Why would you buy expired 35mm film?

[George Mann]

What is the audio equivalent to ultra large format photography? 1" tape?

Its not really about the size of it, but the speed (15fps).

 

[Alan Gales]

I am all for them using film and give them credit for that. Sadly though I also see them buying beautiful old cameras and butchering them when they could find many other ways to create "hipster" images.

I haven't seen that. My stepson's Canon AE-1 is all original. What exactly are they doing to the cameras?

 

[blockend]

Its not really about the size of it, but the speed (15fps).

Feet per second? Now that is quality!

 

[George Mann]

Feet per second? Now that is quality!

Sorry, you were right. It's 15ips

 

[donkee]

I haven't seen that. My stepson's Canon AE-1 is all original. What exactly are they doing to the cameras?

I have been seeing lenses being cut from good, not salvage cameras, and used on d****** cameras for the "vintage" look. I can understand using busted to hades cameras but they are nuking beautiful ones. My GGrandmothers Kodak folder (Primo #1) is in terrible shape with torn bellows and maybe 2% of the "leatherette" left on it. I was thinking about using that lens on another camera since it seems to be fairly accurate as far as shutter speeds and the glass is still in very good shape. Something like that I could understand hacking up but not something that is in good or better condition. I'll restore my GGrandmothers camera one day but if I can (and it is a big if) use the lens on my old Century M43 5x7 then I will for now. Later on I suppose with a little creativity I'll be able to whip up an adapter for that old Primo camera to shoot film without making any modifications to it once I have done the repairs.....

Don't see much in the way of butchery of cameras like SLRs, m39 - m42 mount lenses, or cine lenses, just the prices getting ridiculous with all the interest in them to attach to a d****** camera. In the old days if I wanted to create a photo that had some kind of weird effect I would prefer to start with a properly exposed and clean negative and apply the "magic" in the darkroom. then I could use the neg in many different ways including a technically "correct" image.......

 

[zen_zanon]

In addition to the no-longer-being-made reason (HIE), I do frequently buy short-dated or even slightly expired film for the cost. Recently B&H has had 35mm/36exp rolls of Velvia and Provia slightly expired for $5-$7 a roll. Compared to its usual selling price, that’s a huge discount, and all the rolls worked perfectly.

I copped 9 boxes of Provia and 6 of Velvia 50 when they were $24.99/pack for being short-dated on B&H last year. Crazy good deal!

 

[Prest_400]

Last expired I shot was two rolls from a bulk loader in the camera club. 1996 exp TMX that shot beatifully and printed as well as nice! It's strange to shoot a film my own age, b. mid 90s, in an early 90s P&S and results that basically seem timeless.
Buy? Only if I have no choice such as a rare gone product (Aerochrome) or the price is really right (Short dated P160).

Here’s a twist: I teach beginning darkroom workshops. For learning to load developing reels, each student gets a “practice roll”, i.e., an old expired roll to use for practice in the light. For 35mm, no problem so far. We have bags of old film scoured from numerous sources at no cost. However, 120 rolls are precious. I used up my own stock and am now begging for rolls from whoever. I went to the local used photo store (who supports my workshops because it adds to his sales of analog materials) and asked him for some expired film. No, he won’t give it to me because he CAN SELL IT!

Is it just for loading? You could try "respooling" it. Have a roll around the club reusing some old Kodacolor backing paper and Fomapan film that a member lost as it sprung off the reel and was exposed. Good enough for training loading. Masking tape works ok enough to emulate the one at the beginning of the roll.
The age of $1 eastern block fresh 120 BW film is quite gone seems.

 

[EdSawyer]

Its not really about the size of it, but the speed (15fps).

And 2-track only.

 

[Les Sarile]

I once bought a box of about 100 Kodak Ektar 125 for a few bucks. These expired 4/1992 and been sitting out in a hot Atlanta covered driveway when I bought them in 2010.

So grossly expired and kept in the worst conditions but I bought them out of curiosity. At least they were still individually boxed and wrapped inside.

I shot a roll to test the speed and color. Processed at box speed.

I figure it is now ISO32.

So I shot a few rolls at ISO32 to see the results from other rolls.

Seems contrasty but I never shot the original so I didn't really know what to expect.
I reckon, if this is the worst that could happen, then it doesn't seem too bad . . .

 

[John51]

What is the audio equivalent to ultra large format photography? 1" tape?

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.

 

[George Mann]

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

Good sound begins at the source, and precious few recordings meet the reference standard set by the most demanding of listeners.

 

[Huss]

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?

Perfect answer. It’s as if peeps here dont realize digital exists. Can I quote this elsewhere giving u credit?

 

[Huss]

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.

If that is what they want to do with their Leicas, then why not? Some use Leicas, Hasselblads etc for the tactile pleasure and joy of using the gear. I have Leicas and Kievs, Zorkis etc. Should I only use a Kiev if my film is expired? What if I like the way my M3/4/5/7/A feels more even if the end result is going to be undefined?
Should all paintings look the same if the same brush has been used? Should all photos look the same if the same lens has been used?

 

[John51]

Good sound begins at the source, and precious few recordings meet the reference standard set by the most demanding of listeners.

That's my point. The purity of the medium taking precedence over whatever content the medium is carrying. Sex Pistols > Art Tatum because the recording is higher quality.

 

[George Mann]

That's my point. The purity of the medium taking precedence over whatever content the medium is carrying.

Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to hear how bad most popular recordings sound?

 

[BradS]

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?

This is a beautiful answer and the first paragraph describes my feelings very well...I loathe the plasticy perfection of digital images. It is boring and cheap....and sterile and utterly lacking substance. Contrary to your premise however, I grew up well before the "digital era". For me, perfection has never been the goal when it came to photography (or art in general)...
I see your point about wanting to throw caution completely and utterly to the wind (and use well expired film)...but I'm not there. I think its cool that others take this reckless approach to making art - more power to them!


You asked, "why shoot film over digital if what you want is reliable and repeatable results?"
I guess there is a big difference between "repeatable and reliable" and "soul numbing, plasticy perfection".

 

[George Mann]

"soul numbing, plasticy perfection".

I personally am not into these flawed artificial facsimiles!

 

[jim10219]

Perfect answer. It’s as if peeps here dont realize digital exists. Can I quote this elsewhere giving u credit?

Sure. You don't even need to give me credit either, unless you want to. I didn't invent any of those ideas.

And for the record, 24 bit 192kHz with some high quality converters (like a Crane Song) is superior to the best tape machines out there (like a Studer). Tape has the advantage of compressing and distorting a signal with even order harmonics when it exceeds the maximum input range, whereas digital just acts as a brick wall limiter. So a good tape machine will often sound more pleasing to the ear, but be less faithful to the original sound. I used to work in a recording studio and tape is awesome for warming up a track, but not so great for cold, hard reality. These days, most good studios use a combination of both.

Also, comparing vinyl to digital is flawed. Vinyl has to be mastered with a steep roll off on the low frequencies to prevent skipping and exaggerated highs to overcome the inertia of the needle. Digital has to be compressed to compensate for the nasty artifacts created by digital clipping. CD's are especially bad due to the limited dynamic range of the 16 bit PCM wave format (which is below that of vinyl, but at 24 bits, it supercedes vinyl). So if you listen to the same song on digital, tape, and on vinyl, you're actually listening to three very different songs. Though, you're certainly entitled to appreciate the characteristics and compensations of one format over another. Just know that you can't make an apples to apples comparison.

 

[John51]

Would you pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to hear how bad most popular recordings sound?

I haven't spend that much although my audio system does have some audiophile grade components. I'd rate it as mid-fi plus.

My purest source is an Akai FM tuner. I don't use it as the radio reception here is poor and I can only get Radio 2 in stereo. R2 annoys me with their irritating and oft repeated trailers.

Once in a while, I use YT as a jukebox. The source quality is less than from my flac files but that doesn't bother me. I get to hear different music. Even when it plays stuff I've already got, the tracks are played in a different order.

That would be painful to an audiophile, they concentrate on the faults, not the music.

 

[George Mann]

And for the record, 24 bit 192kHz with some high quality converters (like a Crane Song) is superior to the best tape machines out there (like a Studer).

In which alternate universe?

So a good tape machine will often sound more pleasing to the ear, but be less faithful to the original sound.

A 15ips tube studio recorder is the most faithful recording device yet to be conceived! Digital doesn't even come close!

(which is below that of vinyl, but at 24 bits, it supercedes vinyl).

If you really believe this, you are in for a shock!

So if you listen to the same song on digital, tape, and on vinyl, you're actually listening to three very different songs.

And a digital remaster sounds nothing like the original.

 

[removed account4]

And a digital remaster sounds nothing like the original.

nothing is like the original, whether it is a digital remastered sound or visual image. everything is pretty much a reflection or shadow and an interpretation, does it really matter ? when someone sees live music in a concert whether it is the henry rollins band, fugazi, or yo yo ma, do one really expect these musicians/artists to sound like they did on their overly engineered studio album ? probably not because the studio engineers interpret what was played and do the equivilant of photoshop to the sound before it is put on whatever medium it is being stored on.
whether this is good or bad is also up for interpretation.

OP the only time i have ever bought expired film it has cost less than fresh film, and i think it is interesting that people will spent huge money on film that is still availiable fresh ( and the same emulsion ) because it is expired. maybe it gives them an edge they are looking for ? or maybe they are just having a good time because that is the point of having a hobby ? or maybe they got a huge deal on something they like or want and know it won't be around much longer?
or maybe its because they have come to a realization that the ways that a negative might be affected by expired film really is sometimes minute ( depending on the film and luck of the buyer ) and sometimes ills of expired or short date film are blown way out of proportion by the slice of their vocal peer group / online imaging society that might suggest that everything has to be fresh, blessed by an exalted spiritual/civic leader and stored in a vault. im more in the have a good time and don't care if the film is fresh camp but know a lot of people on the other side of the street and they have just as much fun.

if you'll excuse me, i have to go to my psychic to have my aura smoothed, and get a little advice about buying 5000 feet of kodak royal pan 1250 that was stored in a concrete block in a safe at the bottom of the great salt lake. i'll hopefully be respooling it and selling it on fleabai for $67.50 / 36exp roll.

 

[George Mann]

nothing is like the original, whether it is a digital remastered sound or visual image. everything is pretty much a reflection or shadow and an interpretation, does it really matter ? when someone sees live music in a concert whether it is the henry rollins band, fugazi, or yo yo ma, do one really expect these musicians/artists to sound like they did on their overly engineered studio album ? probably not because the studio engineers interpret what was played and do the equivilant of photoshop to the sound before it is put on whatever medium it is being stored on.
whether this is good or bad is also up for interpretation.

Hence my comment concerning popular studio recordings. Furthermore, I do not consider amplified acts to be truly "live" in the sense that unamplified acoustic performances are.

 

[k.hendrik]

"nothing is like the original"

The idea that our eyes are the windows of our soul is a romantic and holistic way to contain the reality of a 'conceivable' world. Not so!
Our reality is a mystery in which we have only very occasionally access to; maybe just through the medium of photography that captures a perfect moment.
A smallest fraction of a second where we suddenly see an even smaller part of true reality; as if we may look for a moment outside the cave into the true light......

 

[removed account4]

as if we may look for a moment outside the cave into the true light......

thanks Plato

 

[CMoore]

Hence my comment concerning popular studio recordings. Furthermore, I do not consider amplified acts to be truly "live" in the sense that unamplified acoustic performances are.

Why is that.?
I do not believe i have ever heard anybody express this attitude before.