Expired film age estimation

[ant!]

I bought a few days ago very very cheap some 120 films (21 films for CAD 35). They were found by an house buyer in the fridge in the darkroom of the house, the former owner died in 2021. Even though the fridge was unplugged, I guess that most of the life these films were cooled. I roughly guess these are from the 90s, but maybe you can help me better guessing it from the film models and package look. There are only the rolls, so no outer pro-packs are anything showing the expiry dates.
Usually I use expired films which are max 15 years old and were cooled/frozen, and never had problems, but this is likely a bit older.

The films in the package, as below:

• Kodak TX: This should be Tri-X 400, right? Any idea when this style of packaging was used, it looks different to the current on. This should not be Tri-X 320 since that would be TXP, correct? This is the largest batch of films in the package.
• Ilford FP4: So this is the predecessor of FP4+, and seems to be made until 1990, and it's a ISO 125 film (like the current FP4+).
• Kodak VPL: From what I get this seems to be Vericolor, but I am confused about the versions (I/II/III, and there was VPS and other). There are only 2 rolls, and since these are color, I have less optimism these are still working fine, but maybe help dating the batch... These are ISO 100?

I hope at least the Tri-X and FP4 will be still usable, with an extra stop or two. Of course I will test them out, espacially since these are quite some rolls.

 

[MattKing]

VPL was designed for long exposures under tungsten light. It was discontinued in 1996.

 

[ant!]

VPL was designed for long exposures under tungsten light. It was discontinued in 1996.

Thanks for the info! Just found a datasheet and some more info (https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Kodak_CameraFilm.html). So, independent on how well or not well this has aged, this seems quite a bit specialized (tungsten light, exposures in between 1/50s - 60s). I guess I have to try out some long exposures, not sure where there are still tungsten lights around... (I guess a yellowish LED might work as well? candles?) I never shot tungsten balanced film...

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for the info! Just found a datasheet and some more info (https://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Colour_Darkroom/Early_Kodak_CameraFilm.html). So, independent on how well or not well this has aged, this seems quite a bit specialized (tungsten light, exposures in between 1/50s - 60s). I guess I have to try out some long exposures, not sure where there are still tungsten lights around... (I guess a yellowish LED might work as well? candles?) I never shot tungsten balanced film...

You may be able to find incandescent or halogen bulbs from a specialty source - an oven light bulb will do the job, as will an enlarger bulb.
You can also use daylight and the appropriate filtration, but it will effectively reduce the speed of the film even more.

 

[AnselMortensen]

VPL was balanced for 3200° Kelvin.
Standard Incandescent bulb, or a 3200°K LED...or Daylight with an 85B filter.

The TX and FP4 appear to be from the 1980's...the VPL slightly newer.

Edit: The pro-pack packaging from VPS & VPL, etc. from that era had Kodak's tested EI printed on it...without that info, you'll need to test.
I have some expired VHC (Vericolor High Contrast) from 1990, box speed 100, that had the tested EI of 25 printed on the pro-pack packaging...I overlooked it, and seriously underexposed a roll or two before remembering to look there.

 

[Udor]

The last time I bought 120 film marked "TX" with similar packaging was in the early 1990s. My guess is that your film is from the 1980s or early 1990s at the latest.

 

[MarkS]

Back in the day, I would shoot 4x5 VPL in daylight @ EI 50 with an 85B filter. And happily gave that up when the Portra films were introduced. Joel Meyerowitz and Stephen Shore both shot unfiltered VPL in daylight- and corrected the color in printing. They did ok (obviously), but the color cross-curves are quite apparent when you know what to look for. Some things you couldn't fix under the enlarger.
Your film is probably gone- fog levels will be very high. It would take lots of work in post to get anything out of it.

The Tri-X (it's the 400 type) is probably still usable, with several stops of speed loss due to fog.
The FP4? probably the same

 

[ant!]

Thanks everyone! Yeah, as said, I have not super much hope on the VPL but might still try it out, with low expectations.
So, probably 80s/early 90s. Sounds good, I will test the films at different speeds and see what I get...

 

[Udor]

Just to let you know: I still use TX marked film that I bought in 1988 and I rate it at EI 100. My has been sitting in a freezer for years though. It still works great. It is less contrasty than you might expect, but you can compensate for contrast when printing in the darkroom. Have fun.

 

[ant!]

Just to let you know: I still use TX marked film that I bought in 1988 and I rate it at EI 100. My has been sitting in a freezer for years though. It still works great. It is less contrasty than you might expect, but you can compensate for contrast when printing in the darkroom. Have fun.

Great, good to know!

 

[Helge]

FP4 should be good, with some fog.
TX is probably toast. Shoot it for fun or do a snip test to assertion fog levels.

 

[Agulliver]

the FP4 should be fine, you could try exposing at box speed or 64ISO. I've used FP4 over 40 years out of date and it was good, even without any refrigeration.

TX I've used 20+ years expired without refrigeration and found it was good but your roll will be 30-40 years old. How good it is will depend on how long that fridge was unplugged. Might still be good, especially if exposed at 200 or 100.