Should we use expired film or is it garbage ?

[pentaxuser]

It's not a bug, it's a feature

Yes it has an eye catching look to it that somehow fits the scene for me

pentaxuser

 

[Daybreak135]

I shoot quite a bit of expired film and I can say it is for sure not for everyone it is super unpredictable. My philosophy is if you can get it for super cheap and you can verify its been well stored, you can shoot it and it gives you something decent. However like many have said it is unpredictable and that can be a problem for sure.
What I like to do is buy film that is usually from the same lot (like bricks or bulk rolls if possible) so I can test them. With a bit of tinkering whether it is blasting it with more light or something in the development process, I can actually get some pretty nice results. I find that B&W film holds up the best, and color and slide it is a crap shoot.

To be honest though, its probably just better to shoot fresh film because there are times when the film has been completely cooked and it sucks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The cost of film is the least of my daily problems, so I pay for well stored new film.

 

[Dr. no]

I shoot a lot of expired film, for multiple reasons:
1. when it's cheap and good, it's really good.
2. when it's cheap and mediocre, it's still OK, because the activity of shooting in one of my goals.
3. also let's me test for light leaks/framing/etc without as much pain as $10-15/roll, and it might come out OK, which is good.

I have rolls of Verichrome from 1978 in two backs and a folder now, to see if the new light seals are OK. I'll shoot these at nice locations or of friends, but if the vision is good that day I'll use backs/holders loaded with fresher stuff too. And when I say expired it's often premillennial.

My personal rules for old film:
1. Verichrome Pan is amazingly long-lived, and I like its tonal range and "image" a lot. I had a brick of it (120) from around the mid-seventies, and 17/20 rolls were very good, with little base fog. One corner of the brick was heavily fogged...the side that faced the sun? Dunno.
2. I usually only buy a quantity, five or more (preferably more, in a package) so I can test one and (reasonably) trust the others.
3. No chrome more than 10 years out of date. Chrome ages the worst (Fuji is far better than Kodak).
4. C41 up to 20 years out of date, if it sounds reasonably well-stored.
5. B&W, especially slower speeds, last longer. I have Royal Pan from ~1960 that is not horrible (well, not great either )
6. Expirations are arbitrary dates, based on marketing, supply lines and transportation variables as much as photochemical changes. Film I bought close to the source and kept cool is not dropping dead the day (or year after) a certain day. Film that I buy warm from the confectioning mill and then get scanned in an airport or leave in the car in July in Houston is a goner, though.

So, to answer the question we started with, YES, at least for me. Or, OUI, du moins pour moi. Si vous avez des pellicules périmées, je les prends.
Merci!

 

[whojammyflip]

Well, I just shot some test frames of a white towel using Delta 400 dated Jan 2006 (ie 20 years old), following guidance in a book by John Blakemore, and measured the transmission density using a Darkroom Automation meter, under an enlarging lens. Looks to me like it needs to be rated at 100 to get a log 2 density of 0.33 over base plus fog. Is this normal? Its disappointing, for sure. However, the gamma was fine. Developed in XTOL 1:1. Asking Copilot, it suggests that Delta 400 is known to have a true speed of around 160. Seems like a sensible thing to test for any film, not just expired.

 

[Rayt]

Sure, I will shoot expired film if I had purchased it fresh and knew how it was stored under my care.

 

[Don_ih]

Is this normal?

It's normal for an iso400 film to drop two stops over 20 years. It would be unusual for a slower film to do that.

Asking Copilot, it suggests that Delta 400 is known to have a true speed of around 160.

That, in my opinion, is incorrect. Its speed is 400. The accumulated comments from people who don't know how to meter don't count for much.

 

[Dr. no]

Another discussion of box speed/ISO versus users' exposure index? Sure, that fits into any thread...

Increased exposure is one way to bring the image past the fog, and I would expect there to be some fog in a 20yo 400 speed film that was stored with some protection (I'd hope for better with freezing, expect worse in a hot place), so this might work well for you. Did you do any frames of something pictorial?
Different films have a different response to age, in terms of fog and loss of sensitivity. I have no experience with Delta 400.

 

[Cholentpot]

Another discussion of box speed/ISO versus users' exposure index? Sure, that fits into any thread...

Increased exposure is one way to bring the image past the fog, and I would expect there to be some fog in a 20yo 400 speed film that was stored with some protection (I'd hope for better with freezing, expect worse in a hot place), so this might work well for you. Did you do any frames of something pictorial?
Different films have a different response to age, in terms of fog and loss of sensitivity. I have no experience with Delta 400.

Weirdly enough, I found some of my expired 400 speed film looks better shot at 800 and pushed in development. When I tried the same times at 400 or 200 it didn't look as good. No idea why. Might not technically be better but for me it looks better.

 

[gealto2]

Weirdly enough, I found some of my expired 400 speed film looks better shot at 800 and pushed in development. When I tried the same times at 400 or 200 it didn't look as good. No idea why. Might not technically be better but for me it looks better.

It looks better because you raised the contrast by pushing. I've seen this with my 30 year old tmy. I normally expose this at 100, so I push to about 400 max. However, the film is very grainy like that, which is okay for effect.

 

[Dr. no]

Hmm.
I have some 35mm "Varicath" film, which is a radiographic ortho movie film used in the old days for cardiac catheterizations. I remember seeing large rolls of film in the cath lab in the '90s. I have no idea how long ago this expired, prob. late '90s.
When I first got it, at least ten years ago, it seem to be OK for pictorial use at 100, and I didn't use much of it since I had other (and panchromatic) films. Lately I have tried it again (an F4 with a 400mm lens and a birdfeeder, am I getting old?) and it has little fog, but the speed is much lower and the contrast is much higher. Pushing development times just make it look more like a litho film. Pity, cause I have >100ft left.