Tried 2 Rolls of Royal Gold 25 Recently

Shadow 2

A
Shadow 2

  • 0
  • 0
  • 16
Shadow 1

A
Shadow 1

  • 2
  • 0
  • 17
Darkroom c1972

A
Darkroom c1972

  • 1
  • 2
  • 31
Tōrō

H
Tōrō

  • 4
  • 0
  • 39

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,826
Messages
2,781,479
Members
99,718
Latest member
nesunoio
Recent bookmarks
0

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,784
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
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
 

Attachments

  • DSCN0839small.jpg
    DSCN0839small.jpg
    490.5 KB · Views: 154
  • DSCN0840small.jpg
    DSCN0840small.jpg
    450.2 KB · Views: 160
  • DSCN0841small.jpg
    DSCN0841small.jpg
    472.6 KB · Views: 158
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
87
Location
Michigan
Format
Analog
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.
 
OP
OP
braxus

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,784
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
  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

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,741
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
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.
 

Jonno85uk

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
188
Location
England
Format
Multi Format
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

Subscriber
Joined
Nov 3, 2016
Messages
2,054
Location
Olympia, Washington
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

Attachments

  • 20210615c_YMCA_MonroeSt_Vicksburg_MS_7200dpi_resize.jpg
    20210615c_YMCA_MonroeSt_Vicksburg_MS_7200dpi_resize.jpg
    143 KB · Views: 119
  • 20210520i_Cottage_HopewellRd_Harrisville_MS_resize.jpg
    20210520i_Cottage_HopewellRd_Harrisville_MS_resize.jpg
    202.8 KB · Views: 121
  • 20210520k_AbortionSign_HopewellRd_CrystalSprings_MS_resize.jpg
    20210520k_AbortionSign_HopewellRd_CrystalSprings_MS_resize.jpg
    231.7 KB · Views: 121
  • 20210520l_501ERailroadAve_CrystalSprings_MS_adj_resize.jpg
    20210520l_501ERailroadAve_CrystalSprings_MS_adj_resize.jpg
    188.8 KB · Views: 109

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,741
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
:wondering:

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?
 
OP
OP
braxus

braxus

Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
1,784
Location
Fraser Valley B.C. Canada
Format
Hybrid
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

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,741
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,519
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
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

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,741
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
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

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,519
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
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.
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom