Current Fujichrome Longevity

[Ektagraphic]

Hi Guys-

Just out of curiousity...Does anyone know of any detailed information on the longevity of the developed images most current versions on the Fujichrome films? The Fuji publications say 20 years as the largest numver they offer with optimal storage conditions. I wonder what it really generally is. This does not seem very long to me, especially when I remember Ektachrome's published numver of years to be higher. Just wanted some APUG opinions.


Pat

 

[gone]

All dye based films are gonna fade at some point. It really depends on how well the film was developed, fixed and washed, how it was stored (exposure to light, type of box it's in, heat exposure, etc), and what the primary colours are in your images. Some are more fugitive than others. Yours might last 40 years, while mine might last 10. Or less. All of those factors determine longevity. The important thing to remember is that if you want stability, you need a silver based B&W film. If you're hand colouring things, you need pigment based colours, not dye.

I only got serious about photography a short time ago. Less that 13 years. Most of the stuff I shot in the beginning was C41 colour or that B&W fake stuff, and I had places like Walgreens process it. Can't tell you how sad it was to have to throw out most of it recently because the cheap processing, and my lack of optimal storage, resulted in serious fading. The images just weren't there anymore.

 

[wildbill]

If it helps, I recently opened an 8x10 box of the original velvia that expired in 1994. It has shifted towards magenta a bit but completely correctable in post. This doesn't answer your post processed question but 20+ yr old film that's still good to shoot.......

 

[mauro35]

The non-processed slide film contains still silver in it. Silver is an excellent anti-bacterial and anti-fungal agent. Once the film is processed correctly all the silver will be removed and that makes it susceptible to mold and degradation, especially in a moist environment. For this reason it is not possible to draw comparisons between processed and non-processed color films regarding archival characteristics.

 

[Ektagraphic]

Well I think in my own head I thought that current E-6 films have begun to reach the longevity of Kodachrome films. I'm totally aware that all films, especially color are likely to diminish in time, I just didn't realize that these E-6 films are thought to live so short! Kodak doesn't even mention anything that I can see about their current negative films. I have seen them advertising on their site that their papers will last quite a while. I think I have made too many assumptions here! As a young guy, I hope to make images that will look as good as the day I took them for at least the rest of my days

 

[MDR]

Theoretically it could reach a 100 years plus without major damage but unfortunately labs and pro labs never do/did real archival processing meaning longer washing of the film etc... everything is speed optimizes so the fixing is sub-optimal, the washing is sub-optimal etc.... The biggest killer of archival processing was the introduction of the quicklab/speedlab etc... 1hour photo kind of thing. Also slide films need to be projected from time to time or they will darken (does no fully apply the Kodachrome)

 

[BradleyK]

See Dead Link Removed. Chapter 5, I believe, should provide the information you are looking for.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have Fujichromes from the '60s and the '80s. Both are losing yellow dye and turning blue gradually. Storage of all of these are in the dark in a cool dry place (20/50). Kodachromes are unchanged from the same period, but Ektachromes vary all over the map. C41 films and C22 films from as early as the '50s seem to be doing well stored in the same place as the others.

And, BTW, there are some biases built into the data presented by Wilhelm.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

I appreciate the efforts made by Wilhelm; but because a number of his conclusions were based on extrapolations from accelerated aging tests
(except for vintage materials), the real world permanence of these things often differs significantly in my own experience. There are just so many variables. I haven't seen any fading at all in my early Fujichromes or Ektachromes. I inherited a bunch of very early Kodachromes and Agfachromes, but in those cases, the great equalizer wasn't fading but mildew damage due to naive storage conditions without any air circulation.

 

[Bob Carnie]

Speaking from the Pro Lab side of things , we have always done archival process and making prints from the early years to prove it.Still do, maybe why most people find
our film processing cost too expensive.

Theoretically it could reach a 100 years plus without major damage but unfortunately labs and pro labs never do/did real archival processing meaning longer washing of the film etc... everything is speed optimizes so the fixing is sub-optimal, the washing is sub-optimal etc.... The biggest killer of archival processing was the introduction of the quicklab/speedlab etc... 1hour photo kind of thing. Also slide films need to be projected from time to time or they will darken (does no fully apply the Kodachrome)

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe two years ago someone brought in some very early 5x7 Kodachromes of famous Hollywood celebs to show me. They looked like they
were taken yesterday.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

Speaking from the Pro Lab side of things , we have always done archival process and making prints from the early years to prove it.Still do, maybe why most people find
our film processing cost too expensive.

Bob,

Extrapolating from my own experience, Jobo processing of film, allowing for "archival" procedures is never going to be a cheap option. Perhaps dip n' dunk can be more economical if the volume is there? - which I guess it isn't...

Tom

 

[Ektagraphic]

Thank you all for your responses. I have my films processed with labs that I am confident do the best that they can...so I have that to start with. I am aware of Wilhelm's work and such. I was primarily wondering if any of the films have been improved since the book was made and his film research was done.

It is interesting to me that manufacturers seem to put emphasis on the longevity/image stability of their color printing papers, but not for films. Kodak doesn't even mention anything in their tech-pubs about film longevity of their current offerings...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak did extensive testing of films for their longevity during my time there. I ran many test myself on these products comparing Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Agfachrome, and Fujichrome. See my post above. We also tested C41 films and I was involved in that as well. This is not taken lightly even though Kodak came under harsh criticism by Henry Wilhelm. Some of the earliest work on image stability was done and published by EK and they even set up some of the standards labs.

It is just that print papers are more visible to the average photographer. After all, who looks at their negatives?

Each film is optimized for its normal use which is dark storage with intermittant bursts of light. Paper is tested under the broadest conditions.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

There was plenty of info in print at one time. But even then I took it with a grain of salt. The word on the street was that color neg film like
Vericolor was good for only a couple of years. But I once reprinted twenty year old color negs and they came out perfectly. But most chromogenic prints that old are starting to show distinct yellowing. Hopefully these newer Crystal Archive prints will be more stable, as all the hype predicts. By contrast, even my oldest Cibachromes look like they were made yesterday, with the exception of those that were hung in direct sunlight for many years. I test all this stuff myself, under various conditions. If you want something truly archival, invest in a solid titanium bowling ball. But I know a few monkeys that could probably ruin even that in a day or two.

 

[MattKing]

Thank you all for your responses. I have my films processed with labs that I am confident do the best that they can...so I have that to start with. I am aware of Wilhelm's work and such. I was primarily wondering if any of the films have been improved since the book was made and his film research was done.

It is interesting to me that manufacturers seem to put emphasis on the longevity/image stability of their color printing papers, but not for films. Kodak doesn't even mention anything in their tech-pubs about film longevity of their current offerings...

It isn't surprising that there isn't any specific information about film longevity in the current technical publications. I would only expect to see something about short-lived materials, or materials that were particularly susceptible to certain factors. For instance, if Kodak were still making slide films, I'd expect to see warnings about duration of projection.

The longevity is closely related to storage conditions. Modern film stored in the dark, with controlled temperature and humidity, will have a good long life - some might say an extremely long life.

The challenging area, and the one that brings rise to product claims, is the longevity of presentation materials, like prints.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Endura paper has had huge improvements after Supra III. Also, there are publications in the technical journals and many many patents. I have 2 or 3 publications here right now by both Kodak and Fuji on improved image stability.

They are not in journals that the average individual would read and so are a bit obscure.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

My routine complaint is when marketing interests like galleries or websites take R&D info concerning RELATIVE improvements in archival properties, and then wildly extrapolate this into extravagant hard claims regarding absolute permanence, regardless of the many variables of display and storage. This is of course particularly a problem with inkjet "pigments", for which no long-term track record yet exists, and which
are in fact complex blends of dyes, pigments, and lakes, and therefore inherently all over the map, regardless.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The most under reported problem with inks is the fact that they wander with time and create blurring of the image. Wilhelm reports on this, but on a very obscure page on his web site. You used to have to hunt for it.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

Aardenburg has addressed a number of Wilhelm's test shortcomings, esp with regard to inkjet inks, and also can describe why blanket permanence claims (per years) are impossible, because this might significantly differ image to image, even from the same ink set, depending on what colors are dominant. Then there are all kinds of hypothetical paper options. Kinda like back in the dye transfer days, with so so many
potential variables just in the ingredients themselves.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Drew, red fades differently than the same density of magenta and yellow both in digital and in chromogenic images. The difference in digital is that they are 3 dyes and in chromogenic, it is that the magenta and yellow overlay each other to make red, but the top dye offers protection to the bottom dye.

These and other considerations go into the evaluation of images. So, we fade neutrals and c/m/y images.

PE

 

[Athiril]

Iirc, Kodachrome lasts/lasted longer in dark storage conditions due to the fact it had no unused dye coupler left in the emulsion, where as modern chromes do since they are incorporated.

Fujichrome's last ~2.5x longer apparently under projection conditions.

I guess the point is, did you want to file and store away your slides, or look at them more?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodachrome's dye stability was due to the microcrystalline dyes that formed along with the lack of excess coupler and solvent.

PE

 

[DREW WILEY]

I presume that if Kodachrome was still hypothetically made in sheet film it would be obscenely expensive to buy and process - but still, there
has never been anything quite like it ever since, unless we are talking about in-camera tricolor separations with black and white film. Heck,
I'd have been happy if 120 Kodachrome had stuck around a bit longer than the wink of a cat's eye.