Quality of outdated film

[ricardo12458]

Hi all,
I would be interested to learn of peoples experiences using outdated film. More specifically, what is the most-outdated film you have used and still achieved good quality results.

I ask because I am still intersted in using some discontinued films (particularly kodak e200), but the only stock I can find is a few years out of date, and given the high prices asked (amazing!), am in some indecision if it will be worth it. I am not interesed in the 'lomography' of old film and need decent quality.

Any views gratefully received.

Kodacolor VR, expired April 1989 (it's older than me!) The negatives look good, but I never ordered prints...

Currently exposing Kodacolor II, expired 10/76. We'll see how it looks once I finish it off and develop in December.

 

[stavrosk]

I have bad experience with outdated film. The higher the ISO the faster it degrades. Photos will look grainy and colours will usually be a bit mute.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

I pretty much shoot exclusively all expired films for my own work. But use all fresh or short dated stuff for teaching. I have shot BW films that are atleast 30+ years old with excellent results. Films stored well dont change much at all.

 

[2F/2F]

It mostly depends on storage. If film is frozen, it lasts at least 12 years past expiration IME. And it is usable with some color correction past that. (I've used frozen color neg film nearly 18 years past date and got correctable color, because it was well stored by the commercial photographer who gave it to me.) Faster films fog more quickly, though. If not frozen, they go off in a year or two (though usually still usable for a few more years). This is not scientific analysis, just based on my own experience with shooting lots of expired color film. (I usually don't bother shooting expired B/W film.)

Aside from storage, the other important thing is buying it in emulsion-matching batches. That way even though imperfect, it at least all acts the same. A few loose rolls of expired film are not of much use to me in a "real" camera. But they are good for toy cameras and such.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

If your goal is to take good photos then avoid any outdated film. Unless you have proof that it was kept refrigerated or even better frozen. People will say anything on ebay. Still this only works against fog caused by heat. There are also cosmic rays and natural backgraound radiation to consider. Evenyually these will take their toll even for frozen film.

Agfa would typically run off a large batch of film and keep the master rolls frozen at -10 C. To be later cut and packaged.

If your intent is playing around and not serious photography then nothing is really lost except a bit of money and your time.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Most BW films will be fine when it's stored properly. Transparency film older than 3 years stored in the fridge will lose some speed and shift magenta. Old Polaroid film can be problematic because the chemical goo can dry out causing streaks. Overall, BW film should be fine decades after expiration date when stored properly.

 

[photoworks68]

I bought two packs of ready load ektachrome 100 EPN (expiry date april 2009). Do you guys think they are still good ?

The seller says that they were kept refrigerated and boxes are unopened.

 

[holmburgers]

They'll be great, even if not refrigerated I suspect.

 

[railwayman3]

When I stock up by buying fresh film and freezing it immediately, I never worry if it's a couple of years or so past its expiry by the time I use it. But I agree with other posters that it's foolish to try to save a few $ by using unknown expired film for anything important, given the cost of equipment, travel, time, processing, model fees, etc., in taking the shots.

OTOH, and as a separate exercise, I like to experiment occasionally with obsolete films, and, in general, I've been pleasantly surprised how long films can last...clearly manufacturers do allow a good safety margin in the expiry dates.

 

[holmburgers]

Yeah, if you're getting paid for something, definitely buy fresh film. But even an important family vacation or the like, I usually trust my expired film. I've shot unrefrigerated color negative (Fuji Reala 100) film that expired in 1999 and it honestly came out great, with a slight reduction in speed (shot it at 64).

 

[rjbuzzclick]

Very cool! Why did you choose Diafine?

Sorry for the slooowwwww reply. Since I didn't have any times for Verichrome Pan when I shot this, I figured that with Diafine I wouldn't have to worry about the time for development, plus it would give me a bump in speed to help compensate for the age of the film. I should correct my previous comment by saying that I shot these at ASA 125, not 64. Would I use Diafine again, I would shoot it at 64.

Here's a few more from a roll of Verichrome Pan 127 that expired in 1973. I shot it at around ASA 25-32 and developed in HC-110.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/5669509495/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/5670080168/

I also just finished a box of 4x5 FP4 (not FP4+) that was given to me. Most frames turned out pretty well shot at 64, but I have had some issues with the emulsion peeling off, funny rubber-like hairs on the film, or scratching very easily.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/5916773863/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/5750914785/

And lastly, if anyone is still interested, here's the best shot I got from some old Plus-X (don't know the age) that came in some 4x5 film holders I purchased. I had to expose this at ASA 12 before I could get anything from it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rjbuzzclick/5664924426/

Reid

 

[photoworks68]

I have just received the results from a photo shoot i did with my large format camera (4x5 inch) with an expired ektachrome 100 S (Expiry date 09/2003 which was stored at room temperature simce 2003) and i am quite pleased with the result :

Dead Link Removed

more details on my blog :
Dead Link Removed

 

[photoworks68]

not bad for an expired film ?

 

[2F/2F]

Did you shoot that unfiltered in the shade?

 

[photoworks68]

Did you shoot that unfiltered in the shade?

there was no shade and there was no filter either.The photo was shot in my flat. The set up was as follows :

i set up a mini cyclo on a small table with a black background close to a window. i put the pebbles on the table. I put the bottle on one pebble. Then i set up a silver reflector at the opposite side of the window. so basically, window light on the right and silver reflector on the left.

I had to move some furniture in order to organize the set up.

 

[2F/2F]

Window light = open shade, if the sun itself is not coming through the window as well; the illumination is coming from "sky light," which is blue.

The point was that it is hard to judge how the film held up to age unless it is shot under illumination that is near it's intended kelvin temperature. Unless the sun is coming through the window, window light is just like open shade.

 

[photoworks68]

oh, ok. :confused:

But then again, I did not use any filters.

 

[2F/2F]

Yes, that was my point. If you had, we would be able to tell a little better how the film aged.

Not that the photo is bad. That is not what I am saying. I am only saying that it does not provide a ton of information on how the film aged.

 

[MattKing]

I'm going to disagree slightly with 2F/2F.

A subject lit with even, full daylight spectrum light will indeed tell you more about the condition of expired, daylight balance film.

But a subject that is lit with even, open sky spectrum light will tell you about the film's response to blue light and other colours exposed to predominantly blue light, and in my experience film that has deteriorated due to age doesn't respond well to those conditions.

So there is something to be learned - and your film seems to have done well.

 

[bwfans]

Here is an extreme case of expired film sustained an extreme bad storage condition.

A few years ago I had one roll of Fuji slide film, by accident, lost in my garden for about one year. It was summer, then fall, then winter, then spring, and I finally discovered it one day in the spring grass. It is a small object so grass may well covered the film. The plastic wrapper shielded it from water damage. I open the plastic wrap and found the film is still dry. I shoot the film as usual. After development I found it has some color shift otherwise all images are still quite good.

Since then I never ever believe that all films strictly requires freeze, or refrigerated, or cold stored, etc. I believe proper room temperature is sufficient for most of modern films even after years of expiration.

 

[Bill Burk]

I keep planning to do sensitometric tests to prove it but...

I still believe slow black and white film keeps indefinitely. For example I still shoot Panatomic-X of unknown heritage that I bought on an auction site and put in the freezer. I cannot tell the difference between vintage (shot and developed while fresh) and current negatives (shot now and developed now but expired '84).

My hunch is that gamma rays affect slow film less than, say, a 400 speed film. The key (my un-scientific hunch) is to shoot and develop reasonably quickly so the latent image doesn't fade. By that logic I imagine a vintage photograph (shot while fresh in '84 and developed now) would be 'worse' than a fresh shot developed timely on expired film.

Bill

ps I work for Kodak but the opinions and positions I take are mine and not necessarily those of EKC

 

[2F/2F]

I'm going to disagree slightly with 2F/2F.

A subject lit with even, full daylight spectrum light will indeed tell you more about the condition of expired, daylight balance film.

But a subject that is lit with even, open sky spectrum light will tell you about the film's response to blue light and other colours exposed to predominantly blue light, and in my experience film that has deteriorated due to age doesn't respond well to those conditions.

So there is something to be learned - and your film seems to have done well.

It was blue in blue light. That is saying something!

 

[photoworks68]

It was blue in blue light. That is saying something!

not sure I understand. :confused:

 

[holmburgers]

photoworks, you're picture definitely confirms that expired film can capture an image that has "enough" color information (if not plenty!) to be perfectly usable, even for important work. Particularly in the age of hybrid editing techniques, nearly any color shift can be compensated for.

I once shot a roll of Velvia 50 and it came back red. It was badly heat damaged, yet, all the pictures were salvagable.

2F/2F, I think we should give you the title of "Devil's Advocate in Residence"...

 

[2F/2F]

not sure I understand. :confused:

I am saying that it is probably pretty close to neutral.

The previous point was that we don't know exactly how close it is to neutral unless it is shot under it's intended kelvin temp of light.

A devil's advocate argues from an unpopular viewpoint simply for the sake of creating a well-rounded discussion of an issue (and usually not necessarily because it is his or her actual belief). I am being more like a Debbie Downer. But the reason is to prevent the poster with the example from being disappointed – simply to encourage a test that will tell him or her more before devoting "important" pix to the old film.