Found old roll of 220 Fuji film - should I try shooting it?

[billorg]

Found in my junk drawer. Any chance I should bother to shoot it? Pretty sure it’s unexposed - there is nothing saying “exposed” on it, but did they do that back then? My guess is that it was from the year 2000. What ISO was this? Thanks!

 

[Paul Howell]

If you don't mind the expense of development only find that it's fogged, or worse. Without knowing the expiration date you can only guess at the ISO to shoot at. Any idea if it's Fujicolor 100, 200 or 400? Don't know if Fuji made Fujicolor 800 or 1600 in 120.

 

[BrianShaw]

Put the old roll of film on a shelf and admire it.

 

[koraks]

Looks like an old roll of Provia. I don't know if the paper print color varied across the different speeds but at least Provia 400 came in this color.

Results will in any case be abysmal; I wouldn't bother with it. The wrapper has been removed, maybe years ago, so humidity will have taken its toll on the film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

If you have the camera equipment to handle it sure go ahead and shoot it. If not, put it on the shelf to admire or put it up for sale on eBay as "rare, hard to get, highly sought after, minty and just like new or NOS".

 

[Ernst-Jan]

I think it is a colour negative film. Pro 160NS and Pro 400H have this same dark red colour on the backing paper, Reala and Superia were bright red.
Astia, Provia and Velvia have blue colour on the backing paper and Acros was black.

 

[koraks]

Hm, you may be right @Ernst-Jan . I got rid of all my E6 last years so can't verify that, but I did somehow hang on to some old 160C and at least the foil wrapper has the same purple color (I wouldn't call this 'red').

 

[Paul Howell]

I was under the impression that Fujicolor like Kodacolor or Kodak Gold was consumer level film?

 

[koraks]

The 160NC boxes I have in the fridge here say "Fujicolor" and right beneath it "Professional".
So my film at least is 100% Legit, Pro, The Right Stuff, Excellent and makes me a Top-Noth Photographer.

Now what if a professional artist happens to use Gold because they like it...they make Gold a Professional film all at once!

I.e....who cares!?

 

[Nitroplait]

I am pretty sure Fuji didn’t use clear tape to seal their films.
I wouldn’t spend money on this.
If you can develop yourself at low cost, maybe- depending how curious you are.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Save it to practice loading a new camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

But don't use it afterward.

 

[Paul Howell]

Living the low Southwest Desert I shot a lot of gold in the summer as it does not need to be refrigerated.

 

[koraks]

it does not need to be refrigerated

...because it was anticipated that nobody would check for color correctness as a user of let's say Portra might. The denomination "professional" says little about the film. Gold will deteriorate under heat just like Portra or any other film.

 

[Sirius Glass]

...because it was anticipated that nobody would check for color correctness as a user of let's say Portra might. The denomination "professional" says little about the film. Gold will deteriorate under heat just like Portra or any other film.

Exactly. To the point and well said.

 

[Paul Howell]

...because it was anticipated that nobody would check for color correctness as a user of let's say Portra might. The denomination "professional" says little about the film. Gold will deteriorate under heat just like Portra or any other film.

I found that Kodacolor and Gold to hold up pretty well in the heat, Color 200 was designed to be used in hot humid environments were refrigeration is not readily available. I did shoot a few rolls of Porta 160 and the old Konica 160 in late July, the Porta did show minimum color shift which was easily corrected, the Konica 160, just a mess.

 

[koraks]

the Konica 160, just a mess.

How old was that? I don't recall when they exited the film business but it must have been quite a long time. I used to have some Konica film in my fridge until the Big Purge I did last year.

 

[foc]

The Konica Pro film 160 was IIRC from the mid 1990s. I never say much Konica pro film used, when I shot professionally it was mainly Kodak and Fuji and maybe a little Agfa.
Their amateur film was popular enough, sold mainly as special offers (in Ireland anyway).
They exited the film market in mid 2000s , with Konica Centuria.

 

[Paul Howell]

It was the late 90s, I recall seeing Konica film online until Konica, now Konica Minolta, closed their film production line 2007 or 8. Not sure if they repurposed the coating line or just closed the factory. At one time I bought 20 or so short rolls of there 200 color film at the dollar store, for a buck a roll. Same time period I got Samsung 35mm which I think was rebranded Fuji and Solaris 35mm negative and out dated Solaris Chrome 100 again at the dollar store.

 

[railwayman3]

How old was that? I don't recall when they exited the film business but it must have been quite a long time. I used to have some Konica film in my fridge until the Big Purge I did last year.

Co-incidentally, I've just used a Konica colour neg film, expired 1993, to test a camera after repair. Expecting nothing, I was amazed to get 24 technically perfect shots ! A Kodak colour negative film, only 4 years out of date, shot at the same time was useless, badly fogged with bands of blue on the prints. You just can't tell what to expect with OOD films !

Having said that, and going back to the original post, I'd probably not bother with the Fuji 220 film. Unless the user has a batch of chemicals already in use, I don't think it would be worth wasting time, solutions, or the cost of using a lab, to prove nothing very much ?

 

[koraks]

bands of blue

That's fog either due to a light leak or less likely x-ray damage. It has nothing to do with the age of the film as such.

Konica film online until Konica, now Konica Minolta, closed their film production line 2007 or 8

I'm surprised that they manufactured it for that long. I always thought they by that time had been rebranding other manufacturer's film for quite some time.

expired 1993, to test a camera after repair. Expecting nothing, I was amazed to get 24 technically perfect shots !

I'm skeptical.
I've got Kodak Vericolor sheet film expired in '94, apparently always cold stored. If I overexpose it by 2 stops I can get colors across the rainbow that have a distinct correlation with reality. Not a particularly strong correlation, though.
The 2004-expired Superia 200 that I've shot a lot of fared better; most people probably wouldn't notice that it's ancient. Put it side by side with in-date film, however, everything crumbles badly. Don't buy fresh film, you might get spoiled...

 

[railwayman3]

You may be skeptical, but I have the negs and prints in front of me. I have been doing semi-pro photo work since 1986 (and color printing since 1970) so do know the difference between fresh and deteriorated products. I did say that I was only using the film to test a repaired camera, and I'm open to the suggestion that the Kodak film had suffered from damage in some way. But, as I suggested, common sense tells us OOD film is unpredictable and it would obviously be foolish to use it for anything other than playing around. Else why would manufacturers give an expiry date ? Finally, I don't buy other than fresh film, any OOD has either got that way in my freezer, been given to me or "found".

 

[koraks]

You may be skeptical

Yes, because you said "technically perfect". That's a tall order. The expired Fuji that I've shot a lot of, which is technically the best 'old film' I've shot so far, still has a significant amount of fog, significant color drift but fortunately very little crossover. I'm of course very surprised that film even a decade older would produce something that could be labeled 'perfect'.

 

[Paul Howell]

Pro level color film, Fuji, Kodak, Konica, Agfa all recommended refrigeration, if past expiration and not kept frozen or at least cold, I would be surprised if the film was still usable. Then again I've been surprised time and time again.