Tried 2 Rolls of Royal Gold 25 Recently

[braxus]

I found 2 rolls of Royal Gold 25 that had been sitting in house temp for over 10 years. These rolls are probably 25 years old. They were cold stored before that. Being a 25 speed film, I'd thought I'd try my luck and shoot them at box speed. Nope. When I got the processed negatives back, they were severely underexposed and fogged of course. Tried scanning one of the shots up on my new film scanner. All I got was underexposed garbage. It saved it as a B&W for some reason, though it showed the scan on screen in color. So much for the shoot I did on the weekend. This is LOMO at its worst. I probably should have shot it at 6 ISO. I used my 50mm 1.4 to shoot with. I wont bother showing the scan, since its useless. But here is a pic of what the negative looked like. Shame I didnt have more of these rolls. I did a comparison over 15 years ago of the new Ektar 100 vs this film. Royal Gold 25 is basically Ektar 25 anyway, just renamed. I dont think that post is still available with the pictures I showed. Im a huge fan of super slow speed films in the 25 ISO range. Both color and B&W.

Ektar 25 vs New Ektar 100 Results | Photrio.com Photography Forums

 

[braxus]

I found the pictures in my folder on Photo.net. I reposted them in the last message of that original thread.

 

[woodlandSerenade]

While this may not be related to the thread title, any idea if Kodak's Royal Supra line was also derived from the old Ektar films?
I shot a few rolls of Royal Supra 200 that expired in early 2005 and it hadn't aged very well at all. Muddy colors and wild crossover at EI 125. Highlights were also solid white by EI 125, so additional overexposure would have been futile.

 

[braxus]

1. I believe they were the same films, but Supra based in Europe. There was no Supra 25 however. It's all Portra now anyway. 100UC was the predecessor to Ektar 100.

 

[Don_ih]

The negative you show against a backlight doesn't look fogged. The edge markings seem to match the density of the image, so it looks underdeveloped.

 

[koraks]

The negative you show against a backlight doesn't look fogged.

I've rarely seen fog this bad. It completely overwhelms the color of the film base.

 

[Jonno85uk]

That negative looks like an expired Royal Gold 400 I found in a camera earlier this year.
It was unexposed so tried it @200. Wow. Ugly. Images all came out very thin and made everything look like a nuclear wasteland.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Braxus, it's a pity that your Royal Gold 25 was fogged. The years at room temperature likely ruined it. I just shot my very last Royal Gold 25 ever. It was in a frozen stash of film from a friend's freezer, so I trusted its provenance. I exposed at EI=16, which made slightly dense negatives. These are from a Leica M2 with 50mm DR or 35mm Summicron lenses. The negatives are a bit grainy, but what do you expect? Anyway, goodbye to an old friend and on to Ektar 100 from now on.

 

[Don_ih]

I've rarely seen fog this bad. It completely overwhelms the color of the film base.

You can see through the spaces between the frames - it's quite clear. You think there's no chance the developer was bad?

 

[braxus]

It was developed at a commercial photolab, so I dont know if they were having issues that day or not?

 

[koraks]

You can see through the spaces between the frames

That's not a counter-indication of fog.
Given the film's age, age-related fog is the most likely cause.

 

[braxus]

The film was frozen for a number of years, then sat in a bottom dresser drawer for over 10 years in room temps. So it has to be fog, with reduced sensitivity due to age, hence looking underexposed.

 

[Don_ih]

It appears, from your picture, that the edge markings are underdeveloped. It looks like the image is underdeveloped. Fog adds overall density and makes the film less transparent - it doesn't reduce the actual density of a developed image or of edge markings. ISO25 film should lose no sensitivity while frozen and then should lose next to no sensitivity at room temperature for 10 years. It looks underdeveloped.
Maybe it's a film that loses its ability to be developed over the years.... Or perhaps it's the screen I'm viewing it on (60 inch tv).

 

[foc]

I agree that the edge number look like they were underdeveloped BUT I have seen this before with some old Kodak films even when they were processed correctly.
The base had the same looking fog and when developed correctly in C41 (dev 3min 15sec @38C) they still looked like they had been underdeveloped, like the sample shown above by the OP.

 

[Don_ih]

I agree that the edge number look like they were underdeveloped BUT I have seen this before with some old Kodak films even when they were processed correctly.
The base had the same looking fog and when developed correctly in C41 (dev 3min 15sec @38C) they still looked like they had been underdeveloped, like the sample shown above by the OP.

Out of curiosity, what speed films?

 

[foc]

Out of curiosity, what speed films?

I can't remember if it was film speed specific, I just remember they were always old Kodak films.
It didn't appear to happen too often with old Fuji or Agfa films but it definitely happened with any old Ferrania or Konica made film.
When the processed film was scanned, a correction could be made, and most customers were happy with the results. In fact, most didn't know any different.

 

[braxus]

This film was done in a lab, since I don't process color film here.