionless for at least a week
the bowtox snake and spider venum salve, wears off
after a few days ..

 

[Xmas]

Hi

Unlike some I was not doing it for fun.

 

[Roger Cole]

Cold storage works to extend the life of film. If you don't believe that, fine, don't do it. Me, I do and I will.

 

[Snapshot]

If you dedicate your freezer to storing film, you'll not have much in the way of water to contend with. At a temperature of -10C, there will be 1.8 grams of water for every 1.0 kilogram of air, which has a volume of around 30 cubic feet. Given a 5 cubic feet freezer, which is fairly common, you'll have 0.3 grams of water or about 0.3ml. That amount of water is equal to 6 drops. Most of it will have solidified on the sides of the freezer, containers and other condensation points. There won't be much, if anything, to affect film.

 

[removed account4]

i see what you are saying snapshot
but if you add up the price of the dedicated freezer
and electricity it uses for the number of years you will have it
filled with film does that cost really outweigh the perceived
idea that the freezer will add life to your film, or the
least cost solution of using a basement shelf and not being overly obsessive
like photographers tend to be ... it seems to be just another rabbit hole / magic bullet that fotographers tend to search for.

to further your suggestion of the freezer ...
if one freezes film it probably means one need to buy a densitometer as well
so one create a baseline measurement, and do systematic "tests" of the frozen film to know if it is beginning to show fog &c ..

seems like a lot of effort to me ... but i guess if someone is into tests
and buying additional equipment ( freezers and densitometers ) and is willing to pay for the additional
electricity and time spent doing tests &c it might be worth the effort ...

to me it is excessive and something i could do with out.
too much electricity, an additional freezer time -money-effort that
could easily be directed to other things like time with my family, food, travel and making photographs.

we all have priorities, mine aren't directed towards a life support system for my film
( and my basement shelf seems to offer the same life support system for free )

 

[Sirius Glass]

Fridges, or freezers, are supposed to contain food. Plus some emulsions get ruined by condensation or water cristalization when put in deep freeze.
Is it worthwhile?

Which is why I stated the sealed film goes in the freezer and unsealed film goes in zip lock bags which keep out food contamination. Sealing and zip lock bags keep out condensation.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Cold storage works to extend the life of film. If you don't believe that, fine, don't do it. Me, I do and I will.

+1

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

John, here is your original post #1:

"it isn't hard to find photos and comments about film in the freezer or fridge
and how wrapping it in aluminum foil saran wrap, waxed paper, ziplock bags and in tupperware type containers
will preserve your film and paper &c.

"has anyone actually compared film that is just constant temp shelf stored for 5-10 years with stuff that was in the cold? i've read good and bad, seen freezer film that was terrible, and shelf film that looked new ...

"what's your spin, and do you have proof?"​

The moment I read that I remembered I had once several years ago tested for just that condition. But I stayed out of the thread because I know some individuals get angry and defensive if such questions get objectively answered, and the answers are not what they expect or want to hear.

However, when the discussion reached the point of subtly ridiculing those who accept the advice to cold-store over the long-term (including several manufacturer's long-standing advice for their own products), then I stepped in with some hard numbers and caveats.*

The reason I stepped in is that these threads become part of the searchable database for newcomers that is arguably APUG's greatest legacy. Someone who is uncertain will someday be reading these posts, and accepting what is said here as most likely the truth.

Saying that the changes to film mitigated by cold-storage are unnecessary for you, John, is perfectly fine. Addressing only the technical issues (not aesthetics), one need only look at your pictures to see that a 0.15 difference in fb+f density is most often not going to have any effect whatsoever on the final outcome. So it's understandable that you may see no subjective differences after 13 years of ambient storage.

But for all of the others here (now and in the future) who strive toward a greater standard of precision, that additional 0.15 may make all the difference. And implying that they should just stop wasting their time and ignore the possibility of its existence like you do is unfair to those newcomers down the road who don't yet know any better, and who are looking for factually objective information when searching APUG for answers.

So I don't know what to do with you, John...

In the above thread-originating post you specifically asked for alternative points-of-view on the topic you posed, backed up by proof, if possible. I (eventually) gave you exactly that. But judging from your subsequent reactions, that wasn't really what you wanted to hear. I guess I'm no longer clear then on just what was the purpose of this thread.

If the purpose is that I am supposed to bend or discard the objective data so that it does not conflict with your predetermined notions regarding cold-storage, I won't do that. That would be an ethically incorrect interpretation of the data.

But if the purpose is that you wish to tell us all that in your own personal experience cold-storage has little effect on your own personal results, and is therefore a waste of your own personal time and resources, then I am in complete agreement. And thank you for that additional subjective viewpoint.

Ken

* John, your conclusions often fly off in strangely unsupportable directions, and without any basis in fact.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am "a slave to sensitometric testing." I've only once ever tried to fully calibrate using the instrument, but quickly determined that the effort required was resulting in diminishing returns for me. I do use the instrument for occasional spot checks of things, such as the test I related in this thread. But a "slave?" Where in the world did you get that??

 

[Mr Bill]

It's a good question, and I am in the ranks of those who don't know for sure.

If the topic were COLOR film, though, I have substantial experience with several films. Mainly in the Kodak line, VPS II, VPS III, and Portra 160. They were very stable; apparently more so than the 400 B&W, based on Ken Nadvornick's observations (post #38). Possibly not, though; Ken referred to "ambient" temperature, and perhaps his ambient was worse than my ambient.

A bit of my background may be called for: I spent years managing a quality control department in a large chain studio/lab outfit, and we used to screen all the new film emulsions (full emulsion runs were reserved for us, so there were not that many). Anyway, we semi-randomly pulled a couple cans (100 ft rolls) from each new emulsion, and ran sensitometric wedges. We essentially graphed some limited characteristics, much in the manner of process control strips.

There's more to this. The film was used in studios across the US. Most on a "timely" basis, but they were always finding misplaced rolls. 6 rolls in the back of the old file cabinet, a dozen rolls in the trunk of a leased car someone just took over, etc. Sometimes the film is several years out of date. Since the history of the "found" film is unknown, we didn't want to risk having someone shoot it. At the same time, we didn't want to just trash it. So we'd pull a foot or so off each roll for testing; sensi wedges again.

The results? Virtually all of the films tested were very consistent. What about this idea of "ripe" and "over-ripe film?" Not supported by the sensi tests. Whatever way a given emulsion looked when new, it kept looking like that over the years. Even 3 or 4 years past the expiration date, it still looked the same. Variations across the "web," meaning at different parts of the master roll, were non-existent. Differences from emulsion to emulsion? Mostly not detectable on the sensi wedges, but occasionally a very slight difference would show up.

There was a certain sort of problem that would show up on rare occasions; essentially a very high "base stain," or fog. We never did find out, for sure, what caused this. We had sort of presumed that it was due to excessive heat exposure until we actually ran some tests in a "hot box." Although we could seriously degrade the film, the characteristics were different from the oddball "field" samples.

Anyway, for these color neg films, it seemed that typical office conditions were fine for storage, provided that the film is used within a couple years after expiration date.

Sorry I can't say if this carries over to B&W.

 

[Xmas]

Which is why I stated the sealed film goes in the freezer and unsealed film goes in zip lock bags which keep out food contamination. Sealing and zip lock bags keep out condensation.

The sealed film may not have been sealed at zero humidity
Any unsealed film would be at ambient relative humidity.
Freezers here run at -10C.
If you have anything other than zero relative humidity you risk destruction in freezer at -10C.
A fridge at +5C is safe with zip lock and silica gel.
Colder than that is risky
I do archival processing and frequently cannot unroll roll film cause of emulsion sticking to backing paper. Condensation in temperate house environment.
-10C is 14F.

 

[Sirius Glass]

John, here is your original post #1:

"it isn't hard to find photos and comments about film in the freezer or fridge
and how wrapping it in aluminum foil saran wrap, waxed paper, ziplock bags and in tupperware type containers
will preserve your film and paper &c.

"has anyone actually compared film that is just constant temp shelf stored for 5-10 years with stuff that was in the cold? i've read good and bad, seen freezer film that was terrible, and shelf film that looked new ...

"what's your spin, and do you have proof?"​

The moment I read that I remembered I had once several years ago tested for just that condition. But I stayed out of the thread because I know some individuals get angry and defensive if such questions get objectively answered, and the answers are not what they expect or want to hear.

However, when the discussion reached the point of subtly ridiculing those who accept the advice to cold-store over the long-term (including several manufacturer's long-standing advice for their own products), then I stepped in with some hard numbers and caveats.*

The reason I stepped in is that these threads become part of the searchable database for newcomers that is arguably APUG's greatest legacy. Someone who is uncertain will someday be reading these posts, and accepting what is said here as most likely the truth.

Saying that the changes to film mitigated by cold-storage are unnecessary for you, John, is perfectly fine. Addressing only the technical issues (not aesthetics), one need only look at your pictures to see that a 0.15 difference in fb+f density is most often not going to have any effect whatsoever on the final outcome. So it's understandable that you may see no subjective differences after 13 years of ambient storage.

But for all of the others here (now and in the future) who strive toward a greater standard of precision, that additional 0.15 may make all the difference. And implying that they should just stop wasting their time and ignore the possibility of its existence like you do is unfair to those newcomers down the road who don't yet know any better, and who are looking for factually objective information when searching APUG for answers.

So I don't know what to do with you, John...

In the above thread-originating post you specifically asked for alternative points-of-view on the topic you posed, backed up by proof, if possible. I (eventually) gave you exactly that. But judging from your subsequent reactions, that wasn't really what you wanted to hear. I guess I'm no longer clear then on just what was the purpose of this thread.

If the purpose is that I am supposed to bend or discard the objective data so that it does not conflict with your predetermined notions regarding cold-storage, I won't do that. That would be an ethically incorrect interpretation of the data.

But if the purpose is that you wish to tell us all that in your own personal experience cold-storage has little effect on your own personal results, and is therefore a waste of your own personal time and resources, then I am in complete agreement. And thank you for that additional subjective viewpoint.

Ken

* John, your conclusions often fly off in strangely unsupportable directions, and without any basis in fact.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I am "a slave to sensitometric testing." I've only once ever tried to fully calibrate using the instrument, but quickly determined that the effort required was resulting in diminishing returns for me. I do use the instrument for occasional spot checks of things, such as the test I related in this thread. But a "slave?" Where in the world did you get that??

+1000

When I did refrigerate or freeze film, the black & white film would loose contrast. That was probably related to fogging. When I did not refrigerate or freeze film I would experience color shift and film speed loss. Since I started refrigerating and freezing film, those problems never arose again. Later when I worked at Kodak I asked the film experts about refrigerating or freezing film, they highly recommended it.

I never felt the need to conduct source article research, review Kodak's research, submit other Kodak employees to full scope polygraphs, or place Ilford or Kodak employees in torture devices. Since John is convinced that storing film and photographic paper in the trunks of vehicles parked during the summer in Death Valley and transporting the film by air and subjecting the film to airport x-rays, he is free to do so. Proselytizing such practices on APUG for the uninformed is a disservice to the analog community.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

It's a good question, and I am in the ranks of those who don't know for sure.

Excellent post.

It raises some very interesting questions, backed up by independent objective observations. On the surface, my observations would seem to be not directly applicable to your color testing data. But I don't know enough to say for sure.

I do know that I could see a slight visual difference in the two b&w film test strips when observed on a light table. But as I already knew the results of the densitometer readings, one could discount that observation as potentially biased. But they sure looked subtly different.

Any report of data resulting from objective tests should always include an analysis, or at least acknowledgement, of any potential sources of observational error. In my case there are several, as it was just a spot check.

I did not record emulsion batch numbers of the test rolls. The rolls could have been different. I did not know the provenance of the test rolls. Meaning primarily their history of storage before I acquired them. And as previously noted, I did not provide for controlled cold-storage and ambient storage. The cold side was a 20-year-old kitchen refrigerator/freezer unit with inconsistent defrost cycles. The ambient side was simply Seattle, Washington. With neither very rigorously consistent in their application. If I thought about it further, I'm sure there are many others.

But the results you offer for color film storage intrigue me, as your level of objective rigor appears to have been far greater...



Ken

 

[Snapshot]

i see what you are saying snapshot
but if you add up the price of the dedicated freezer
and electricity it uses for the number of years you will have it
filled with film does that cost really outweigh the perceived
idea that the freezer will add life to your film, or the
least cost solution of using a basement shelf and not being overly obsessive
like photographers tend to be ... it seems to be just another rabbit hole / magic bullet that fotographers tend to search for.

to further your suggestion of the freezer ...
if one freezes film it probably means one need to buy a densitometer as well
so one create a baseline measurement, and do systematic "tests" of the frozen film to know if it is beginning to show fog &c ..

seems like a lot of effort to me ... but i guess if someone is into tests
and buying additional equipment ( freezers and densitometers ) and is willing to pay for the additional
electricity and time spent doing tests &c it might be worth the effort ...

to me it is excessive and something i could do with out.
too much electricity, an additional freezer time -money-effort that
could easily be directed to other things like time with my family, food, travel and making photographs.

we all have priorities, mine aren't directed towards a life support system for my film
( and my basement shelf seems to offer the same life support system for free )

I totally understand. If the economics and extra effort do not make sense, I would suggest everyone buy fresh film and take simple precautions against film degradation. For most people, this would be the optimal choice. As for me, I calculated the cost of running a dedicated refrigerator ($43 per annum) to determine if it's feasible to store film and paper over the long term and them compared it to pricing increases, which seems to be recently trending around 10% per year.

For long term storing (5 years or more) about $500 worth of film seems to be the absolute minimum I would keep to break-even from a power consumption cost perspective, not factoring the opportunity cost of storing film rather than investing the money, acquiring a freezer and so on. There are are benefits of having film 'on-tap', however, since you are not as subject to violitity of pricing and availability issues. I also suspect film price increases will average more than 10% per annum in the near future.

The upshot is unless you are planning to store a lot of film for 5 years or longer, then there isn't a compelling necessity to freeze your film.

 

[Xmas]

Too technical by far

once upon a time there were three bears

mummy
daddy
and little

...
they were visited by a little girl with gold curly hair we can call her M's Goldie lox.

film is like Goldie too hot or too cold bad

foggy (badly) in five years in temperate shop FP4+ & Delta (green house on Sundays)
detectable fog in ten years temperate dwelling HP5+ cine, still usable though.
just detectable fog in ten years fridge salad areas APX400 (5C))
No fog five years fridge salad Delta 400

note times are past best before dates cept in case of cine

If film is damp and in freezer you won't undo the roll - too cold for Goldie...

So just how long do you want to keep film?

 

[removed account4]

ken and steve

maybe you should read the first 6 or 7 posts to this thread...
you will see i am asking about PERSONAL EXPERIENCES
not lab experiments, not an edict from kodak, but PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
yes it is subjective, sorry this aggravates you.

and steve, maybe you should read what i have written about heat and luggage
it is not what you have suggested i said.
i specifically said i know excessive heat ruins film, and i said if someone told me
that putting film in luggage didn't ruin their film, i would agree with them because
i had the same experience, i didn't tell anyone to put their film through the xray.
i also said if i packed flm in my luggage i wouldn't sweat it because there is a chance
that it will be fine. that is a little different than what you claim i am telling people to do.

i don't believe in following blindly and doing what people tell me "just because"
this thread asks a specific question if people have PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and have seen very much of a difference between
cool stored / basement stored low temperature fluctuation storage against deep freeze.
ken was the only person who actually had personal experience and tested both basement film and freezer film
and while .15 isn't much (barely noticeable i have been told ) it is still a slight difference.
enough to ruin a photograph? maybe.. who knows, it wouldn't ruin any film i expose.
your experience claims that using the refrigerator and freezer both fogged and reduced your film's contrast
and cleared up the problem ... otherwise you just follow what kodak told you to do ( as their employee and afterwards )
great, i never told you to do otherwise.

no one else had any observations just comments about how they do keep their fridge / freezer with film and they see no reason not to.
and a few saying like me, they really haven't noticed that much of a difference and they are questioning the validity of the edict as well.
i never ridiculed anyone, called them names or said anything other than, it worked for them, and shelf storing film works for me
and a few others who have posted to this thread.

and while the two of you suggest my posts are a disservice to everyone who may stumble upon them
i think it is a SERViCE to those who may read it. if someone wants to search and see if there are differences
between freezer stored film and basement shelf stored they will see
that some people have been shelf storing film for decades with no adverse affect so it might be an option---
obviously everyone's basement and every film batch is different and it might not work .. but just the same it might work.
just like using print developer as film developer, it might not work for you, but i do it all the time even though
i was told from "people who always know better" never to use ansco 130 for film because it will
develop too fast and to make my film "too contrasty" and ruin it ( ive been doing it off and on since 1993 ).
i was also told never to use 10 year old liquid emulsion ... it would be "full of fungus be fogged, too slow and not work" it works fine.
my unfrozen, unrefrigerated film works fine too.

you 2 remind me of the norwegian scientist turned coffee developer guru who claimed after 6months he was
an 'expert' in all things caffenol . he called me a liar amongst other things because i don't measure my ingredients
and i don't mix them as he prescribed was the only way, and i don't let the developer sit for 20mins or whatever "rest" was "needed"
and he also claimed i made up all my results ( for 6 years ) and i wasn't to be trusted because my methods and ideas were different than his own.
i had 1000+ images in my apug gallery + website that proved very easily that you don't need exact measurements for caffenol-c
but he refused to even look in my gallery (or my website ) even after i bought him a subscription to apug
so he could have access to the gallery wee what others have done, and post his own images there too,
he thought i did everyone a disservice here as well and tried to have me banished from apug. ... oh well..
like print developer for film, expired liquid developer, guestimating for caffenol c works fine too.
i have had thousands of sheets and rolls of film that also show that freezing film and refrigerating it doesn't have to be the only option.
you like to freeze and refrigerate your film, go ahead, it doesn't bother me at all.
as i said before i have better things to do with my efforts, but unfortunately my suggesting
that freezing or refrigerating film might not be the only option bothers you.

no one is forcing you to post or read this thread and seeing opinions that differ from
the two of you aggravates you so much i would suggest you both put me on ignore, i plan on doing the same.
i actually had to take the 2 of you OFF ignore to respond to your posts in this thread.

It's a good question, and I am in the ranks of those who don't know for sure.

as always mr bill, thanks for your thoughts, i know your experience and value your opinion.

 

[removed account4]

I totally understand. If the economics and extra effort do not make sense, I would suggest everyone buy fresh film and take simple precautions against film degradation. For most people, this would be the optimal choice. As for me, I calculated the cost of running a dedicated refrigerator ($43 per annum) to determine if it's feasible to store film and paper over the long term and them compared it to pricing increases, which seems to be recently trending around 10% per year.

For long term storing (5 years or more) about $500 worth of film seems to be the absolute minimum I would keep to break-even from a power consumption cost perspective, not factoring the opportunity cost of storing film rather than investing the money, acquiring a freezer and so on. There are are benefits of having film 'on-tap', however, since you are not as subject to violitity of pricing and availability issues. I also suspect film price increases will average more than 10% per annum in the near future.

The upshot is unless you are planning to store a lot of film for 5 years or longer, then there isn't a compelling necessity to freeze your film.

i know exactly what you mean .. and it sounds like you have a plan .. and it works for you.
i'm fresh out of "effort" so i don't bother .. so far, so good !

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Not sure what to make of that outburst. At least beyond the fact that it's the reason I hesitated to engage this thread with objective observations and facts in the first place. After several years of interaction and observation I'm fairly certain I know what's really going on under the hood. But it would be unethical and inappropriate for me to comment further in that regard in my own defense. So I won't.

Suffice it to say that the non-threatening open exchange of ideas and differing points of view is the hallmark of an educated and free society.

As I've repeatedly noted in the past, I have never, and will never, put anyone on an ignore list. (Nor have I, or will I, ever report anyone to the moderators.) To do these things would be to attempt to surround myself with only people who will agree with me and tell me exactly what I want to hear. I think we all, or at least almost all, recognize the danger in that.

I answered the OP's original question exactly as he posed it. I think that at this point the best-practice course of action is to simply let each poster's subsequent words quietly speak for themselves...

Ken

 

[omaha]

Wasn't this topic thoroughly covered in one of the issues of Popular Photography from 1958 that were recently posted?