Latent Image Stability in a Negative

[Martin Aislabie]

Just how stable is a latent image of an exposed (HP5) Negative?

I have a temporary Darkroom, so I end up storing my exposed film and processing it in batches.

Depending on the rate I am shooting it can be up to a couple of months between shooting and development.

I am unable to detect any change (improved or degraded) in the image quality of the processed Negative.

However, it started a train of thought with me.

Any thoughts ?

Martin

 

[Ian Grant]

Over a couple of months I've never seen a difference , and the same goes for over a year. I've picked up cameras with film half used well over a year later and there's been no differences what so ever.

Having said that films over 800 ISO may well not behave as well

Ian

 

[mabman]

I don't know about HP5, but I just developed a roll of Tri-X in 120 that was sitting in a Holga in my car's trunk for at least 2 years (I forgot about it, frankly). It went through at least 2 summers and at least 1 winter, which meant it went from +30 degrees C to -30 degrees C several times I don't have it scanned yet, but the negatives look scannable/printable, but they do look slightly faded. All-in-all, I'm quite impressed by Kodak's idiot-proofing of this film

 

[Eric Rose]

I've developed film that was left in a camera for at least 20 years and the negs turned out really well. A slight bit of fogging but nothing that showed in the printing. It all depends on how the film has been stored. In this case the camera was packed away in a moving box and spent an eternity in a basement.

I just today processed some HP5 that had been "lost" in a camera bag for just over a year. The images are perfect.

 

[2F/2F]

I developed a 50-roll project shot on 35mm HP5+ that was stored at room temperature for over a year, and I cannot see any difference from film I process right after shooting.

 

[jeffreyg]

Just for fun I can relate a personal experience. A number of years ago my wife had a point and shoot 35mm camera that we used for quicko snapshots. When going to one of our sons college graduation we decided to travel light and take that just for some record shots. I noticed that it had some film already loaded which was even more convenient. We finished the roll and took it in for one hour development and to pick up another roll of film. When we got the prints back much to my surprise we had pictures of both his high school and college graduation on the same roll and all were fine.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[pentaxuser]

40 yrs in an Agfa Isolette I. The camera belonging to a friend's deceased brother was found in a drawer and had 3 shots left. Knowing I was keen on photography I was given the camera. I shot the remaining 3 frames. On developing the negs they all turned out fine and the friend could identify the date of the shots from the scenes on the prints.

pentaxuser

 

[ntenny]

Googling the phrase "Found Film" will show you plenty of samples from the far end of the bell curve for latent image longevity. It seems generally that single-digit years are rarely a serious problem, but as the decades add up the images start to degrade noticeably---of course with lots of variability for storage conditions.

I once bought a box of 50-year-old infrared film and discovered that the first two sheets had already been exposed but not processed. (I exposed one of them through an IR filter, processed it, turned on the light, and there in the rinse tray was a courthouse in Washington state instead of my front yard! Very disconcerting.) The images were mottled and a little fogged, but quite intelligible.

-NT

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If you are concerned then place the film in a ziplock bag and put it in the refrigerator. Remember to allow time for it to come up to room temperature before you open the bag and develop it. Film from a failed polar expedition was found and developed 90 years later and yielded good images.

 

[bsdunek]

I too have had similar experiences. However, if I'm not going to develop the film for a while, I throw it back in the freezer just for good luck.

 

[removed account4]

i don't think i would worry about it too much ..

garry winogrand i i think used to just leave film in bags in his file cabinet.
there was a pbs special ( i think it was pbs ) on him years ago
that showed hundreds, if not thousands of unprocessed rolls of
film in his studio.


john

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Just how stable is a latent image of an exposed (HP5) Negative?

I have a temporary Darkroom, so I end up storing my exposed film and processing it in batches.

Depending on the rate I am shooting it can be up to a couple of months between shooting and development.

I am unable to detect any change (improved or degraded) in the image quality of the processed Negative.

However, it started a train of thought with me.

Any thoughts ?

Martin

Theoretically, there should be a difference, because latent image stability is not infinite. However, there are numerous reports that all claim to 'see no difference' or that the negatives 'look fine'.

Of course, to measure a difference one needs to have at least two films exposed and processed exactly the same just with different amounts of time in between, and possible expose more to test different storage conditions too. I have never seen the results of such a controlled test.

You might be in a good position to conduct such a test. Get a Stouffer step tablet and over the next few months, 'waste' one frame each roll to take a picture of it. I a few months when you batch process the film, compare these frames with special attention to shadow detail and contrast.

I'm interested to hear what you'll find.

I suspect it will be a minute loss of shadow density and a slight increase in contrast. Enough to measure it, but not enough to see it.

 

[Usagi]

Couple of months is not an issue, even with colour films. It happens easily during long trips, then having tens of rolls waiting for development...

Oldest latent image that I have tried to develop was Trix roll that was forgot on the closet. Seemed fine, printed fine (it was N-1 roll).

The problem comes with the fastest films. Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 builds up the base density quickly (say within one or two years). Thus some shadow details are lost.
With Fuji Neopan 1600 I haven't yet noticed such effect.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

... The problem comes with the fastest films. Tmax 3200 and Delta 3200 builds up the base density quickly (say within one or two years). Thus some shadow details are lost. ...

Correct, but I would argue that these are two independent phenomena.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Of course film can handle the delayed gratification of development after years of hardship. George Eastman demanded products that would produce no matter how stupid the user.

 

[lxdude]

Of course film can handle the delayed gratification of development after years of hardship. George Eastman demanded products that would produce no matter how stupid the user.

Hey, I represent that remark!

 

[Wade D]

I found a roll of Kodachrome 25 in the garage a few years ago. It was misplaced in 1980 after a trip to Yosemite. It gets HOT here in the summer but after 28 years the resulting slides were outstanding and vibrant.
I am also using up some 4x5 Plus-X that expired in 1989 and was in the garage. So far the negs look good with little fogging. A little KBr goes a long way with old film.

 

[Steve Smith]

I found a roll of Kodachrome 25 in the garage a few years ago. It was misplaced in 1980 after a trip to Yosemite. It gets HOT here in the summer but after 28 years the resulting slides were outstanding and vibrant.

I was given some Kodachrome a couple of years ago which was dated 1986. It had always been kept at room temperature. I used some of it with no problems but I noticed that one roll had been wound back into the can so I assumed it had already been exposed.
I sent it off for processing and it came back with images from at least ten years ago. The images were a bit dark but it's difficult to know if that was a function of time or just insufficient exposure.


Steve.

 

[lxdude]

I found a few rolls of k64 that had been shot in 1986 and misplaced. They were in some stuff in a closet. I had them developed in 2004 and they were mostly grayish-bluish, with a little red and green left. Shadows were a stronger blue. They seemed to have some fogging density as well.

 

[Marco B]

40 yrs in an Agfa Isolette I. The camera belonging to a friend's deceased brother was found in a drawer and had 3 shots left. Knowing I was keen on photography I was given the camera. I shot the remaining 3 frames. On developing the negs they all turned out fine and the friend could identify the date of the shots from the scenes on the prints.

pentaxuser

x2!

Found a "Agfa Isola I" of my mother in the attic. Hadn't been used for probably some 35 years but still had a roll of BW MF film in it.

Since I can't develop MF at home, I had it lab processed. The negatives came out very thin, most likely also due to severe underexposure with the clunky non-existent exposure system of the Isola I (clouds, sun, "something-in-between" ) and with quite a bit of fog, but still printable at grade 5. Not perfect, but with a nice "old" look to them, that I enhanced by a bit of sepia toning.

We discovered some nice photos of a niece of my mother in her toddler years...

Marco

 

[jamesgignac]

When I bought my first MF camera (a Bronica SQAi) there was a half-shot roll of something (I can't remember now what it was but I know it was Ilford) in it which had undoubtedly been in there for quite some time - I would say at least five years. This was from a collection of items being sold by a church in the Mid-West US which hadn't been used in a long while - the priest who had used the camera had died long before the sale and the camera was not used by anyone else since that time.

Bottom line - the test shots I took with it turned out just as nicely as his when developed. I don't know how it was stored but the camera itself was in great shape.

 

[stevebrot]

I recently developed a couple of rolls of TMax 100 that had been exposed about a decade ago. There was some extra fog, but the results were still pretty good and well-worth the trouble of processing the film.







Steve

 

[dehk]

Found a Kodak Duraflex with film in it and my friends uncle's attic, assuming 40 some years old judging by the finished product. With Kodak VeriChrome Pan in it. Purposely pushed it a little bit with Straight D76. 8 frames turned out only some are a little foggy.

 

[nyoung]

Ran some 38-year-old 127 Kodacolor - found in drawer while moving - a few years ago. Negs had significant magenta shift but were otherwise usable and clear.