Why would you buy expired 35mm film?

[OrientPoint]

It really depends upon the film. As has been well documented, some films are remarkably stable and others age _really_ badly. I have fun experimenting to figure out how the different stocks age. With prices having gone crazy in the last few year it's fast becoming less fun though.

I have rolls of 70mm Technical Pan that expired in 1992 that are essentially fresh. No evident fog and no grain (it's TechPan after all) and shoots at box speed. Panatomic X and Verichrome from the late 60's on almost always work well, albeit with some fog and additional grain. Not as nice as fresh, of course, but it's fun shooting a time capsule. I've also had really good luck with E6 films. I have some 1996 expired Ektachrome 100 in 8x10 that would be a challenge to discern from fresh. In some cases the color shifts arguably improve the film. Kodak Lumiere E6, much derided in the 1990s, has a very pleasing (to me at least) yellow shift when used in 2023.

But that's the lucky part. If the film not stored well, is fast, or is just not stable (like, say, Ektar 25) it's going to be a frustrating waste of time and money.

When expired film was $2-3 a roll the gamble seemed worth it. With expired now going for almost as much as fresh (and in some cases more) I can't see that it makes any sense at all, no matter how sentimental one may be. There are a few expired stocks I'll still buy, like Portra 100t. But my film hording days are basically done. End of an era :-/

 

[Les Sarile]

It really depends upon the film. As has been well documented, some films are remarkably stable and others age _really_ badly. I have fun experimenting to figure out how the different stocks age. With prices having gone crazy in the last few year it's fast becoming less fun though.

I have rolls of 70mm Technical Pan that expired in 1992 that are essentially fresh. No evident fog and no grain (it's TechPan after all) and shoots at box speed. Panatomic X and Verichrome from the late 60's on almost always work well, albeit with some fog and additional grain. Not as nice as fresh, of course, but it's fun shooting a time capsule. I've also had really good luck with E6 films. I have some 1996 expired Ektachrome 100 in 8x10 that would be a challenge to discern from fresh. In some cases the color shifts arguably improve the film. Kodak Lumiere E6, much derided in the 1990s, has a very pleasing (to me at least) yellow shift when used in 2023.

But that's the lucky part. If the film not stored well, is fast, or is just not stable (like, say, Ektar 25) it's going to be a frustrating waste of time and money.

When expired film was $2-3 a roll the gamble seemed worth it. With expired now going for almost as much as fresh (and in some cases more) I can't see that it makes any sense at all, no matter how sentimental one may be. There are a few expired stocks I'll still buy, like Portra 100t. But my film hording days are basically done. End of an era :-/

Of course Tech Pan doesn't have a box speed per se. It has an ISO range from 16 to 200 but you will have to process it with the right developer and corresponding development time for that speed. I've shot it well beyond develop by date at ISO25 using Technidol and you will need >40X grain enlarger to see any grain. I'm sure I still have a few rolls somewhere as well as Technidol which doesn't have an expiry date.

Shot with long expired Tech Pan @ ISO25 and developed using Technidol. Even after using Technidol it is still very contrasty and doesn't hold highlights well.

Kodak Techpan ISO25 02-03 by Les DMess, on Flickr

Really excels in resolution tests but you will need better then a 4000dpi Coolscans if you're going to scan it!

Resolution testing my SMC Pentax-M 50mm F4 macro lens by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Disconnekt]

For me, a good chunk of rolls were mostly because I've never shot them before, there's some that rarely pop up so when it did I was pretty mcuh "why not". As far as result's, I'm pretty much "It is what it is", I can still do something with them after digitizing 'em

 

[eli griggs]

I buy date expired but cold stored/freezer stuff in most cases.

There are some photographers that will cut film speed, new or old, in half and with Tri-X, in particular, whom feel the film is "aged" Into a better product.

Now Kodak Professional films was a film that had been aged to peak resolution, and released at that point, but, aging cold stored b&w classic films are quite capable at delivering great results, too.

 

[oxcanary]

Some are after artistic effects with certain emulsions. One photographer I knew who lectured at our camera club at the end of the 1980s He had a brick of Kodak VR1000 (remember that). He let it go out of date AND stored it next to a hot radiator. This got him ‘signature’ colour rendition that clients went overboard about!

 

[ant!]

Just bought a bulk roll of Kodak Panatomic-x, expired 1973, frozen stored except of the last 4 years. Since it's an ISO 32 film and there are many reports with this expired in the 70s that it keeps very good, I'll try out boxspeed and maybe ISO 25, I'm optimistic it will be fine.

 

[chuckroast]

I've bought a lot of out of date monochrome film, but only stuff that is still sealed new in box. Why?

1. Because I am able to buy emulsions you cannot get anymore like Plus-X in 2 1/4 x 3 1/4 or Efke KB100 / PL100M in any format.

2. Because I've gotten some really good deals that way.

However, I don't develop these conventionally. Modern developers with short times are aggressive enough that they tend to bring out film fog. Instead, I use use semistand and EMA techniques. I've gotten perfectly fine negatives with film as old as the early 1970s. I've even gotten good results from a film that went out of date in 1961.

 

[OrientPoint]

Last week I shot a few 4x5 sheets of 1968-expired Panatomic-X I've had sitting in the fridge for a long while (but not since 1968) and it looked closer to new than I could ever believe. I shot it at box speed (ISO 32).

 

[faberryman]

Some are after artistic effects with certain emulsions. One photographer I knew who lectured at our camera club at the end of the 1980s He had a brick of Kodak VR1000 (remember that). He let it go out of date AND stored it next to a hot radiator. This got him ‘signature’ colour rendition that clients went overboard about!

As long a you have a brick of it, sufficient to do a project or portfolio of images out of it. If you only have a couple of rolls, you'll maybe end up with a happy accident or two, the look of which you won't be able to replicate. Of course, if you are just shooting for fun to see how expired film turns out, that won't be a problem.

 

[4season]

The only expired film that I've purchased are Lomography's special editions cut from NOS material, which someone has tested and repackaged.

I sometimes seek out seriously vintage film branded as Zeiss Ikon, Voigtlander, etc, but as collectable items.

 

[Pioneer]

Gee. Expired film police. You buy what you want for your reasons and I'll do the same.

 

[mshchem]

I would guess my film fridge is 3/4 expired film. It doesn't start out expired but ends up that way.

Some folks have a wine cellar, I have a film fridge

 

[JPD]

I don't usually buy expired film, but bought a couple boxes of Agfa APX 100 sheet film a couple of years ago because I like the film and it's not made anymore. It had been stored in a freezer and behaved like fresh. And I don't mind buying discounted recently expired film.

Had a few rolls of one year expired Plus-X that had probably been stored in a hot climate and maybe went through an X-ray machine, and they were fogged, but evenly so, so they were usable.

 

[faberryman]

Had a few rolls of one year expired Plus-X that had probably been stored in a hot climate and maybe went through an X-ray machine, and they were fogged, but evenly so, so they were usable.

Fogged but usable?

 

[JPD]

Fogged but usable?

Yes, it only lowered the contrast.

 

[bluechromis]

This is the answer. For those of us who were born before 1990ish, it's easy to think perfection is the goal. Perfection has long been the sign of the skilled hand. However, in today's world, perfection is the sign of computers and automation. Perfection is everywhere. Perfection is cheap and it's boring. It's the hallmark of the unskilled laborer, not the skilled master. To people who grew up after the digital revolution, there is a decided lack of human touch on everyday existence.

When photography first came out, it was accused of killing painting. It made no sense to pay a highly skilled painter to paint your portrait when a photographer could do it more quickly, cheaply, and accurately. But painting didn't die. It evolved beyond realism. Abstraction took over. Expressionism reigned. Surrealism flourished. Photography didn't kill painting; it freed it from the bonds of everyday experience and placed it on an ethereal plane, free to find it's own meaning of existence.

And that's what digital has done to film. Making a perfect photograph with film still takes a lot of skill, but it will never look as good, be as cheap, or be as quick as a digital photo (remember we're still in the infancy of digital sensor technology). As such, the whole reason for shooting film for most people who grew up after the digital revolution, is to "show the artist's hand", as the saying goes. The whole point of it is to show off the flaws. It's to reinforce the idea that it was made by a human, for humans, and in celebration of the human condition (flaws and all). Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait. Film is no longer tied down by the expectation reality. The flawed nature of expired film mirrors the human experience. The flaws of expired film are a metaphor for ourselves. It's unrealized potential at it's finest.

So the real question is, why shoot film over digital if what you want is reliable and repeatable results?

I agree with much of what you say. I would not use the word perfection with regard to the earlier standards. They represented alignment with the commercial and cultural expectations of a particular era. But the aesthetic merit of those expectations is entirely subjective. With the evaporation of most of the commercial uses of film, its role now is for creative art. If one wants to call that fine art, so be it. Art ought to be about freedom of expression. Photographers should feel free to use a wide variety of techniques. Not everyone likes the effects of expired film. Not everyone likes pinhole. Not everyone likes toned photos. For that matter, not everyone likes black and white. But some people do like all those things.

 

[bluechromis]

Why not shoot expired film if you like the results?

Another reason why we tend to not have younger people on Photrio; the inability of some to allow others to have fun and not adhere to their standards.

You got standards? Good. Enforce them on yourself.

Don't like the results they post and want to be critical? Expect criticism in return; it's pretty simple.


The baseline assumption for most people on Photrio is that anyone who shoots film is attempting to produce work that is "technically competent" in the classic sense.

I think this bespeaks a real blindness to the aesthetic of upcoming photographers who are attempting to break-out of the "perfection" trap high-end digital and analog that is pushed down their throats daily.

Why do you think the pre-exposed color-flash and patterned films are so popular? Look on Freestyle if you are unaware; there are many versions for sale and they wouldn't be there if there wasn't a demand.

It also points out that a large percentage of people on here are making enemies of the very people we should be recruiting into our ranks; the young people who are expressing interest and buying film, thus keeping the industry alive so that ALL can practice their preferred aesthetic of photography.

Are we such dinosaurs that we cannot be flexible enough to accept them into the fold and allow them to "do their thing"?

It is one thing to coach others who ill-advisedly wish to make "technically competent" images to classic standards with expired or substandard materials and it is a totally different thing to just criticize someone's aesthetic because it doesn't fit into an ossified canon of acceptability.

I agree.

 

[bluechromis]

Audiophiles can get hung up on the quality of the source.

If it's their tuner that has the highest source quality, then that's what's they listen to, even if the radio is playing music that isn't quite to their taste.

For music playback gear, audiophiles generally want gear that will reproduce the recorded signal with as much accuracy as possible. But musicians, such as those that use electric guitars, often do want their amps and other equipment to alter the initial signal, to create distortion, reverb, etc. They are seeking not to reproduce a sound but to shape a sound. There could be a similarity with film. Some people want a film to reproduce the closest possible likeness of the scene. But other people may use expired film, may physically distress the negative, or use other effects to shape the image.

 

[bluechromis]

Film with acetate support can deteriorate over time due to vinegar syndrome. Some question why one would want to buy an old film that already has its countdown to vinegar syndrome run down a long way. Polyester support films are said to have better longevity. But polyester-based films are less common except in large format. Some people may feel they only need the negative to last long enough to scan it or print it. But others may want their negatives to last.

 

[faberryman]

This is the answer. For those of us who were born before 1990ish, it's easy to think perfection is the goal. Perfection has long been the sign of the skilled hand. However, in today's world, perfection is the sign of computers and automation. Perfection is everywhere. Perfection is cheap and it's boring. It's the hallmark of the unskilled laborer, not the skilled master. To people who grew up after the digital revolution, there is a decided lack of human touch on everyday existence.

When photography first came out, it was accused of killing painting. It made no sense to pay a highly skilled painter to paint your portrait when a photographer could do it more quickly, cheaply, and accurately. But painting didn't die. It evolved beyond realism. Abstraction took over. Expressionism reigned. Surrealism flourished. Photography didn't kill painting; it freed it from the bonds of everyday experience and placed it on an ethereal plane, free to find it's own meaning of existence.

And that's what digital has done to film. Making a perfect photograph with film still takes a lot of skill, but it will never look as good, be as cheap, or be as quick as a digital photo (remember we're still in the infancy of digital sensor technology). As such, the whole reason for shooting film for most people who grew up after the digital revolution, is to "show the artist's hand", as the saying goes. The whole point of it is to show off the flaws. It's to reinforce the idea that it was made by a human, for humans, and in celebration of the human condition (flaws and all). Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait. Film is no longer tied down by the expectation reality. The flawed nature of expired film mirrors the human experience. The flaws of expired film are a metaphor for ourselves. It's unrealized potential at it's finest.

So the real question is, why shoot film over digital if what you want is reliable and repeatable results?

I don't think your analogy holds. Film is not imperfect and digital is not perfect. They are different mediums. You don't have to make film imperfect by using expired film, expired enlarging paper, expired chemicals, and poor technique to distinguish it from digital. The whole point of film is decidedly not to show off the flaws, and expired materials are not a celebration of the human condition. You thesis sounds more about a lifestyle statement than about photography.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It is a personal choice. I prefer not to risk loosing a photograph just to save some money. For others, they might not have a choice.

 

[henryvk]

This is the answer. For those of us who were born before 1990ish, it's easy to think perfection is the goal. Perfection has long been the sign of the skilled hand. However, in today's world, perfection is the sign of computers and automation. Perfection is everywhere. Perfection is cheap and it's boring. It's the hallmark of the unskilled laborer, not the skilled master. To people who grew up after the digital revolution, there is a decided lack of human touch on everyday existence.

When photography first came out, it was accused of killing painting. It made no sense to pay a highly skilled painter to paint your portrait when a photographer could do it more quickly, cheaply, and accurately. But painting didn't die. It evolved beyond realism. Abstraction took over. Expressionism reigned. Surrealism flourished. Photography didn't kill painting; it freed it from the bonds of everyday experience and placed it on an ethereal plane, free to find it's own meaning of existence.

And that's what digital has done to film. Making a perfect photograph with film still takes a lot of skill, but it will never look as good, be as cheap, or be as quick as a digital photo (remember we're still in the infancy of digital sensor technology). As such, the whole reason for shooting film for most people who grew up after the digital revolution, is to "show the artist's hand", as the saying goes. The whole point of it is to show off the flaws. It's to reinforce the idea that it was made by a human, for humans, and in celebration of the human condition (flaws and all). Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait. Film is no longer tied down by the expectation reality. The flawed nature of expired film mirrors the human experience. The flaws of expired film are a metaphor for ourselves. It's unrealized potential at it's finest.

So the real question is, why shoot film over digital if what you want is reliable and repeatable results?

I don't fully agree because you can take (or as it's put in German "make") a film photograph that looks as good or better – which is subjective anyway – as a digital image. I do sympathise with that aspect of film, visible grain, accidents, showing the hand (or ham-handedness?), as it were, which *can* be read as a metaphor.

Not everyone will go along with that interpretation, but imo it's a valid one as imperfections have a way of speaking to the soul. Like the slight imperfections of a drumbeat played by a human drummer over the perfect timing of a drum machine. It's not to say that both can't sound good or have their place but the brain is very, very good at picking up on the imperfections and I think it does that for a reason.

And I think we sometimes need to be reminded that the imperfections are valid and necessary. I heard someone describe their experience of listening to Madlib (producer known for his often lo-fi, organic sound) for the first time, thinking "wow, you are *allowed* to put the drums off-kilter like that?". I think some younger people, growing up immersed in "perfect" images, may get a similar experience from film photography, like, "hey, it's okay to go play outside and get dirty and make mistakes", not everything has to be clinical. Read this in Fred Rogers' voice if you like

 

[faberryman]

I think some younger people, growing up immersed in "perfect" images, may get a similar experience from film photography, like, "hey, it's okay to go play outside and get dirty and make mistakes", not everything has to be clinical. Read this in Fred Rogers' voice if you like

That's great but you don't have dress up like an urchin to distinguish yourself from a normal kid doing the same thing. If you really want to make a statement about modernity, throw away your iPhone and unplug from the internet. That at least would give you some credibility.

And then there is the question on everyone's mind: Would you use expired materials if you had to pay a premium for them, or is all this imperfection speaking to the soul stuff just a rationalization for cheaping out?

 

[henryvk]

That's great but you don't have dress up like an urchin to distinguish yourself from a normal kid doing the same thing. If you really want to make a statement about modernity, throw away your iPhone and unplug from the internet. That at least would give you some credibility.

If you equate imperfection with grubbiness, I'm not sure we are going to agree. Btw if you want to remain intelligible on an international forum be mindful when using figures of speech, people may think you are talking about spiny aquatic creatures.

As far as throwing away my phone... if you have some kind of grievance I suggest you talk directly to your grandchild instead of projecting onto me.

 

[faberryman]

If you equate imperfection with grubbiness, I'm not sure we are going to agree. Btw if you want to remain intelligible on an international forum be mindful when using figures of speech, people may think you are talking about spiny aquatic creatures.

You are the one who brought up going outside to play and getting dirty, so the grubbiness meme is on you, not me.