Example using very old film. Expiry date 1966

[PHOTOTONE]

I have attached a couple of images.

W5 (The first image) is a view using Luminos Presspan in 5x7 size that expired in 1966. The film originally had an ISO of 200. I exposed it at an ISO of 6. There is quite a bit of age fog, which I compensated for by bumping up the contrast when I scanned the neg.

W2 (The second image) is a 4x5 shot using Arista.edu (Forte) 200 fresh stock. There was a bit of lens flare in this shot, again contrast adjusted in Photoshop when scanned for this example.

The old film has some mottling in the sky it seems. I am not yet using any added restrainer in the developer, which is HC-110b for both images.

 

[jsouther]

Thank you for posting this. I've recently aquired some past date film, though not nearly as old as your sample posted here and have had pretty good success processing.

I've wondered how films dated really old such as your 66 sample could be processed and how they would be handled.

All things considered, its not only an interesting exercise what you've done, but also I think it looks great!

Joe

 

[htmlguru4242]

Definetely looks good. Those are excellent results considering the age and speed of the film.

It's a nice shot, too.


hmm ... I wonder if my Tri-X from the mid-1970s is still useable?

 

[Paul Howell]

Definetely looks good. Those are excellent results considering the age and speed of the film.

It's a nice shot, too.


hmm ... I wonder if my Tri-X from the mid-1970s is still useable?

If the film was frozen you can still get good results, although slow film seems to hold up better. I bought a can of bulk Plus X and a bulk can of an ASA 50 film made in England (no brand on the can) both dated 1976 last year from Ebay, both were reported to be frozen, no fog, about a stop slower.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

In the case of my film (examples posted in first post) the film was kept in terrible conditions. Always at room temperature or hotter, for the last 20 years or so in my attic. It gets hot in my attic. There was a bit of adjustment and spotting I had to do when I scanned the negative for posting here.

 

[Vaughn]

Just to toss in some unrelated info...I made some silver prints a couple nights ago.

I cracked the seal on a box of 100 sheets of single weight Kodak Medalist (F3) - expiry date 3/74. Not refridgerated. Printed fine, though the negative I was using needed more contrast. So I used an opened package of Agfa Portiga Rapid III, grade 4 and made some fine prints on it. I think they stopped making the Grade 4 in the early to mid-70's (they changed the paper and made it available in grades 1,2 and 3). Boy, did it selenium tone beautifully!

Gives me hope for the 6 10-sheet packages of Grade 3 Portriga Rapid III I have that is of the latter (but fortunately not the last) vintage!

One just never knows!

Vaughn

I have several partial boxes of Royal Pan dated 79, 81 and 85 -- I give it to students to play with in pinhole cameras.

The box of Royal-X Pan dated 1959 is toast...we use it to practise loading film holders!

 

[copake_ham]

I enjoyed the comparison and agree that the shots themselves are very good. A bit surprised that the river below seems to be running so low already in May. Has it been dry there?

I can appeciate the PS "adjustments" per se. But wouldn't "unadjusted" scans be a better comparison as to the efficacy of using 40+ y.o. film? Espescially since you also adjusted the ISO at the time of exposure?

 

[srs5694]

Just for another anecdote, a few months ago I picked up some rolls of Tasma MZ-3L film with an expiration date of 1993. This is an odd Soviet film with an ISO (actually GOST) of 6. I have no idea how it had been stored, but I suspect it was badly -- either that or this particular film just doesn't store well. I got odd splotches on most of the negatives and a lot of mottling in areas of even brightness, similar to that in the sky in the sample shot at the start of this thread. The splotches alone ruin all but a couple of frames on each 36-exposure roll. Overall, I consider the film to be a complete loss, unless I happen to think of a project that would benefit from those defects (and for which an ISO 6 film would be suitable!). On the off chance that happens, I'm keeping my remaining half-dozen rolls frozen.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

I enjoyed the comparison and agree that the shots themselves are very good. A bit surprised that the river below seems to be running so low already in May. Has it been dry there?

I can appeciate the PS "adjustments" per se. But wouldn't "unadjusted" scans be a better comparison as to the efficacy of using 40+ y.o. film? Espescially since you also adjusted the ISO at the time of exposure?

I adjusted the ISO because of testing and developing sheets prior to shooting this shot. It is a known fact that old film has diminished sensitivity and many people shoot fresh film at lower than rated ISO anyway. I did nothing in Photoshop that I wouldn't do on a print made in the darkroom. The goal was obtaining a usable image/print, not an example of the defects present in old film. Basically all I did was contrast (paper grade), dodging, burning, and spotting. I do all these corrections on the image made on fresh film also.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

More comparison shots.

Here is another pair of images. Again, the first one was shot with old flm on 5x7 (expiry 1966), and the second one was shot with fresh film on 4x5. Lenses were selected to attempt to match field of view.

There were various flaws and defects on the old film 5x7 image. The image was very very flat, and this may be because of my attempt to control age fog by developing for a short time, therefore I had to reproduce the image with much more contrast dialed in. (I have no idea what the correct developing time would be for this Luminos Presspan ISO 200 film) There were also many more white specks and spots (on the positive reproduction) that I spotted out, just like I would do on a photopaper print. I also did some dodging and burning on both images to more accurately capture the vision I had of the view when I shot it.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Ansco 620 - no idea how old..I have it in my head that they stopped making it in 1965, but I really don't know. I shot it at 25 ISO & some on the roll actually looked over-exposed

http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/KodakMedalistII/AlienAbduction_small.jpg

http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/KodakMedalistII/before.jpg

http://www.uptowngallery.org/Murray/KodakMedalistII/Ballou1.jpg

I got some spools from someone & they arrived with film still on them! Other film, Ferrania Pan, was brittle & sometimes cracked while advancing it!

 

[sun of sand]

Nice. Thanks for posting these. I actually like the old film better.

I just bought my first box 4x5 sheet film
expired in 1987 Tmax but refrigerated
I was nervous fridge kept film might not be any good ..this eases my nerves greatly

I bought frozen bulk rolls of plus-x and tri expired in 80 and are perfectly fine/completely usable.

 

[Uncle Bill]

Not bad for film older than I am by two years. Very interesting postings, thanks for the information.

 

[Murray@uptowngallery]

Re: Copake ham's comment on show it with all it's warts vs. FIPS (fix in Photo Shop).

Mine looked so bad before I adjusted in PS I would have been (even more) embarrassed to claim them. I'll assume the good comments were for the bridge photos.

 

[semeuse]

Picked up some old Super X in a film pack (I really just wanted the back for my 3.25 x 4.25 Speed Graphic) and decided to see what, if anything, would come out. The pack had a develop by date of April 1955. According to the person I got it from, it had not been cold stored. I rated it at around EI50 and developed in some old Rodinal (circa 1990) 1:25 for 5 minutes. I was quite amazed at how it came out, light leaks and all.