What to expect from freezer/refrigerator-kept Ektar 25 exp. 1992?

[j-dogg]

And go....

 

[chrismoret]

Take the plunge!! And see what happens. And then share it with us......

 

[j-dogg]

It's loaded into my Nikkormat FTN right now, going to shoot it up tomorrow.

Also got some Ektachrome 64 just as old and kept in the same freezer, I scored both from a garage sale for free

 

[EdSawyer]

I've shot ektar 25 that old, have quite a bit left of it actually. I'd say overexpose by a stop or so, and it should be fine.

-Ed

 

[brianmquinn]

I have read that Ektar 25 was one of the few films that was damaged by putting it in the freezer. Also the new Ektar 100 is so good and cheap I would not use the old stuff if you gave it to me.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ektar 25 did not like to be frozen. Ektar could form coupler crystals in the film, thus increasing the grain. Sometimes you could see this beforehand as a roughening of the surface. Otherwise, the imaging was fine except for the grain.

I have seen both effects. The grain increase was shown several times in posts here and on PN, and the roughening was shown to me when I was at EK when the problem was discovered. We had a demo sample of it shown to us.

Ektar 25 was a very difficult product to manufacture, as it was at the cutting edge of technology at that time. For years, there was background R&D going on to solve these problems and the Ektar 100 is probably the result of these efforts.

PE

 

[TSSPro]

How fortunate this thread get started now- I have a wedding client that has several frozen/fridge kept bricks of ektar 25 that they want shot at their wedding. I've requested a few rolls to test for grain and general usefulness of the film, hope that I dont get too many that have been frozen with coupler crystals in the film.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Even testing before use may not "prove" usefulness. This effect was spotty and you could have several rolls in a brick that had the defect spread through the center of a cut and so you would miss the problem with just one test. IDK for sure, but the problem I saw was on a frozen sheet of 42" wide Ektar 25, about 2 - 3 feet long, that had been tested due to just this complaint. The defect was a rough amoeba shaped blob spread across the film in an irregular form. Thus, it would have been spread unevenly over parts of several rolls if it had been slit, packaged and sold.

PE

 

[EdSawyer]

I've had no trouble with mine that was frozen. Then again, I love ektar 100 and pretty much only shoot that now (for color) though I do still have bricks of ektar25/RG25. (did the issue persist with Royal Gold 25, PE? )

Thanks
-Ed

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have no idea, but I suspect that it did not. Some of these were called RAS coatings (Reduced Auxiliary Solvent) and the problem was solved rather quickly but not soon enough for Ektar 25 IIRC.

PE

 

[j-dogg]

Since I have had it it's refrigerator kept, shot the whole thing today and got a really good test shot of the color band, I found two towers lit up at night in ROYGBIV the whole length so it will be interesting to see if there is any color shift. I shot at 17 speed on the FTN.

Will it be okay to send this to CVS, Walgreens, etc.? I got a BUNCH of film I need developed I was going to take my bs stuff there and save the professional grade stuff for Flair here in my neck of the woods.

 

[2F/2F]

You should shoot a roll, and see what it looks like. Then you will be the one who can give us the information!

I've shot some old Ektar 25, and it came out OK. Not sure if it was that old, though. It's not my favorite film.

As for the guy who is thinking about using it at a wedding, I'd say not to do so. Use fresh film that you purchased yourself for weddings, not some stuff that someone gives you. That way you know the stuff is good, because you know exactly how it has been taken care of since purchase. You cannot afford to use somebody's wedding as a test. Aside from that, 25 speed film is not of much use at weddings IMO, and I also think that you will find some currently-made emulsions that will provide color and contrast more suited to a wedding.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Reading this thread, my jaw is hanging open and I'm slowly shaking my head. Why in the goddess' name would anyone want to shoot old, slow film? Waste money and/or time on processing? AT A WEDDING? With Ektar's intense color? Portra 160N or the new 400 would be good choices.

And I think I have stupid ideas, sometimes..........

 

[j-dogg]

I would not shoot this at a wedding, it's WAY too slow for anything indoors, forget it.

The reason I'm shooting this, it was given to me and I'm unemployed and can't find a job and this is pretty much all I have left now.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I would not shoot this at a wedding, it's WAY too slow for anything indoors, forget it.

The reason I'm shooting this, it was given to me and I'm unemployed and can't find a job and this is pretty much all I have left now.

OK, I feel your pain. I've been officially without "job of substance" since 2005. For over three years I've been living with aging parents to take care of them; Dad died a year ago and Mom is on her way. Money has been tight, I assure you.

Free film does not necessarily make good value. You still need to process it, whether to negs and scan or all the way to prints. Either will cost you as much or more than any non-professional film.

I just bought some Ektar 100 on eBay for $4.25/roll, free shipping, in date. To do some C-41 processing testing, I bought some Fujicolor 200 under the Walgreens/CVS branding; four rolls of 24 exposure for $8, i.e., $2/roll. Even compensating for the 36-24 exposure difference, that's $3/roll. Far less than any processing to negs only, at least that I can get in Sarasota, Florida.

Your original question is best answered by, you know, actually shooting a roll. When you've done that, let us know how it works out. It might be fine, it might not, and you will be living with 25 ISO regardless.