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

[removed account4]

i have a 35mm box of plus x and a 120 roll too that have been baking in our car for 3-4 years (summers here have been 100ºF+ for 6-7 hour stretches and cool down to upper 70s/80s for a month or so) and freezing ( below 0ºF like you and maybe 20ºF for months ) in the winters.
i haven't clipped any off the roll for a test. i'll probably run the rolls in a few months in the heat of the summer.
last year iShot some of the same flim ( so it was in the same conditions for 2-3 years ) with no noticeable problems.
i'm not sure but the summers and winters here seem to be getting more drastic ( colder and hotter for a few weeks )
luckily the film seems to be OK ..

 

[removed account4]

i was wrong about the film
it is plus x with an exp date of 3/2006
its been roasting and freezing in the car since it was new
(i found it in the car door cubbyhole )
and its in my camera now ...
i'll post an image or 2 to this thread when i process it ...

 

[Sirius Glass]

My experience is that without long term cold storage film loses contrast at some time past the expiration date.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And my experience mirrors Steve's. I began cold-storing my new film supplies when I first visually noticed base darkening of my older non-cold-stored films after they were developed. This was later confirmed by densitometer readings, as detailed earlier.

Given this particular aging behavior exactly matched the manufacturer's warnings, I began cold-storing and over similar time frames to date have experienced no further degradation.

Ken

 

[Sirius Glass]

And my experience mirrors Steve's. I began cold-storing my new film supplies when I first visually noticed base darkening of my older non-cold-stored films after they were developed. This was later confirmed by densitometer readings, as detailed earlier.

Given this particular aging behavior exactly matched the manufacturer's warnings, I began cold-storing and over similar time frames to date have experienced no further degradation.

Ken

My only regret is that putting myself on ice does not slow down the aging process.


Steve

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

And by the time they DO put you on ice, the aging process no longer matters anyway...



Ken

 

[removed account4]

i was wrong about the film
it is plus x with an exp date of 3/2006
its been roasting and freezing in the car since it was new
(i found it in the car door cubbyhole )
and its in my camera now ...
i'll post an image or 2 to this thread when i process it ...

just finished exposing it it'll be processed and maybe posted soon ( maybe in a few nights )

 

[GRHazelton]

Rate in change in chemical reactions and temperature changes.

Without perusing all prior posts, I can't be sure that someone hasn't mentioned this. If it is a "duplicate," please excuse.

I seem to recall from my college chemistry courses that a chemical reaction roughly doubles in speed for each 10 degrees C in temperature rise, and roughly halves in speed for each comparable decrease. Looking at development time/temp charts shows this, approximately. Thus it would seem that, since we can assume that film's "going off" is a chemical reaction, the cooler the better. In any case, its and easy and potentially beneficial storage method. Just don't mistake 120 film for sausages.

 

[ME Super]

My preference with color slide film (granted this topic is B&W, but IMHO color slide is probably the most sensitive to color change due to no opportunity to correct it in a printing stage) is to store the 5 pack in the freezer. When I'm ready to start using a given 5 pack, I'll pull one roll out and let it warm up overnight, the other 4 rolls go in the fridge.

I also shoot the Rollei IR400S, which I buy in 2-packs. It gets stored in the freezer, and when I'm ready to break out a roll, I pull it out of the freezer and let it warm up overnight, pull one roll out of the film can, leave the other one in the film can (since Maco packages two rolls to a can) and stick it in the refrigerator. When I'm ready to shoot the other roll, I pull the film can out of the fridge and let it warm up an hour before I open it.

So far I have had zero problems doing it this way. Since I've not had any problems doing it this way, why change the way I'm doing it? This method works for me, so I will in all likelihood continue to use it.

This is all 35mm, btw. I don't shoot enough 120 to warrant freezer storage, so I just buy a roll or two from the store, store it at ambient temperature (75*F or so) and use it within a couple months. No problems with this either.

 

[Kirks518]

In my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I don't think it makes a huge difference. With that said, I do refrigerate my film.

I recently was asked to sell a camera for a friend. It was his father's, and had been sitting in a closet since 1967. Seriously. In the bag were 2 rolls of 120 Pan that had expiration dates of 1969 and 1970. I shot the roll from 1969 to test the camera mechanics (and for fun).

I have about 40-50 rolls of assorted film (B&W and color, all sorts of brands) that were most likely ambient stored until I came into possession of them about 5 months ago. All are expired by at least a few years (they are in my store's cooler, so I can't tell you the exp dates at the moment), since Forte went out of business in 2007, and lots of it is from Forte. I just last night developed a roll of the Forte.

So I have film that expired in 1969, and probably 2010, and here is a sample of each:

120 Pan exp 1969, ambient stored (Florida by the way)


Fortepan 400 exp 2010+/-, ambient stored except for the last 4-6 months


So, yes, there is a difference, but to me, not a huge difference. I won't hesitate to use old expired film, not matter how it was stored, but I will probably continue to store my film in the refrigerator.

 

[removed account4]

In my PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I don't think it makes a huge difference. With that said, I do refrigerate my film.

I recently was asked to sell a camera for a friend. It was his father's, and had been sitting in a closet since 1967. Seriously. In the bag were 2 rolls of 120 Pan that had expiration dates of 1969 and 1970. I shot the roll from 1969 to test the camera mechanics (and for fun).

I have about 40-50 rolls of assorted film (B&W and color, all sorts of brands) that were most likely ambient stored until I came into possession of them about 5 months ago. All are expired by at least a few years (they are in my store's cooler, so I can't tell you the exp dates at the moment), since Forte went out of business in 2007, and lots of it is from Forte. I just last night developed a roll of the Forte.

So I have film that expired in 1969, and probably 2010, and here is a sample of each:

120 Pan exp 1969, ambient stored (Florida by the way)
View attachment 90622

Fortepan 400 exp 2010+/-, ambient stored except for the last 4-6 months
View attachment 90624

So, yes, there is a difference, but to me, not a huge difference. I won't hesitate to use old expired film, not matter how it was stored, but I will probably continue to store my film in the refrigerator.

thanks for your post and for sample images ...
so 45 year old film looked pretty foggy but printable
and if you had to boost the contrast with a #4 filter or as a paper internegative or in PS it would have turned out fine
just for kicks did you process any of this olde fogged film in a developer like dektol or a developer that
might have reduced the fog a little bit more ?

thank you for your post and personal experiences and samples...
this was what i was looking for from the start ...

 

[Roger Cole]

I don't see how those samples, both of mostly ambient stored film, of different types, different speeds, and over such a wide range of time frames prove or even indicate anything at all (except that 40 year old film deteriorates, which we knew.)

The only valid comparison would be images from two rolls of the same type of film, with the same expiration dates, one cold stored and the other ambient and stored for long enough for the ambient one to show noticeable deterioration. Then we could see if the cold stored one showed less, and subjectively how much less. Anything else is pretty much useless.

 

[Kirks518]

jnanian - I didn't develop the 120, brought it to the only pro-level (ie, not Walgreens/CVS/Walmart) film developing place in town. They were aware of the age, etc., and I have no idea how the processed it.

Roger Cole - I understand what you're saying, and you'll get no argument from me, but these can be used a couple of ways. The 120 shows (with no surprise) that film will degrade over time if not 'properly' stored, but is the amount of degradation enough to warrant/justify complete adherence to the keep film in the fridge/freezer? 40+ years is a long time for a roll of film to sit without someone using it, and considering that somewhat usable images were produced, I'd have to say that it isn't truly justified. With the Forte, there is a possibility that someone has some that has been kept in a freezer/fridge since they've had it, and I doubt that the difference would be noticeable. If we could only find that someone, it would be great. The Forte was developed by me last night (my first roll of self-developed film) with HC-110.

The samples were my personal experiences with old, outdated film that had not been properly stored, and nothing more. It was not a scientific study, or a controlled test. But it seemed to answer the OP's question.

With that being said, I have always, and will continue to, store my film in a fridge.

 

[removed account4]

I don't see how those samples, both of mostly ambient stored film, of different types, different speeds, and over such a wide range of time frames prove or even indicate anything at all (except that 40 year old film deteriorates, which we knew.)

The only valid comparison would be images from two rolls of the same type of film, with the same expiration dates, one cold stored and the other ambient and stored for long enough for the ambient one to show noticeable deterioration. Then we could see if the cold stored one showed less, and subjectively how much less. Anything else is pretty much useless.

yes, what you said is correct, the film-make / speed are different, the ages are extremely different and storage is different.
that said from what a lot of people say one should not do anything but freezer or fridge store film at all costs.
people live by this "creed" and while it is advisable my thread asked if it was absolutely necessary to live by this rigid rule and what peoples' experiences were.
and if people have samples of film that were poorly stored, or with questionable provenance &C and exposed & processed. and to post these non scientifically tested
"samples" while it may seem useless and pointless to have posted film that is about 4 years old and film that is 40 years old --- it shows that film does not degrade beyond use.
and it shows that at 3 or 4 years ambient stored film seems fine, and 40year old ambient stored film too can still be used.
if i follow the logic of people who suggest film should be frozen,.. the 40 year old hot humid closet stored film should have been useless, fogged beyond any use with no recognizable images on it ...
while i have been shouted down in this thread because i don't want to listen to "science" and mantras as i suggest ambient stored film ( black and white ) probably doesn't degrade as fast as is usually suggested, and even if it degrades / fogs a little bit in a few years of shelf storage, for most lay-people it probably doesn't really matter,
its most likely not going to look like 40uear old film stored in a hot florida closet and even if it does it can probably be "salvaged" ...
and chances are a teensy bit of fog won't make or break and image more than poor composition or not being familiar with equipment or materials.

personally i couldn't care less what people do, if they live by this rigid rule, if they buy special freezers and refrigerators and do critical testing
rotate their stock and treat their film as if it were produce. more power to them ... people should do what makes them confident with their work and makes them feel good, about what they do but they shouldn't denigrate people who haven't found much use for cold storage and think it is a drastic measure ....

personally i don't think my work suffers from 60-75º ambient storage, even 75-80º ambient storage ...
( and i have expired c41, d6 as well as b/w film stored this way and i use them regularly )
i have better things to do with $$ than buy refrigerators and freezers for film.... ( and the electricity to run them )

===

Kirks518

good to know your lab knows how to process b/w film, we don't have any places like that around where i am anymore.
and your sample was EXACTLY what i was asking for in this thread. no need to defend it


john

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

With that being said, I have always, and will continue to, store my film in a fridge.

In my opinion this is the wisest course of action, as it preserves the greatest number of possibilities down the road. It's the common sense least-common-denominator approach.

For example, if at some point your photographic vision requires a low-fog near-new-quality negative for, say, subtle shadow details not drowning in base fog, you're covered. You don't need to repurchase additional new film stocks because you have already stored your original stocks according to verifiable best practices.

On the other other hand, if your photographic vision requires a base-fog-compromised negative to achieve your goals, say, perhaps removing shadow detail to leave more to the viewer's imagination, then it's a simple matter to pull a couple of rolls or sheets from cold storage and stick them in the oven at 250F/121C for several hours. Bingo. Compromised film on demand.

But if you intentionally compromise all of your film stocks at the beginning, you obviously limit your possible choices later on if you find you really do need uncompromised negatives. (Note that limiting choices may also refer to simply reselling your film at a later date. There's a reason that poorly stored, fogged film sells for less.)

And since virtually everyone already owns at least one refrigerator/freezer unit for perishable food, with modest film quantities there are no real financial penalties involved in following best practices for storing your also perishable film. Just sandwich bag it and toss it in the back corner. Done.

Ken

 

[removed account4]

In my opinion this is the wisest course of action, as it preserves the greatest number of possibilities down the road. It's the common sense least-common-denominator approach.

For example, if at some point your photographic vision requires a low-fog near-new-quality negative for, say, subtle shadow details not drowning in base fog, you're covered. You don't need to repurchase additional new film stocks because you have already stored your original stocks according to verifiable best practices.

On the other other hand, if your photographic vision requires a base-fog-compromised negative to achieve your goals, say, perhaps removing shadow detail to leave more to the viewer's imagination, then it's a simple matter to pull a couple of rolls or sheets from cold storage and stick them in the oven at 250F/121C for several hours. Bingo. Compromised film on demand.

But if you intentionally compromise all of your film stocks at the beginning, you obviously limit your possible choices later on if you find you really do need uncompromised negatives. (Note that limiting choices may also refer to simply reselling your film at a later date. There's a reason that poorly stored, fogged film sells for less.)

And since virtually everyone already owns at least one refrigerator/freezer unit for perishable food, with modest film quantities there are no real financial penalties involved in following best practices for storing your also perishable film. Just sandwich bag it and toss it in the back corner. Done.

whatever floats your boat ...

personally i find it laughable that people push cold stored film so it takes precedence over everything else.
as if the cold stored film will save their skin even if the photography is not very good.
as stated several times in this thread, from my own personal experience, my "compromised" film stock
has a clear base, no fog, and it's base is as clear as film that was completely new delivered from b+h and exposed+processed the same day .. side by side
with film that was has been shelf stored since 1993. this same film lived in a brick loft with me that was about 120º for 5 summers and about 80º for 5 winters ..
and since 1998 has been in storage between 65-80ºF i am at a loss how clear base / very little / no fog degrade subtle shadow details that might be wallowing
in fog that doesn't exist ..

btw, thanks for attempting to "slight" my work LOL

 

[Kirks518]

BTW, I just looked, the Fortepan sample above expired in 2002, so that's 12 years passed expiration.

 

[removed account4]

BTW, I just looked, the Fortepan sample above expired in 2002, so that's 12 years passed expiration.

icing on the cake, thanks !

 

[dpurdy]

I actually do have a side by side comparison of sub zero stored and the same emulsion stored on a shelf in my basement for a few years. It is different type film but still silver emulsion on a base.
I have direct duplicating film in a roll that I once chopped a bunch of 5x7 sheets and put them in a film box and put the roll back in the freezer. Unfortunately I forgot about the box and left it out of sight on the back of a room temp shelf. About 4 years later I found it coincidentally at a time I was going to make some dupe negs. I tried to use the unrefriged stuff and it had lost a lot of it's ability to make d-max. Especially all along the 4 sides the density was very weak. The part of the roll that I had put back in the freezer was perfectly good with much better contrast.
Dennis

 

[removed account4]

thanks dennis!
is that duplicating film the same as SO-132 or the photowarehouse equivalent ?

i'm thinking about starting an "exposed film group"
( in the groups area ) where people can post samples of a variety of films and storage conditions
so if someone wants some background about films that might and might not have ambient storage issues
they can lurk and see / read people's tales of glee and woe ...

john

 

[dpurdy]

thanks dennis!
is that duplicating film the same as SO-132 or the photowarehouse equivalent ?
john

I am not sure what film you are referring to but my film is long discontinued Kodak 2422 direct duplicating film. I have both a 9.5 inch roll and 5 inch roll, probably a life time supply if the freezer can keep it safe. It is very slow extremely fine grain high resolution film.
Dennis

 

[removed account4]

I am not sure what film you are referring to but my film is long discontinued Kodak 2422 direct duplicating film. I have both a 9.5 inch roll and 5 inch roll, probably a life time supply if the freezer can keep it safe. It is very slow extremely fine grain high resolution film.
Dennis

hi denis

the SO-132 was "professional duplicating film " it had to be contact printed like azo and was probably as slow ... and processed under a safelight in dektol
it was a negative-> negative film ... discontinued about 15+ years ago ... i think when they got rid of it they suggested people make tmx (100 ) contact prints
on-film to duplicate negatives, ( or at least that was what i was told when i tried to get more and called the professional c/s number at kodak )
luckily i got something similar and equally as slow and helpful through our good friends in oxnard california

it is different than the stuff you have ... i think kodak had a handfuls of different types of duplicating films ...

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I actually do have a side by side comparison of sub zero stored and the same emulsion stored on a shelf in my basement for a few years. It is different type film but still silver emulsion on a base.
I have direct duplicating film in a roll that I once chopped a bunch of 5x7 sheets and put them in a film box and put the roll back in the freezer. Unfortunately I forgot about the box and left it out of sight on the back of a room temp shelf. About 4 years later I found it coincidentally at a time I was going to make some dupe negs. I tried to use the unrefriged stuff and it had lost a lot of it's ability to make d-max. Especially all along the 4 sides the density was very weak. The part of the roll that I had put back in the freezer was perfectly good with much better contrast.

Yes, your experience matches the same general trend over time that I have observed in other films, also in side-by-side comparison after about four years of storage...

Ken

 

[removed account4]

the 3 images attached are "hybrid in nature" (sorry)
although i could easily hand colored prints with pencil but i am unable to at the moment ..

anyways they are split processed sheets of exp 1983 tri x, poorly stored by me
who knows by the original owner
developed in coffee developer and ansco 130 ( 4 mins ansco, 4.5 mins coffee )

scanned, levels not really touched ... colors added in PS

if anyone reading this thread / post has expired film and a story about where it was, how it was stored+processed
feel free to post it to the "expired film group"
maybe eventually it will be a log of expired films how they were stored, processed &c so if someone finds old poorly stored
film they can have an idea of what it might be able to do ...

 

[removed account4]

another couple of images
recently processed, but scanned .. not printed
made with expired film ( 10 years shelf stored by me )
and expired developer
the 2 that are similar .. one was the blue negative
and the other is the tri chrome made from it,
the 3 images is just that ... 3 views