Keeping time between exposure and development - film question

[leeturner]

I was looking through an old issue of B&W (UK) and there was an article about film choice. One of the criteria the author uses is the keeping time between exposure and development and the fact that some films keep better than others. He states that with Kodak P3200 you might as well throw it away if not developed within a year. He also states that after a relatively short time film will deteriorate within the first hour, hold steady for 6 to 24 hours then very slowly begin to deteriorate further affecting grain, highlights etc.
What films have you had experience with of either longevity or degradation? I tend to keep films for a couple of weeks so that I can expose a batch (35mm) at the same time.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I was looking through an old issue of B&W (UK) and there was an article about film choice. One of the criteria the author uses is the keeping time between exposure and development and the fact that some films keep better than others. He states that with Kodak P3200 you might as well throw it away if not developed within a year. He also states that after a relatively short time film will deteriorate within the first hour, hold steady for 6 to 24 hours then very slowly begin to deteriorate further affecting grain, highlights etc.
What films have you had experience with of either longevity or degradation? I tend to keep films for a couple of weeks so that I can expose a batch (35mm) at the same time.

The short answer would be as soon as is practicable. I shouldn`t worry too much though, if your on holiday and have to wait until you get back home to process your films, then a few weeks or so after exposure will be fine.

 

[Gerald Koch]

... film will deteriorate within the first hour, hold steady for 6 to 24 hours then very slowly begin to deteriorate further affecting grain, highlights etc.

When film manufacturers do sensitometric testing they always use a standard hold time for the film. This is done because the film characteristics are changing rapidly during the hold period. In your example you state the best time to develop film would be between 6 to 24 hours. However, the rate of change after this period is very slow and films can be held for weeks or months with little effect.

 

[Dave Miller]

I’ve had two Christmases on the same film, and couldn’t tell the difference between them. May have been the demon drink though.

 

[Helen B]

After coming home from extended trips, I've noticed significant differences in the ability of different films to hold their latent image. TMZ (P3200) and APX 400 were two of the worst for changing characteristics, Tri-X was one of the best for stability. The biggest difference always appeared to be in the shadow detail - this is quite reasonable because the latent image centres in the shadows will have the fewest atoms, and so be the least stable. The highlights should be the most stable, at least in terms of staying developable. Graininess is another issue. APX 400 also showed increased graininess.

As far as short-term changes go, you will lose the least stable latent image centres in the first few hours. They aren't either completely unstable or completely stable (in practical terms): they have varying degrees of stability between those two limits and they can become undevelopable (ie 'sub-image').

I've noticed this most during latensification experiments - the latensification has to occur soon after exposure for full effect in the shadows.

Best,
Helen

 

[pentaxuser]

I’ve had two Christmases on the same film, and couldn’t tell the difference between them. May have been the demon drink though.

To back this up, I obtained an Agfa Isolette 1 from a friend whose brother had owned it before his death. It still contained the film his brother had last used and the suspicion was that he hadn't used the camera for years.

I finished the film(about 3 shots) and sent it to a very ordinary lab for developing and printing so nothing special there. The film had a picture of a 1959 Jaguar car with people taken on the street where his surviving brother confirmed they had lived in the late 50s. He recognised the people and dated the picture as no later than about 1960. My pictures were OK as well. The film was processed about 3 years ago!

I am not saying that experts couldn't have found signs of deterioration but this was a film which was about 42 years old. So deterioration must be very slow after the initial period spoken of, even allowing for this film being more the exception than the rule.

Pentaxuser

 

[david b]

Last night, I developed a roll of medium format Pan F+ that I shot in August. No problems whatsoever.

 

[leeturner]

!

I am not saying that experts couldn't have found signs of deterioration but this was a film which was about 42 years old. So deterioration must be very slow after the initial period spoken of, even allowing for this film being more the exception than the rule.

Pentaxuser

It sounds like I've deteriorated more over the last 42 years.

 

[pentaxuser]

It sounds like I've deteriorated more over the last 42 years.

You're not alone but if its any consolation the people on the film were all showing worse signs of wear over about 42 years than the film. Life can be cruel but it's still better than the alternative.

Pentaxuser