Curious - how long can exposed film be left undeveloped?

[Huss]

The instructions on film boxes always say develop as soon as possible after exposure. Apparently something happens to the latent undeveloped image.
But how long can one wait? And what happens? Reduced contrast?
Back in the day when I didn't have a local shop I'd have to mail my film. And as the cost of mailing one roll or 10 was the same, I'd wait until I had a bunch to reduce costs.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Fog reduces contrast and eats into speed (shadows don't come up out of the fog) -- but that's typically something that happens with long term storage.

I've recently processed a roll of Kodak Verichrome (the ortho version, discontinued 1955) that had six nice latent images on it (out of eight frames; the rest were unexposed). I took steps with developer to limit fog. A number of years ago (about 2005), I processed (in HC-110) a roll of Plus-X I'd exposed myself in 1979, all the images were fine. However, that same year, I processed a roll someone sent me (found film), also in HC-110, that had so much fog the images were barely distinguishable.

Storage conditions mean more than length of time for most films. Room temperature or below, nice and steady, is best, preferably low humidity (but not Sahara level dry).

One exception to this (at least anecdotally) is Pan F -- this film is said to be more than usually subject to latent image fading; even a year can be too much.

 

[koraks]

But how long can one wait?

Depends...
With PanF+, the notorious film when it comes to latent image (in)stability, the advice is to process ASAP, as in within a few days or so. Don't let it sit for weeks. A film like Kodak TMAX100 I think you can pretty safely store away exposed for a month or two and not notice the difference unless you do critical analysis on it. With color film, there's generally slightly less slack, but even that is mostly designed to work well if you take it on a really long holiday and only develop it after weeks. I never really encountered problems even with the occasional roll that was stuck in a camera somewhere for a couple of months.

And what happens? Reduced contrast?

The image just fades; overall loss of density, the shadows going first. Color film will shift.

I guess we all know those examples of the roll of film forgotten inside a camera and developed after 10/20/30 years exhibiting serious problems. But apart from this, I never experienced latent image stability as a problem.

 

[BradS]

it depends to some extent on the film and how it was stored but in general in any sane situation, it can wait for a while...like months without issues.

 

[Mackinaw]

This is an anomaly, but I recently found a roll of 35mm Ilford FP4 in the bottom of a box that was shot in the mid-70's (not my pics). For kicks, I processed it. Amazingly, there were images. Contrast and exposure were acceptable, though it took some post-processing in Photoshop to make them presentable. The big problem was fungus, which had gotten into the gelatin emulsion. Still, I was surprised I even got any images.

Jim B.

 

[AZD]

In 1995 I shot a roll of Ektachrome in 120 but never had it processed and forgot about it. I recently found it and figured why not try to develop it. Assuming fog and color shifts I opted for b&w development as negatives. I was very surprised how well it turned out. Lots of fog, but usable images with no weird artifacts. A roll of Fuji slide film from the same year, stored and processed identically, didn’t do as well.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

I often find mystery rolls, I did one from the late 1980's a few years back, at that point it was probably 25 years past exposure. Tri-X.

 

[pentaxuser]

In the early 2000s I was given a Agfa Isolette I with about 6 shots exposed. When I finished the roll and it was developed in the early 2000's the film was fine and I know from the deceased person's brother that the scenes and people taken in those 6 shots were all in the early 60s so that was a 40 yr old film that had sat in the camera with exposed frames for at least 40 years

The film was Verichrome Pan.

pentaxuser

 

[Sirius Glass]

It depends on the film and the storage conditions. PanF+ does not retain the latent image well and is a bad player. Other films are better than PanF+.

 

[MattKing]

What I find amazing is that it is Huss asking this question. Based on his extremely rapid activity here, I would have thought that he would have been the last one here to be concerned about delay!
The best answer probably is that, with the exception of Pan F+, where even the manufacturer warns about latent image stability, the extent of the problem is somewhat unpredictable.
And at least one of the factors to consider is the ability of the developer to restrain fog matters - I have no idea whether monobaths are good in that way.
With colour, of course, the different colour components can deteriorate at different rates, so you can end up with really strange colour.
Backing paper has a role to play as well.

 

[Cholentpot]

What I find amazing is that it is Huss asking this question. Based on his extremely rapid activity here, I would have thought that he would have been the last one here to be concerned about delay!
The best answer probably is that, with the exception of Pan F+, where even the manufacturer warns about latent image stability, the extent of the problem is somewhat unpredictable.
And at least one of the factors to consider is the ability of the developer to restrain fog matters - I have no idea whether monobaths are good in that way.
With colour, of course, the different colour components can deteriorate at different rates, so you can end up with really strange colour.
Backing paper has a role to play as well.

Oh yes. Don't forget about backing paper. It'll do you wrong at times.

 

[KerrKid]

I had The Darkroom process and scan a roll of black and white film not long ago that had been shot with my Olympus XA2, I believe, back around 1981. I don't even know what kind of film it was. Probably Tri-X. It went thorough wide temperature and humidity ranges in those 40 years. The pix came out fine for what they are. This one is very sharp. No complaints with the XA2's lens.

 

[mrosenlof]

From the Pan-F+ datasheet:

Important Note: Once exposed, process PAN F Plus as soon as practical – we recommend within 3 months

 

[DWThomas]

In August 2008 I found a roll of 120 Plus X, in a Flexaret TLR, that from the content, I had to have started in 1981. I used HC110 1+63 (no particular reason) and got images. They were of rather bullet proof density, and the grain seemed a bit funky, but they were still there after 27 years.

 

[Huss]

What I find amazing is that it is Huss asking this question. Based on his extremely rapid activity here, I would have thought that he would have been the last one here to be concerned about delay!

Right? It’s all about curiosity and who knows, maybe in the near future I’ll be doing a lot of travelling.

 

[MattKing]

Right? It’s all about curiosity and who knows, maybe in the near future I’ll be doing a lot of travelling.

Outside of Pan F+, I would say that unless you were thinking about interplanetary travel, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the time frames involved.
Damage due to storage and handling issues are of much greater concern.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

An interesting site if you are interested in latent images: http://westfordcomp.com/updated/found.htm

The man buys old cameras with film left in them - Goodwill, Salvation Army, 'Antique' (junque) stores - and recovers the old images. Sort of like found art, though not quite as interesting http://museumofbadart.org/

 

[Philippe-Georges]

I you freeze the exposed film (-18°C), the developable latend image can be preserved for a rather long time, some emulsion (like the former Tri-X) even for years, see what late Garry Winogrand did...

 

[albada]

I you freeze the exposed film (-18°C), the developable latend image can be preserved for a rather long time, some emulsion (like the former Tri-X) even for years, see what late Garry Winogrand did...

Except for Pan F+. I stored a roll only in the freezer for several years. When I finally shot it and developed it, the rebate (edge writing) was barely visible. The latent image of the rebate faded despite being frozen.

 

[Don_ih]

Loss of speed from age doesn't impact an image that's already been captured on the film. Fog, however, does. The main reason to process the film as soon as possible is because it's no longer in its factory-sealed container, may have been exposed to moisture or other conditions that are bad for the film. The film can only possibly degrade from that point on (as in, it can't get better) so there's no point waiting to develop it.

This roll of film was in a bunch of stuff I bought. It was Tri-X 35mm, shot who-knows-when. I developed it - but the problem was it was likely pushed and the negatives ended up very thin. If I'd developed it a few minutes longer, it would have been much better.

I also developed a film pack that was shot in the mid 50s. The images were on there fine but the emulsion suffered from exposure to the paper and age fog.

 

[guangong]

Freezing helps. Movie film shot and left in Antarctica in early 20th century was successfully processed a few years ago by BFI.

 

[nosmok]

Loss of speed from age doesn't impact an image that's already been captured on the film. Fog, however, does. The main reason to process the film as soon as possible is because it's no longer in its factory-sealed container, may have been exposed to moisture or other conditions that are bad for the film. The film can only possibly degrade from that point on (as in, it can't get better) so there's no point waiting to develop it.

This roll of film was in a bunch of stuff I bought. It was Tri-X 35mm, shot who-knows-when. I developed it - but the problem was it was likely pushed and the negatives ended up very thin. If I'd developed it a few minutes longer, it would have been much better.

View attachment 320189


I also developed a film pack that was shot in the mid 50s. The images were on there fine but the emulsion suffered from exposure to the paper and age fog.

This is a great found shot!

 

[Don_ih]

This is a great found shot!

I just wish the film had developed better. I should've cut a few inches off to test instead of committing the whole roll.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Loss of speed from age doesn't impact an image that's already been captured on the film. Fog, however, does.

The fog, however, affects the effective speed; it limits how far down in the shadows you can see details. That's the real cause (IMO) of the speed loss we see in very old unexposed film, too -- just takes more light to get above the base + fog.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Outside of Pan F+, I would say that unless you were thinking about interplanetary travel, I wouldn't be overly concerned about the time frames involved.
Damage due to storage and handling issues are of much greater concern.