Expiration date???

[OnDiddy124]

Hello guys, I bought this bag of expired film from someone on marketplace but they had no knowledge of when they expired or packaging so im just going off the casette design. If anyone knows about the time periods when this film was manufactured with these designs i'd greatly appreciate it, thank you.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Hello guys, I bought this bag of expired film from someone on marketplace but they had no knowledge of when they expired or packaging so im just going off the casette design. If anyone knows about the time periods when this film was manufactured with these designs i'd greatly appreciate it, thank you.

Pitch it. There is likely to be fog.

 

[drpsilver]

13 Oct 2024

OnDiddy124:

This film is very old. My guess is late 1990s or early 2000s. Note that Tri-X and Tri-X pan are different films. My understanding (others correct me if I am wrong) is that TX pan was formulated as a "portrait film". The more practical result of this is that (a) it does not have the tonal range of TX, and (b) it is rated at EI=320 instead of 400.

If you decide to shoot this film I would recommend giving 1 stop more exposure (rate at 160), and maybe a little (~5%) overdevelopment.

I have exposed film this old, but only in 120. I have had good results with the above scheme using D76 (stock).

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Darwin

 

[Don_ih]

Note that Tri-X and Tri-X pan are different films.

TriX Pan, far as I know, was named that way to set it apart from TriX Ortho (which probably was no longer made by the time the pictured film was made) - but I may be wrong. There is a difference (in sensitivity curve) between the 400 and 320 TriX films - but I don't think the 320 was ever available in 35mm. (I may be wrong about that, too.)

this bag of expired film

If it was frozen, it may be ok. TriX ages badly at room temperature or higher. Ten-year expired TriX is normally noticeably fogged. Rating slower and pulling development, like Darwin said, can help. You may need to search for the proper dev time for this film, as it may not be the same as current TriX.

 

[Agulliver]

That's a style of printing that Kodak started using in the 1990s so it's no older than that. Probably between 20 and 30 years old.

Tri-X is quite resilient but it will have fogged a bit. I would echo the suggestion over expose by one stop. Develop in something simple like D76 or ID-11 stock. Don't use it for anything really critically important. But chances are you'll get decent images out of it unless it's been stored somewhere very hot.

 

[pentaxuser]

Pitch it. There is likely to be fog.

and there was me thinking he was asking about the time period when it might have been made

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

The cassettes read "Kodak Tri-X Pan Film".
That specific nomenclature was replaced by "Kodak Professional Tri-X 400 Film/400 TX" in 2001 I believe.
So it is at least as old as 2001.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Don't listen to the guy above who said pitch it. My money is on that they will still give you decent images. As long as they were kept in a cool, dry place (freezer is best), then no worries. Yes, the base + fog will be a bit higher than fresh film but I have shot films that are WAY older than those, and they still produce nice images.

 

[mshchem]

Yeah, it's old, but I would try it. If it hasn't been baked you'll get something. If you plan 9n scanning etc, you can probably do a little digital magic.

 

[AnselMortensen]

The one on the right dates to the 1980's- early 1990's.
The one on the left dates to the mid-1990's to the early 2000's.

 

[_T_]

It’s going to be a crapshoot and you could end up getting completely different results from each roll or nothing usable at all but you already bought it so it could be worth it to some people to shoot it.

Just make sure you use it to take photos that you don’t care about. Don’t take the most important photos of your life with it or you might have to live with the regret of losing those opportunities forever.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

13 Oct 2024

OnDiddy124:

This film is very old. My guess is late 1990s or early 2000s. Note that Tri-X and Tri-X pan are different films. My understanding (others correct me if I am wrong) is that TX pan was formulated as a "portrait film". The more practical result of this is that (a) it does not have the tonal range of TX, and (b) it is rated at EI=320 instead of 400.

If you decide to shoot this film I would recommend giving 1 stop more exposure (rate at 160), and maybe a little (~5%) overdevelopment.

I have exposed film this old, but only in 120. I have had good results with the above scheme using D76 (stock).

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Darwin

No, this is incorrect. Tri-X Pan is now called TX400. Tri-X Pan Professional is ISO 320 (available only in sheets now, formerly available in 120), and a completely different film, with a different H&D curve, more suitable for portrait work. Royal Pan (ISO 400) was more like Tri-X Pan, but it was discontinued, I know not why.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

It’s going to be a crapshoot and you could end up getting completely different results from each roll or nothing usable at all but you already bought it so it could be worth it to some people to shoot it.

Just make sure you use it to take photos that you don’t care about. Don’t take the most important photos of your life with it or you might have to live with the regret of losing those opportunities forever.

Right! Pitch it!

 

[MattKing]

No, this is incorrect. Tri-X Pan is now called TX400. Tri-X Pan Professional is ISO 320 (available only in sheets now, formerly available in 120), and a completely different film, with a different H&D curve, more suitable for portrait work. Royal Pan (ISO 400) was more like Tri-X Pan, but it was discontinued, I know not why.

Close, but not quite.
KODAK TRI-X Pan Film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 400 Film / 400TX.
KODAK TRI-X Pan Professional Film has been replaced by KODAK PROFESSIONAL TRI-X 320 Film / 320TXP.
So the names and short form designations are now set out the same way.
And as far as Royal Pan (and not Royal-X Pan, which it's name might be easily confused with) is concerned - a 17+ year old thread with some history: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/royal-pan-ektapan-super-xx-etc-tell-me-about.26410/

 

[reddesert]

It's the regular Tri-X like Tri-X has been since the 1990s or so. The "pan" designation is only material so far as constraining the date of the film can.

Unless it's been stored in a hot car or something, it's probably usable, you just might have to overexpose it somewhat and deal with a higher level of fog. You could always shoot off 5 or 6 exposures of one roll and develop that to see how it comes out and if you need to compensate for speed loss.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Agree, design is from the 90's. I had one 100ft from around that age and exposing around 200 gave me somewhat usable results.

 

[Disconnekt]

Kodak TXP (tri-x pan) 320 was never made in 35mm format, only 120/220 & bigger formats.

 

[Disconnekt]

Good chance they both have a 6 digit DX number on the back, you can put them in here to see when they (roughly) expired: https://industrieplus.net/dxdatabase/index.php