Should we use expired film or it's garbage ?

[pelletier]

Should we use expired film or it’s garbage ?

What do you think of expired respoolers and old brand resellers of expired film ?

Should it be considered as good as it for experimental purposes or should we forget it ?

 

[retina_restoration]

I find it strange that some people are drawn to expired film like it has imbibed some magical properties through aging (it hasn't) and will sometimes pay a premium price for the "privilege" of working with this film. This is a very odd phenomenon.

 

[Paul Howell]

Lots of considerations to be taken into account. How old is the film? How was it stored? What brand? What speed?

 

[Milpool]

Rule of thumb/my personal choice - I say no to expired film.

However it’s not necessarily that simple. It depends on the type of film, speed, how expired it is, and what its life has been like while it has been expiring. Some films under decent conditions can go a fair bit past expiry without meaningful / detrimental effects, others not. And medium format roll film is a lot more risky than say 35mm, so there’s that too.

Since storage conditions etc. are unknown why take a chance? Unless you are trying to save money. Perhaps that makes it worth the risk. I don’t think so, but that’s me.

Then there are the folks who think using expired film is a virtue. I don’t understand that at all but it’s a hobby so whatever.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's not just the savings for expired film. One should also consider all other costs such as developing, automobile expenses to get you to the photo shoot, your time, amortization of equipment, etc. Saving $2 on a roll of $10 film makes less sense when you realize you're actually spending $50 when you add in all the other costs.

 

[4season]

I prefer fresh film, but I'll make some exceptions for cleverly repackaged products such as Lomography's limited-editions.

 

[wiltw]

Lots of considerations to be taken into account. How old is the film? How was it stored? What brand? What speed?

...and is the emulsion for B&W or for color, which can color shift over time?
And how tolerant are you to foggiing (and resultant contrast loss) due to accumulation of inevitable cosmic radation (which almost nothing can shield!)

 

[Pioneer]

I don't know about anyone else but if it hadn't been for expired film when I was first getting back into film I wouldn't have had any film.

 

[tcolgate]

I had never wanted to try expired film until I got my plate camera and it came with some 1970s plates. I enjoy the challenge of the *properly* expired stuff, extracting life from it feels worthy. and for my camera I expired was the only option until the JLane plates came back.

 

[mshchem]

Buy your own loader a a 100' roll of Kentmere. Easy. Keep it in a dry place away from heat it will be good for many years to come.
Otherwise I would shoot fresh rolls of Foma/Harman/Kodak.

 

[AnselMortensen]

I went through 2 college photography programs as a broke student.
All I could afford was expired film.
I made it work.
I still use expired film for unusual emulsions like infrared & tech pan, but I try to acquire enough to test before using on anything "important".

 

[Klaus Mähring]

My rules of thumb for buying/using expired film (4x5 in colour):

-maximum of 160ASA
-expired less than 15 years ago if frozen
-at least 50 sheets of the same emulsion, so I can test it thoroughly
-expose or develop +1

I do not like expired film, but some of my favorites (Kodak 160NC, EPP100) are not available new anymore.
I do use Agfa RSX100 that I froze ~20 years ago, but I cross-process it in C41....

 

[retina_restoration]

So, it's worth noting that the format of the film in question matters: expired 35mm film and sheet films are often very usable even 20 years or more after their expiration date — especially slow B&W films like Panatomic-X. But I won't touch expired 120 roll films, since it's a well-documented fact that they simply don't age well when the film comes in contact with the backing paper. Sure, 50 years ago this wasn't so much of a problem, but we've seen that modern backing papers are nowhere near as inert, and they eventually interact with the emulsion to produce unwanted effects.

 

[Bill Burk]

retina_restoration,

120 backing paper issues arose for Kodak in a recent timeframe. Never confirmed the reason, but I suspect electrostatic ink has “electronic” properties that interfere with unexposed sensitivity specks or excited latent image specks, ensuring a watermark every time, with no way to avoid it. Batch numbers are published and you can avoid (or intentionally select like jnanian would do) that issue. Their “gravure” paper of yore (Panatomic-X, old Plus-X) is very high quality and low risk of the watermark effect.

 

[MCB18]

I like playing with expired films if I can get them for expired film prices (cheap). Low ISO stuff ages extremely well, as mentioned. And I’m a lot more inclined to try B&W over color. But, if you’re not willing to experiment and expect some poor/unusable results, expired probably isn’t for you. IMO best thing you can do is just have fun with it.

 

[Bill Burk]

To the chief question, Panatomic-X is treasured and viable. Every bit as good as new. You can still shoot it at 32 (or even 50). With a yellow filter you bring the working speed down to 16. This gives you an opportunity to use those cameras with capping above 250 and opportunity to shoot at f/2. You also get characteristic softness due to camera and subject movement handheld.

TMAX100 is a good alternative for images of the same quality if you don’t mind working with a film that’s five times as fast (doesn’t need a yellow filter). The image quality is really close between the two, but the pictures you get look different.

 

[loccdor]

The answer is "it depends."

Expired Fuji slide is some of the best film you can shoot today, but only if you can find well-stored examples.

Most Kodak film does not expire well at all. Verichrome I've heard is an exception. Portra, Ektar, Ektachrome, Tri-X, etc most certainly are not.

Slow black and white films in 35mm are usually decent.

Never had a problem with backing paper from Fuji 120. I have had problems from Ilford, Foma.

Most of the expired film being sold today is going for more than it's worth to uninformed buyers. If you're reasonably informed, you can find the occasional deal. 15 years ago, it was a completely different story, and a buyer's market.

 

[gbroadbridge]

When film was getting difficult to source a few years back I was using expired film if necessary.

Now it is abundant, I tossed the last dregs of old film into the trash, and replace with new when required.

Old film is just not worth the risk considering the time and effort taken for each shot.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

To the chief question, Panatomic-X is treasured and viable. Every bit as good as new. You can still shoot it at 32 (or even 50). With a yellow filter you bring the working speed down to 16. This gives you an opportunity to use those cameras with capping above 250 and opportunity to shoot at f/2. You also get characteristic softness due to camera and subject movement handheld.

Yes, Panatomic-X does last a long time:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2025/10/vinny-does-shelton-washington-with.html

Slow black and white film is pretty durable. You can't make a blanket statement that all expired film is garbage. The way the film was stored is a critical factor. I was amazed that some 1974 35mm GAF Versapan was viable, if rather grainy:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2021/02/expired-film-treasure-135-size-gaf.html

T400CN worked well for me in Athens. But I exposed it at EI=50:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2025/03/kodak-t400cn-film-in-athens-nov-2024.html

 

[thinkbrown]

I shoot a lot of expired film, especially stuff that's recently expired and discounted. Got a brick of fomapan 100 for like $4.75 a roll that expired in April, stuff like that.

I've also bought 400-1200ft cans of on eBay with varying degrees of success. Some of it is basically the same as new, some is severely fogged. Just depends on age and storage

 

[MCB18]

Well, this certainly isn’t garbage…

 

[Paul Howell]

Pan X, Verichrome pan, ILford Pqn F seem to hold up, the worse films I've tried are the old GAF. I bought a camera, Miranda EE from a seller in Alaska, came with boxed GAF, ISO 500, 80 and 32, all fogged, at the time the rolls were 40 years old, the 500 was almost black, thought the low speed film would have held up better.

 

[beemermark]

I find it strange that some people are drawn to expired film like it has imbibed some magical properties through aging (it hasn't) and will sometimes pay a premium price for the "privilege" of working with this film. This is a very odd phenomenon.

I'll buy short dated discounted film from places like Freestyle to save a penny but I have to agree with Retina_R. I can't figure out who buys terribly outdated film (always frozen, yeah right) for the same price or more than fresh film. To each his own.

 

[julio1fer]

My experience is with film that I bought fresh, but got outdated because I did not get to use it before expiration date. Some older film came from my late father’s estate. Everything stored at ambient temperature.

For B&W film, fog will set in at about ISO/40 years. Sensitivity is not that much affected, in my limited experience. Very old film will have special problems, such as strong curling. For color films, more than 2-5 years is risky but it depends on storage history. I have successfully used 10 years expired B&W and 1-2 years expired color negative film. YMMV.

Obviously, use fresh film if you can. But the OP was asking about expired film.

 

[retina_restoration]

To the chief question, Panatomic-X is treasured and viable. Every bit as good as new. You can still shoot it at 32 (or even 50).

This is true! I have a cache of Panatomic-X in 35mm and a roll or two of it in 120. I can't say that it's "better than" TMX, but it certainly has a nice look to it.