frozen film usability

Marcus S · Jun 2, 2010

Hello Apug group,

I have several 120 pro packs of Fuji NPC 160 stored for a long time in the freezer. The expiry date is Nov. 2002.

Normally I use Reala for most of my work, so the NPC has been resting quietly at a temperature of minus 14C since 2002.

Is this film still usable or has time taken its toll on the
qualities of this film?:confused:

Thank you,

Marcus

wiltw · Jun 2, 2010

Frozen film may not have color shifts as badly as unfrozen film, but nothing -- not even being in a freezer -- stops the fogging caused by the penetration of cosmic radiation.

Ole · Jun 2, 2010

I've used much older film than that - at least yours is within a decade of expiry!

Jeff Kubach · Jun 2, 2010

Try one and see what happens. And go from there.

Jeff

2F/2F · Jun 2, 2010

wiltw said:
Frozen film may not have color shifts as badly as unfrozen film, but nothing -- not even being in a freezer -- stops the fogging caused by the penetration of cosmic radiation.

Not "nothing," but nothing most of us are willing to build. Sufficient radiation shielding will certainly stop the fogging.

The lower the speed of the film, the less it will be reactive to radiation. Your 100 speed film about ten years old, freezer kept, will likely be near perfect, IME. I've used 15-20 year old 100 speed color neg film and it is indistinguishable from film fresh from the store when printing. I've even used 10 year old 800 film not frozen for about five years, and it was perfectly fine color wise, even with about a stop of fog.

I'd be more careful with transparency film. IME it keeps just as well, but the minor color shifts that occur that are easily filtered in the printing of negative film are not so easily adjusted for with transparencies, since they are direct positives.

removed-user-1 · Jun 2, 2010

For most of the 1990s my usual slide film was expired Ektachrome 200 or Kodachrome 25. Every roll I used had been frozen for at least five years past the expiration date and I had no real problems with any of it.

Sirius Glass · Jun 2, 2010

Generally it is easier to use frozen film if you defrost it before using.

Steve

bsdunek · Jun 2, 2010

2F/2F said:
Not "nothing," but nothing most of us are willing to build. Sufficient radiation shielding will certainly stop the fogging.

The lower the speed of the film, the less it will be reactive to radiation. Your 100 speed film about ten years old, freezer kept, will likely be near perfect, IME. I've used 15-20 year old 100 speed color neg film and it is indistinguishable from film fresh from the store when printing. I've even used 10 year old 800 film not frozen for about five years, and it was perfectly fine color wise, even with about a stop of fog.

I'd be more careful with transparency film. IME it keeps just as well, but the minor color shifts that occur that are easily filtered in the printing of negative film are not so easily adjusted for with transparencies, since they are direct positives.

IMHO the problem with cosmic radiation is much over stated. I've never seen any problems with frozen film as much as 10 years out of date. Maybe our old Lady Kenmore freezer has a cosmic radiation shield.

Poisson Du Jour · Jun 2, 2010

I'm not a believer, practical or otherwise, in "cosmic fogging".
There is, however, background radiation that is all around us and an, over a very long period of time, affect unexposed film, manifesting as a deterioration in colour intensity. I don't think there will be any noticeable adverse effect on your NPC film from 2002 if it's been frozen since that time. I recently exposed a roll of Velvia 50 with a June 2001 expiry and nothing untoward was observed under loupé or at print stage. I'm more worried about repeated doses of X-ray on departure/arrival to-from Australia: "won't hurt your film", the saying goes. But the effect is cumulative.

srs5694 · Jun 2, 2010

FWIW, I've got some old Soviet color film that expired about 20 years ago. I've no idea how it was stored before I acquired it about 1.5 years ago. Here are a few samples, some shown both with and without color correction in my scanner software.

I wouldn't worry too much about an ISO 160 film that's 8 years past date if it's been frozen during that time; however, I might favor more recent film for anything that's truly unique and important (weddings, once-in-a-lifetime vacaction photos, etc.).

2F/2F · Jun 3, 2010

bsdunek said:
IMHO the problem with cosmic radiation is much over stated. I've never seen any problems with frozen film as much as 10 years out of date. Maybe our old Lady Kenmore freezer has a cosmic radiation shield.

I have never had abnormal fog on any film medium speed or slower, up to 20 years old, but I have had it with faster films.

Athiril · Jun 3, 2010

bsdunek said:
IMHO the problem with cosmic radiation is much over stated. I've never seen any problems with frozen film as much as 10 years out of date. Maybe our old Lady Kenmore freezer has a cosmic radiation shield.

I imagine it is more a problem with high speed films once you remove the heat-fogging over time factor by cold storing it.

Aluminium acts as a certain shield to an extent, which should be fine for terrestial based installations (such as your freezer ), the paranoid among us might also want to use a double shield of both lead and polyethelene around a freezer, or coating the inside of a room, which may or may not help the case for high speed films.

It needs to be tested, if any physics student at a uni can convince their professor to use a cold helium compressor to shoot radiation at a box of high speed film, one without shielding, one with polyethelene+lead... most uni's that do physics should have them, got to touch one once

And compare those two @ box speed + N dev with a roll not exposed to the radiation at all.

chriscrawfordphoto · Jun 3, 2010

2F/2F said:
I have never had abnormal fog on any film medium speed or slower, up to 20 years old, but I have had it with faster films.

I agree. Really fast film like Tmax 3200 or Delta 3200 is the worst, and thats why those films have shorter expiry dates than slower films. I've seen fogging on old Tri-X too.

neelin · Jun 3, 2010

And of course, up here on the "Canadian Shield" there's radon gas to be mindful of, far more of an issue than cosmic radiation. So no storage of film in the basement of your house.

thisismyname09 · Jun 4, 2010

I'm really no good at physics, but I think that it is completely impossible to block out background radiation from outer space. It's everywhere in the universe. Even if you made a box with 10ft thick lead walls, the radiation that is inherently inside will still be there (though it would probably block out just about any other form of radiation.)

Q.G. · Jun 4, 2010

thisismyname09 said:
I'm really no good at physics, but I think that it is completely impossible to block out background radiation from outer space.

The thicker the 'insulation' radiation will penetrate, the lesser the likelihood that it will interact with something inside the thin emulsion of our films.

thisismyname09 said:
It's everywhere in the universe. Even if you made a box with 10ft thick lead walls, the radiation that is inherently inside will still be there (though it would probably block out just about any other form of radiation.)

The nature of radiation is such that it isn't anywhere, but always on the move.
So unless you keep a source that keeps emitting fresh radiation inside that box, you're fine.

2F/2F · Jun 4, 2010

thisismyname09 said:
I'm really no good at physics, but I think that it is completely impossible to block out background radiation from outer space. It's everywhere in the universe. Even if you made a box with 10ft thick lead walls, the radiation that is inherently inside will still be there (though it would probably block out just about any other form of radiation.)

I beg to differ, and I do know a little bit about applied physics...however, this is commons sense: Shielding is called shielding because it...drumroll...shields.

Beside the fact that it is common sense, I know firsthand how well shielding works. I got much less exposure sleeping, eating, and working within spitting distance of a 150+ MW nuclear reactor every day for years than the average person does in one year of everyday life. I certainly get much, much more exposure now at my outdoor job, and living on a half-subterranean level of my house. The salt water above me were a very effective (i.e. effectively perfect) radiation shield against that which reaches us on the surface, and the many layers of lead and water shielding around the Rx core and the rest of the primary plant very effectively shielded me from the intense levels of radiation that were present within the Rx core and Rx compartment. Any radiation can be blocked with enough shielding. For instance, 12 inches of water, or four inches of steel, or two inches of lead will block 90% of the gammas that "attempt" to pass through the layer. An additional 12 inches of water, or four inches of steel, of two inches of lead will block another 90% of that 10% that made it through the first "tenth thickness."

Ten301 · Jun 5, 2010

I've read that Kodak used to store huge, unfinished rolls of film in salt mines somewhere in the South, as salt is an excellent insulator against gamma radiation. Probably the same reason the salt water shielded you so well.

Athiril · Jun 5, 2010

Cosmic radiation is quite different radiation we have on Earth, that much I remember from class.

Shielding can cause secondary radiation with cosmic radiation, though its different to what you get say on a space shuttle to on Earth well.

You dont need to completely shield it, a simple reduction in it would be of significant benefit (to faster films again I propose).

Ten301: In the case of water, itd be the hydrogen I would imagine.

thisismyname09 · Jun 5, 2010

In that case, I guess I can just reiterate:

thisismyname09 said:
I'm really no good at physics

I think I'll stick with chemistry (though I'm not much better with that, either.) D:

Marcus S · Nov 25, 2010

Thank you all for your valuable input. APUG is a great resource for film users, no matter what the subject is.

Roger Thoms · Nov 25, 2010

Sirius Glass said:
Generally it is easier to use frozen film if you defrost it before using.

Steve

I've used frozen film with no problem, I do let it warm up to room temp before processing though. Here's an image I took with frozen film (about 9 deg. F if I recall).

Roger

Ole · Nov 25, 2010

Ten301 said:
I've read that Kodak used to store huge, unfinished rolls of film in salt mines somewhere in the South, as salt is an excellent insulator against gamma radiation. Probably the same reason the salt water shielded you so well.

Well - no. Salt isn't a particularly good shield against radiation. But the depth at which salt mines are, shields them from practically all cosmic radiation. Also salt (halite, the stuff that is mined for common salt) contains NO radioactive elements, so it doesn't contribute to the radiation.

In my former job which involved handling rather nasty radiation sources, I learned the three most important factors in minimising radiation exposure are: Time, distance, and shielding.

To prolong the time before a certain level is reached, increase the other two: Salt mines are deep, which provides shielding. And salt is non-radioactive, so it works as distance too!

frozen film usability

Marcus S

wiltw

Ole

Moderator

Jeff Kubach

2F/2F

removed-user-1

Sirius Glass

bsdunek

Poisson Du Jour

srs5694

2F/2F

Athiril

chriscrawfordphoto

neelin

thisismyname09

Q.G.

2F/2F

Ten301

Athiril

thisismyname09

Marcus S

Roger Thoms

Attachments

Ole

Moderator

frozen film usability

Moderator

removed-user-1

Attachments

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency