Why would you buy expired 35mm film?

[blockend]

Since this topic arose I've loaded two short rolls from outdated bulk FP4+ I acquired a while ago (2005 use by IIRC). There's a weird band a few mm from the top edge. It isn't development error - same place on two separately developed rolls - nor is it a scanning artefact, I re-scanned a recently developed roll of Foma 100 to check. Not a camera thing, the rolls were on different cameras. It's a darker* stripe 80% up the image. V. strange.

Grain has increased, and there are intermittent patches of what look like micro blisters which is a new flaw, I thought I'd seen everything. However it was cheap and I'm happy to use it in some 90s compacts I hadn't got around to testing.
If I'd paid good money I wouldn't have been so sanguine about it. Buyer beware indeed.

*edited

 

[firemachine69]

Velvia 50

 

[BradS]

It used to be that the local camera store would have a container (fish bowl, bin, etc) of expired (usually not very far out-of-date) and short dated (close but not quite yet expired) film. These were offered a major discount - often at least half off the usual price. This is the only time I've ever bought or ever would consider buying short date / expired film.
The current trendy fad of buying long out of date film at prices that compare with fresh film makes no sense to me at all to. To me, it is absurd and foolish but...to each their own.

 

[Luckless]

Since this topic arose I've loaded two short rolls from outdated bulk FP4+ I acquired a while ago (2005 use by IIRC). There's a weird band a few mm from the top edge. It isn't development error - same place on two separately developed rolls - nor is it a scanning artefact, I re-scanned a recently developed roll of Foma 100 to check. Not a camera thing, the rolls were on different cameras. It's a less exposed/developed stripe 80% up the image. V. strange.

Sounds like something wonky with the bulk roll, or your loader.

 

[jim10219]

imo, it's the novelty value of the results analogue can give when it isn't quite right.

Before digital, the goal was get analogue as good as possible. Not just photography, sound reproduction, letterpress printing etc. Now that digital does that quite easily, analogue has a different reason to exist.

Letterpress now has a niche market for wedding invites and the like. The customers no longer want perfect printing, they want to see the impression left by the type. That used to be the sign of a poor quality printer, now it's the main reason for ordering letterpress. Digital audio can be be very clean but some prefer hearing the snap crackle and pop of a mid-fi record player and unwashed vinyl.

Best value film ime is short dated. Too new for the hipsters and too old for the analogue purists.

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?

 

[darkosaric]

There must be a market for it, and I'm intrigued as to the various reasons one might purchase expired film.

For me:
1) Kodak Technical Pan.
2) Cheap and fun (unpredictable) to use.

 

[blockend]

Sounds like something wonky with the bulk roll, or your loader.

Best guess is an emulsion fault. It isn't a scratch, much wider and the background is visible through it, a scratch would be black. Can't be development or it would continue to the edge. Mystery.

 

[blockend]

Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait.

I take your point but it isn't so simple. A lot of the people shooting outdated film aren't doing it on beat up Spotmatic or P&S, but new Leicas and RB67s. There's even a YouTube channel with Summicrons and Hasselblads aplenty, where grossly under-exposed, colour shifted, grainy as hell shots are held up as masterworks. I don't recall many M3 owners scouring the lucky dip film box back in the day.

 

[removed account4]

Cause usually expired film is discounted and shoots and processes without issue.

 

[Ariston]

I don't really get it, but I don't mind that someone has different tastes from me. I must admit that I have seen some charming photos taken on expired film.

As for me, I buy expired film only if it's cheap or I need to experiment. Or if it happens to come in an old camera I buy.

 

[Taz777]

Thank you all for some fantastic replies. A real eye-opener to a beginner!

 

[Vaughn]

Because these tiny little formats are fun to play with...120 in my case.

 

[BradS]

Cause usually expired film is discounted and shoots and processes without issue.

This is what I was trying to say. Your statement is clear, concise and accurate.Thanks.

 

[Bill Burk]

One film is worth it for me. Panatomic-X in 35mm rolls or bulk. Looks and characteristics are just as good as when it was new.

Of course it’s a slow film, so when I want 400 it’s gotta be fresh.

 

[Brendan Quirk]

Perfection is no longer a goal, or even a desirable trait. Film is no longer tied down by the expectation reality.

I can see this IF the departure from perfection is somewhat predictable AND is desired by the artist as an aid for some particular expression. If the imperfection is grossly random, it seems like just a crap shoot, and not self expression. Unless, of course, the point you are trying to make is the nature of randomness...!

 

[removed account4]

This is what I was trying to say. Your statement is clear, concise and accurate.Thanks.

Pleasure was mine

 

[eddie]

Some of my projects only require that I can develop the film to complete density, after being exposed to a few bazillion watt seconds of strobes. Old film usually works well for that, so I'll use it if it's cheap enough. If the film costs as much as fresh, though, I'll go with fresh (and save a half a bazillion watt seconds)...

 

[Sirius Glass]

If it is for import or one time opportunities fresh film or your frozen stock.
Not important or experimenting or you can go back and take it again then I would use expired film from an unknown storage seller.
A discontinued film, I do buy and use expired film. If the storage history is unsure, I will test a roll first.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I've seen adverts for expired 35mm film with expiry dates of 2001, 2004, etc. The price doesn't appear to be much different from fresh 35mm film from what I can tell, maybe a tiny bit cheaper.

There must be a market for it, and I'm intrigued as to the various reasons one might purchase expired film.

I spend to much effort creating decent images; I would never risk it with expired film. I'll buy fresh film as long as it is still available.otherwise we might be all sorry one day.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

Jim, That's very good what you said. I've been shooting Tmax 100 in 120 6x7 format and Velvia. The Velvia is different than digital because of its heavy color palette. But Tmax is almost as clear as digital. So why bother shooting it? I might as well use my Sony digital all the time and convert to BW. I've been thinking about switching to Tri-X 400 so it looks different. But still want some consistency and not depend on who knows what of expired film. Your post gave me some courage to do the switch. Thanks. ALan. PS Any suggestions beside using Tri-X? Other processes I could consider? I don;t have my own darkroom and couldn't install one where I live. All my processing is done in a pro lab.

 

[Arklatexian]

I spend to much effort creating decent images; I would never risk it with expired film. I'll buy fresh film as long as it is still available.otherwise we might be all sorry one day.

+1

 

[jim10219]

Jim, That's very good what you said. I've been shooting Tmax 100 in 120 6x7 format and Velvia. The Velvia is different than digital because of its heavy color palette. But Tmax is almost as clear as digital. So why bother shooting it? I might as well use my Sony digital all the time and convert to BW. I've been thinking about switching to Tri-X 400 so it looks different. But still want some consistency and not depend on who knows what of expired film. Your post gave me some courage to do the switch. Thanks. ALan. PS Any suggestions beside using Tri-X? Other processes I could consider? I don;t have my own darkroom and couldn't install one where I live. All my processing is done in a pro lab.

You might consider Rollei IR 400. To me, it looks similar to Tri-X when shot normally, and has the added benefit of being used as an IR film with the addition of an appropriate filter. I also enjoy making digital negatives and contact prints with alternative processes. This doesn't require a traditional darkroom, and can give more opportunities for the artist to show their hand in their work. Cyanotypes and Van Dykes are a great introduction into this world.

I'm not against striving for perfection or high quality films. In fact, Tmax is my favorite and most used film. I'm not against digital or a meticulously controlled analog print. I'm a fan of it all, so long as the final image stirs up thoughts and emotions.

 

[MattKing]

If I understand correctly, Alan has his negatives scanned and he prints digitally.
I expect it is the scanning process that is set up to make his results look so "digital". I find that my T-Max 400 negatives give me lots of choices - I can scan them and post process for either smoothness or "grit", or print them optically, aiming for a range of results.
I would hazard a guess that most labs aim for smooth when they set up their scanning defaults.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I've seen adverts for expired 35mm film with expiry dates of 2001, 2004, etc. The price doesn't appear to be much different from fresh 35mm film from what I can tell, maybe a tiny bit cheaper.

There must be a market for it, and I'm intrigued as to the various reasons one might purchase expired film.

Different market then. My expired film was purchased on much lower price. But I'm not dealing with nsta, hipsta and lomo crowds.

 

[mshchem]

If you know how it's been stored. And it's been stored correctly. I'm still shooting 100 sheet boxes of 4x5 TMY that I bought in 2003, it expired in 2001. I bought it from my friend who owns a camera store. Back then he was a Kodak Pro dealer. He kept everything in a refrigerator that was professional film. I have everything frozen of refrigerated.
I don't buy outdated film off Ebay.