Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Film and Labs / July 2003

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

5 to 3 years old film (positive), still useable

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.