• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Fuji Super H-RU failure six months after expiration date, so freezer yours.

Alan Townsend

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2025
Messages
128
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Format
Multi Format
I bought an 8x10 100 sheet box of this two and a half years ago. I experimented with it, and decided it was a go for using it for 4x5 photography enlarging no more than 3x. I perfected my film handling method for cutting, developing, and using this that same summer. However, I did not have a light weight camera to go with it, so started to build a camera to my specs to use with it. This is a double sided green sensitive xray film that works at an ei of around 50-100. I found that with careful use, which includes using a yellow filter and exposing at my smallest apertures to reduce the halation blur, I could get prints almost as sharp as a 2 1/4 negative enlarged to the same size. Slightly sharper than 35mm. This is at the cost of a not so linear film curve and the somewhat dreamy look it gives, due to halation.

I knew I should keep it in the freezer to make it last longer, but between reading reports about how it will work so many years after expiration, and noting the unremarkable results it gives, I wasn't worried since it's so cheap. The only place in our freezer my wife would let me use was where the old icemaker lived. The box was just too big to fit in there without modifying the freezer a bit and I didn't have any ziplock freezer bags big enough anyway.

A few days ago, I decided to test developing this xray film with my new MC-glycerol developer I've developed. I had test exposed a half dozen sheets outdoors the day before. I put them in quart sized freezer bags for processing, and mixed a 1:100 batch of developer, put that in the bag with the film and...meh...I saw some darkening near the border, but on clearing the fixer, I saw only a fain image against a dark background with clear edges. Oh no, my new developer has failed, I thought. So I tried another with a longer developer time, but pretty similar result. After messing around for a while, I decided to mix up a batch of D23 and try that. Same result. So I tried exposing some using my enlarger, but also got just a bit more than nothing.

Lesson is, this film really did expire two years after I bought it, when it was new. I tried using it last summer, and got thin results that I blamed on my developer. It really does need to be stored in the freezer after all. Will I get some more? Thinking about it. Using it for 4x5 does not excite me very much. All the additional work for hardly any improvement over 35mm. Also difficult to make quallity enlarged negatives from it at that size. My new plan is to think about building a simple 8x10 camera that would use it, and to do some alt printing directly from the negatives, which makes more sense. I have a Goertz Gold Dot dagor 9.5 inch lens that would work in hyperfocal box camera of some sort. That would be light weight enough to carry at times on my 4-5 mile hikes that I take for my woodland photography. I think I can tape sheets together using black electrical tape on the back side, and make spools to hold the film so it can be advanced through knobs sticking out on the bottom. Not planning on stupid film holders which are too heavy and expensive.

Even simpler would be a 3 shot pinhole camera in the shape of an equilateral triangle, with a sheet on each side, and a pinhole in every corner. This would be very easy to build and extremely light weight. I can use my other camera while waiting for those hour long exposures.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,985
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Weird. I recently finished up a box that I had purchased in 2008. Never refrigerated or frozen. No issues. I have been slowly going through a box o 14x17 since 2023. The most recent sheet used was late November. Again, no issues.
 

Kino

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,967
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Yeah, that doesn't sound normal.

Any possible environmental issues (fumes, vapors) where you store the box?
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,079
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
This sounds really strange to me. I'm not using or have not used this film, but what you described just doesn't sound "like a film gone bad" type of thing to me. It sounds like the problem ls something besides the film itself. I'm really curious as to what is going on here???? Is it the film? Is it the process? Is it the chemicals? If you were closer to Andy you could send him a sheet or two to play with and see what results he got. Keep us posted anyway?
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,079
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Kino and I are on the same page with this one. You made a new batch of D23 and you had the same problem with that. Your new special developer MC-glycol. Sounds like both developers depend on Metol for their main and only developing agent. What am I leading up to here???
 

Raghu Kuvempunagar

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jul 28, 2016
Messages
3,121
Location
India
Format
Multi Format
Unlikely that the film has gone bad. Could be your Metol as others have suspected. Metol purity can be tested using the procedure described here:

 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,079
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
I'm not saying or I should say "hinting" it's the Metol, but I sure would be looking in that direction for sure. In the case of Alan's newly made D23 I'm sure the only other ingredient, Sodium Sulfite, would be good, but Metol does and will go bad. I have Metol that is as old as the hills and it's still working fine, but it was all made by Kodak. The chemicals we get from China, India or who knows where now might be contaminated or who knows what.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,985
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
I also have some lab grade Metol from 1995, that a chemist gave me. It's light grey coloured, but still works. Perhaps its purity is the issue...But what do I know? I failed grade 11 chem.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,079
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
I also have some lab grade Metol from 1995, that a chemist gave me. It's light grey coloured, but still works. Perhaps its purity is the issue...But what do I know? I failed grade 11 chem.
Andy,
I passed my high school chemistry, but by just a hair. I just think that some of these chemicals we get off eBay and other places might not be as pure as what we think. Some might contain higher levels of copper, iron, zinc or whatever, than what we used to get from our Kodak supplier or other reliable sources. I don't know where or what purity Alan's chemicals have so won't comment any further until we hear back from him.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,985
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Yup. The Copper Sulphate I got from Amazon, sucks. Too many contaminates in it. Ordered lab grade, and all is well again.
 

John Wiegerink

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
4,079
Location
Lake Station, MI
Format
Multi Format
Yup. The Copper Sulphate I got from Amazon, sucks. Too many contaminates in it. Ordered lab grade, and all is well again.
Case closed Andy! It's a crap shoot for sure. Sad part is it might just be a crap shoot on the best negative or print you have ever made in your life. Whoops, toooooo late! Like I said, we don't know Alan's story, but bad film sounds strange to me. Time to go clean the drive and brush the truck off. Later gators!
 
OP
OP

Alan Townsend

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2025
Messages
128
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Format
Multi Format
Thanks for the replies, but the film is clearly bad. I didn't give all the details, but dmax testing that I did with both developers showed it around 1.8, not the well over 3.0 expected. My metol is Kodak brand, bought about 40 years ago. D23 is the most reliable developer in the world. Yesterday, I developed another roll of 35mm film using MC-glycerol and it came out perfectly.
 
OP
OP

Alan Townsend

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2025
Messages
128
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Format
Multi Format
Uh, leading up to you making things up to suit your narrative? Two people agree? Yes, opinions matter in most things, but in science, it's the facts that count.

According to Google AI, yes this film goes bad two years after manufacture. I've been doing film photography since the 1960's and never seen a film go bad like this. Also, this is my first experience with Fuji hru xray film. My gut tells me this is a weird film and likely a t-grain type of film due to its optical clarity. Most films are very diffuse, even opalescent in appearance. Holographic films are the only ones I've ever seen that are transparent like this. It also likely uses different dye sensitizers than camera films due to the need to cover the emission spectra of certain phosphors used in xray film packs, so this dye could be less stable than others.

I have 30 year old tmx that still works, although low contrast, and 30 year old tmy that still works although foggy with low contrast. Also some 40 year old fine grained positive copy stock that works perfectly today. Never seen a film die on que like this. The film still has some sensitivity but is likely about 1% of what is was when new. It may be only blue sensitive now, for example.

Also possible some manufacturing defect or engineering change occurred over the years. Maybe Fuji started buying chemicals on Amazon or other questionable source. Two year shelf life may work fine for the medical market anyway, so this is moot.

This has been my first experience using xray film, and I believe it has also been my last experience with it. If the quality was really good, my opinion would be different. The quality of this film is suitable only for contact printing, and even for that is questionable. It does create images that are interestingly distorted from reality.

I believe I paid $42 for this box of film two and a half years ago, so it was very cheap and not really much of a loss. However, when I include the work that I did trying to get it to function, the cost was much more. This film has gone up in price 60% in the last two and a half years. I am done with it.

I posted this as a warning to others to stay away.
 

Kino

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
7,967
Location
Orange, Virginia
Format
Multi Format
Hey, Alan. Just trying to offer possible alternative reasons you might not have success.

I will remember in the future that you only post to talk outward, and that you and AI need no input.

Thanks!
 
OP
OP

Alan Townsend

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2025
Messages
128
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Format
Multi Format
Hey, Alan. Just trying to offer possible alternative reasons you might not have success.

I will remember in the future that you only post to talk outward, and that you and AI need no input.

Thanks!
Equating me with AI is an incredible insult. AI is almost always wrong on everything, in case you haven't noticed. I always use it sarcastically, unlike many others. I always appreciate input. In this case, I have many facts that I have not shared that lead me to my conclusions. Do you think AI has no input? Why are people paying their high power bills to help fund AI to sort through all the information and misinformation on the internet, including sources like Photrio?

For example, I've been using my metol to develop film over the last 40 years, and it has always worked 100% of the time with every film. So it has my complete confidence. So, here everybody dredges up the "you've got bad metol" thread again. The AI parses through that out of context and says:

Metol (p-methylaminophenol sulfate) is highly stable in its powder form and can last for decades when stored properly in a cool, dry place, often outliving its listed expiration date
. While it may turn light tan or light brown with age

This time, the AI is correct.

My metol is very light tan color, has been stored in the original Kodak heavy plastic jar at room temperature. It works perfectly with every developer I mixed with it. Most recently including D23, DS1, DS2,e72, and just yesterday MC-glycerol. Every one of these has worked as expected with a variety of films, but yet my film being bad is deemed unlikely by the Photrio experts. Here's what Google AI say when asked "does fuji hru xray film go bad";

Yes, Fuji HR-U X-ray film goes bad
, typically having a shorter shelf life than traditional, protected emulsions, often lasting around 1 year at room temperature, though it can last much longer if frozen. It is highly sensitive to environmental factors and can show decreased sensitivity or "thin" results within six months of expiration if not stored properly.

Again, the AI appears to be correct. Kind of amazing. I'm beginning to change my opinion on AI. Not really, these are cases where it works fairly well.

I have had 100% sucess with my film developers and with xray film. Deciding to NOT use something is a success story, regardless of what "experts" on Photrio think, or Google AI thinks. Oh, wait a second, Google AI doesn't think, but often has better answers to questions than people who do think.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
27,100
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Film doesn't deteriorate by giving low dmax. Fog rises,that's about it. As a result, effective speed appears to drop because the image wise exposure struggles to rise above the fog.

A thin image with no fog is not a sign of expired film. It's a sign of underdevelopment and/or underexposure.

Also, x-ray film doesn't expire particularly rapidly.

Sorry, I doubt the AI output. This is an area where LLM's just don't perform well.
 
Last edited:

MCB18

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 16, 2023
Messages
1,407
Location
Colorado
Format
Medium Format
While I haven’t personally shot any x-ray film (yet), I do know plenty of friends that have. One of them is still sporting a box of 11x17 HRU they bought in 2019. Seems like this is also the experience of most folks on this thread. I very much doubt it’s the film.

I’d say develop it in some known good chems (pre-packaged stuff that you just bought), and if that still gives you issues, then I’d start to worry about the film being bad.
 

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
12,985
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
If I could, I'd love to try a sheet of Alan's film, just to see for myself...But it would probably get CT scanned at the border rendering it useless.
 

MCB18

Subscriber
Allowing Ads
Joined
Jan 16, 2023
Messages
1,407
Location
Colorado
Format
Medium Format
If I could, I'd love to try a sheet of Alan's film, just to see for myself...But it would probably get CT scanned at the border rendering it useless.
Or some dumdum might open the box…
 
OP
OP

Alan Townsend

Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2025
Messages
128
Location
Peoria, IL, USA
Format
Multi Format
Film doesn't deteriorate by giving low dmax..
I have some 35mm tmx, 30 years old that gives low contrast now with no fog. It's still usable with more development. My Xray also failed in this way. Now a waste of time in any developer.
Fog rises,that's about it. As a result, effective speed appears to drop because the image wise exposure struggles to rise above the fog.
My
A thin image with no fog is not a sign of expired film.
It is in the case of my xray film.
It's a sign of underdevelopment and/or underexposure.
My same developer develops Kentmere 100, ortho litho film, and enlarging paper just fine, although weak with print papers. So my developer is selctive with films? I doubt that.
Also, x-ray film doesn't expire particularly rapidly.
I have stated the fact that my specific xray film has failed and explained how.
Sorry, I doubt the AI output.
I agree.
This is an area where LLM's just don't perform well.
Not in this case.