Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / July 2003
5 to 3 years old film (positive), still useable
|
|
Thread rating:  |
nobody nowhere - 19 Jul 2003 17:25 GMT In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, one or two packs more in 1999, and I found a pack dated 2000. Kept the lot in the fridge only for one year or so. I know it's a shame, but I was not able to use it, c'est la vie! I am advised to throw it all away, presumably you all agree. Thanks in advance for the bed news! :-( Nobody
James Robinson - 19 Jul 2003 17:54 GMT > In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, > one or two packs more in 1999, and I found a pack dated 2000. Kept the > lot in the fridge only for one year or so. I know it's a shame, but I > was not able to use it, c'est la vie! I am advised to throw it all > away, presumably you all agree. Thanks in advance for the bed news! :-( If you are a purist, then throw them away. Personally, I'd use them. I doubt you will see much difference, unless they were stored somewhere where it was hot (over 80 degrees F) for part of the time. Certainly try a couple on non-critical shots and see how they turn out.
Jeff Novick - 20 Jul 2003 04:51 GMT > > In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, > > one or two packs more in 1999, and I found a pack dated 2000. Kept the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > where it was hot (over 80 degrees F) for part of the time. Certainly try > a couple on non-critical shots and see how they turn out. Definitely useable unless they were stored badly. Tungsten film seems to go bad quicker in my experience. I don't know why.
nobody nowhere - 20 Jul 2003 10:49 GMT For at least a couple of years they were not stored in a fridge, but in a box in an ordinary room, not far from a window, and the temperature could have exceeded at times 80 degrees F, when the sun hit the box. My additional problem is that I am now learning how to use my new scanners, (it's back to film for me). Uncertain film would make it difficult to apportion blame (me, meters, camera, film, scanner???) for the inevitable disaster pictures. I also heard that professional film "goes bad" sooner than amateur films. In any case, are either James Robinson or you located in UK?
>> > In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, >> > one or two packs more in 1999, and I found a pack dated 2000. Kept the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Definitely useable unless they were stored badly. Tungsten film seems to go >bad quicker in my experience. I don't know why. Nobody
James Robinson - 20 Jul 2003 17:10 GMT > For at least a couple of years they were not stored in a fridge, but in > a box in an ordinary room, not far from a window, and the temperature > could have exceeded at times 80 degrees F, when the sun hit the box. The warmer it is, the faster it will deteriorate. Further, the faster the film, the more quickly it will deteriorate. I wouldn't worry too much about occasional high temperatures, unless the film has been left in the boot of an automobile while it sat in the sun. That's a real no-no.
You will typically see a color shift with older film, and perhaps a shift in the effective speed as the film ages. If you take some sample exposures, and they seem to be OK, then your film is usable. If the color has shifted, then it is not. You can correct some color shifting in your scanner, such as from old slides or negatives.
> Uncertain film would make it difficult to > apportion blame (me, meters, camera, film, scanner???) Since it's positive film, you will be able to see if it is properly exposed, and if it has the correct color balance before you get to the scanner. That eliminates one item from your list. If your camera and meter work with other types of film, that eliminates another two. That leaves the film and you as the suspects, if the photos don't look right. Not an easy choice, I'm sure.
> I also heard that professional film "goes bad" sooner than amateur films. Not necessarily. The whole idea of professional film is that it is consistent. You can take a photo on another roll of film from the same batch with the same lighting and composition, and get a result that is virtually identical. This is important where a photographer might have to take another photo to correct some composition problem, and wants things to fit into a series of photographs.
Such consistency might not be the case with consumer film, where exposures or colors might be slightly different, such that the replacement photo would stand out in an otherwise sequential series of photos.
In your case, the film will have shifted, and will not be the same as a roll of new film. As with consumer film, it might still be acceptable for your uses, as long as it hasn't shifted into colors that are obviously wrong.
> In any case, are either James Robinson or you located in UK? Not me.
Jeff Novick - 20 Jul 2003 17:48 GMT > For at least a couple of years they were not stored in a fridge, but in > a box in an ordinary room, not far from a window, and the temperature [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Nobody Sorry, I'm not in the U.K. Every film will be different. Sometimes with out of date film you see less Dmax. Sometimes a color cast or shift. You have to try and see what it does.
Michael Scarpitti - 23 Jul 2003 22:04 GMT > For at least a couple of years they were not stored in a fridge, but in > a box in an ordinary room, not far from a window, and the temperature [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > bad" sooner than amateur films. In any case, are either James Robinson > or you located in UK? Throw it away.
nobody nowhere - 23 Jul 2003 22:38 GMT Thanks, my feeling also.
n article <2fd2ff8c.0307231304.109ca1e@posting.google.com>, Michael Scarpitti <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> writes
>nobody nowhere <nobody@jwhite.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8toDILAtWmG$Ew >Qw@jwhite.demon.co.uk>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Throw it away. Nobody
Philip Homburg - 21 Jul 2003 13:49 GMT >In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, >one or two packs more in 1999, and I found a pack dated 2000. Kept the >lot in the fridge only for one year or so. I know it's a shame, but I >was not able to use it, c'est la vie! I am advised to throw it all >away, presumably you all agree. Thanks in advance for the bed news! :-( I found some 13 year old Ektar 25 in a drawer. The result is hard to scan (sensitivity of 'green' seems to be much less than 'red' and 'blue').
Here is a scan on an LS-4000, with analog gain adjustments and final level corrections in PhotoShop: http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/13jo/bank.jpg
The grain is quite odd though. Unfortunately I never shot any 'fresh' Ektar 25. 4000 ppi, 100%: http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/13jo/b-detail.png
Philip Homburg
Bill Tuthill - 21 Jul 2003 17:13 GMT > I found some 13 year old Ektar 25 in a drawer. The result is hard to scan > (sensitivity of 'green' seems to be much less than 'red' and 'blue'). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Ektar 25. 4000 ppi, 100%: > http://misc.hq.phicoh.net/13jo/b-detail.png That's similar to what I saw in a different scan from Royal Gold 25 -- lots of white dots, which I thought might be dust particles. These look more like gaps between dye clouds than like dust.
Pretty amazing resolution, though. In the b-detail scan, you can see building details in the stairs or conveyor belt or whatever it is.
Stuart Droker - 22 Jul 2003 17:06 GMT Why not try a sheet from each box and see what you get?
> In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, > one or two packs more in 1999, and I found a pack dated 2000. Kept the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nobody nobody nowhere - 22 Jul 2003 17:36 GMT This would be common sense, and I did it, with uncertain results eg. a Velvia film seemed to have less resolution than normal, etc. However, my problem is that I am now trying to learn to handle my new scanner, and need to be certain that the film is ok, before I can blame other factors for bad results. But this is not conclusive, I need to try again a few sheets, and then I shall know, more or less!
>Why not try a sheet from each box and see what you get? >> In 1998 I purchased a few packs of 4 x 5 professional Fuji and Kodak, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> Nobody Nobody
|
|
|