Portra 400 NC Expired: Should I ask for overdeveloping?

[Ten301]

I've found the opposite - the Kodak films seemed to do best vis-a-vis aging, but it's all relative to film speed. The stuff that's held up best has been the 100-ish speed films regardless of brand. The fast stuff, not so much.

Yes, I should have clarified. I have seen little difference between slower speed film from Fuji and Kodak. However, I have found the 'freezer life' of higher speed Fuji C41 film does seem to be better than Kodak. That being said, I am basing my observation on my experience from a few years ago. Things may be totally different now, and there are certainly variables.

 

[pbromaghin]

I've used Portra 160 3 years out of date. Wanna see a picture that no amount of Photoshopping could help? I had 5 rolls of it that came from a known source--new, bought by ME. After it ruining 3 rolls of my work, I threw the rest out. I say again: get rid of it.

What's wrong with that? It looks great. Surely not real accurate, but it is cool.

 

[OzJohn]

I've used Portra 160 3 years out of date. Wanna see a picture that no amount of Photoshopping could help? I had 5 rolls of it that came from a known source--new, bought by ME. After it ruining 3 rolls of my work, I threw the rest out. I say again: get rid of it.

That colour shift could equally be caused by indifferent film processing or scanning. It can be corrected in PS without much effort but I'm not about to discuss that here - start a thread on DPUG if you want to know more. OzJohn

 

[Iridium]

Hello,

I have already shot a couple of rolls of the 2002 batch with my holga (processed normally) and after a fast scanning I see that colours are ok (maybe not enough vivid) and perhaps the negatives are a bit more grainy than the normal. This without any adjustment of brightness or contrast in Photoshop. The only noticed problem is that there is a multiple faint trace along the lower part of the film on both rolls. I will shoot another roll to check if this is a film's failure or lab's process failure. Next week I will post a sample.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Hello,

I have already shot a couple of rolls of the 2002 batch with my holga (processed normally) and after a fast scanning I see that colours are ok (maybe not enough vivid) and perhaps the negatives are a bit more grainy than the normal. This without any adjustment of brightness or contrast in Photoshop. The only noticed problem is that there is a multiple faint trace along the lower part of the film on both rolls. I will shoot another roll to check if this is a film's failure or lab's process failure. Next week I will post a sample.

The results you got are exactly what I would expect for 10 year old expired film. Do post your results - I'd be interested to see what you got.

 

[MatthewDunn]

Hy Holga (120 CFN...I *think*) has a bulb setting underneath the body, so it's totally possible to overexpose if you're so inclined.

 

[Iridium]

I had promised to post a sample frame from the Portra 400 NC 120, expired in 2002. Yeah, I didn't through it away as recommended. Here it is...

 

[Tom1956]

I had promised to post a sample frame from the Portra 400 NC 120, expired in 2002. Yeah, I didn't through it away as recommended. Here it is...

View attachment 74361

I'm glad you're happy. I'm the smarty-pants who suggested throwing it out. Please friend--no offense, but if that's what the actual print looked like, I still would. I guess because I know good Portra can look a lot better than that. The prints are missing half their yellow, and everything is magenta-y. When I look at your print, that's exactly why I tossed mine.

 

[clayne]

Yes let's throw out a bunch of perfectly usable film because straight prints are "off." You'd have to be a total pedant to think there's anything significantly wrong with the image he posted. Look, at the end of the day, this is what matters: film is being used. How he gets said film to look "normal" really is irrelevant.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'm glad you're happy. I'm the smarty-pants who suggested throwing it out. Please friend--no offense, but if that's what the actual print looked like, I still would. I guess because I know good Portra can look a lot better than that. The prints are missing half their yellow, and everything is magenta-y. When I look at your print, that's exactly why I tossed mine.

I don't see a damned thing wrong with it that I can attribute to the film (the Holga, on the other hand...). No, it's not perfect, but it works just fine for the purpose he's using it for. If you want perfect exposures, tack sharp, and ultimate color fidelity, then you shoot something like a Rolleiflex. I think Holgas are a match made in heaven for expired film, though. I'd love to see more from the series - I bet they're interesting.

 

[Tom1956]

Yes let's throw out a bunch of perfectly usable film because straight prints are "off." You'd have to be a total pedant to think there's anything significantly wrong with the image he posted. Look, at the end of the day, this is what matters: film is being used. How he gets said film to look "normal" really is irrelevant.

Basically I've always been into monochrome. The color all fades, always has and always will. So at one point, none of it is going to be much good, except maybe Kodachrome.

I only chimed in because the outdated Portra I tossed was giving color just like the above posted one, and I couldn't pull it back with the dichro head. I was only "playing around" with it at the time, too. It didn't make much difference to me at the time either. Till I ended up shooting about the best color photo of my life, but the color film was outdated. That junk went straight to the garbage.
You can't fool around with outdated color film, and Kodak needs the customers. So throw out that crap and go buy some new. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

 

[Iridium]

I'm glad you're happy. I'm the smarty-pants who suggested throwing it out. Please friend--no offense, but if that's what the actual print looked like, I still would. I guess because I know good Portra can look a lot better than that. The prints are missing half their yellow, and everything is magenta-y. When I look at your print, that's exactly why I tossed mine.

Hello again,

This is not a print, it's just a scan of the negative via silverfast soft (with film presettings) and epson v700. I just corrected a little bit the levels, without manipulating anything else. Since I don't hand-print at home, I think there is no problem with this possible blue (magenta) cast of these negs as I can correct this easily in photoshop. Moreover, the sky in Greece is true blue...