The Film Apocalypse and Proper Freezing and Storage of Film

[danchan]

I've haven't been diligently reading these forums the past several months and just yesterday I caught word of Astia Quickloads getting discontinued. Even though I only use Astia for maybe 1 out of 10 shots, this was disconcerting to say the least. The past few years I've been steeling myself for this moment.

So I anxiously searched around the forum some more to see if any of my other film was affected. In 4x5, I use 160S QL (60%), 400NC (30%), and Astia QL (10%). In 8x10, I use 160S and 400NC equally. Slowly, one by one, I started to learn that every film format that I use is basically discontinued or no longer available in the U.S.

I know this is just the precursor, but to me, yesterday, it really felt like The Film Apocalypse. I had that sinking feeling at first, which turned to determination. Funny, when I began LF a couple years ago I knew this time would come and I always believed that I could roll with it, adapt, and use whatever film was available. But I've come to love and rely on 400NC and 160S QL!

So I jumped online and ordered a huge shipment of film and now I realize I don't have the freezer space to store it all and I don't know the best way to store it if I did. In the past, I've always just ordered film as needed and stored in the fridge!

I've got several questions about how you store your film for maximum longevity.

1) Do you do anything special when placing the film in the freezer? I put the film, in unopened boxes, in Ziploc bags. Any other tips?

2) Is there any problem with thawing the film and then refreezing? Or once thawed, should I transfer the film to the fridge?

3) Has anyone run into issues with condensation or defrosting?

4) Any suggestions on freezers or types of freezer? Upright vs. Chest?

5) How long can I expect the film to last if properly stored? I've read ranges of 6-10 years. What kind of degradation in the film can I expect if frozen for 6 years? How long can I freeze color negative film without any noticeable effects?

6) How cold should the freezer be? Will colder temperatures lead to less degradation over time?

7) Any idea how many 10 sheet boxes of 8x10 I can fit per cubic foot? 20 sheet QL boxes per cubic foot?

Thanks for any tips you can offer!

Side-questions: Anyone know where I can get 8x10 160S? Also, ironically, I learned of Astia QL's demise because I was searching the forums to see if anyone knew where to get 8x10 Astia! I was thinking of trying it out in 8x10 since everyone talks about how beautiful an 8x10 transparency is against a light box. Anyone know where I can get 8x10 Astia? If not, how does everyone find E100G?

[Sirius Glass]

Just put unopened film in the freezer.
If film has been opened, I put it in the refrigerator. You could put it in Zip-Lock bags and then in the freezer.
Leave time for the film to thaw out.
I have frozen film for ten years without any problems.

When I find out that a film is being discontinued, I buy up all I can to keep that film from the hoarders!

Steve

[vinny]

Once the film has been opened you need to vacuum seal it till the box begins to cave in a bit. No ziplocs are 100 percent air/moisture tight.
That said, I've got film (slide and color neg) from the early 90's that show's no sign of color shift or fog.

[jeroldharter]

If you are getting a freezer specifically for film, get a chest type freezer which are much less expensive. The hitch is that they are not frost free so you might need to defrost at some point.

[BetterSense]

2) Is there any problem with thawing the film and then refreezing? Or once thawed, should I transfer the film to the fridge?

I put opened film back in the freezer, even sheet film. Especially sheet film, because my color sheet film usage is very low, and my wife has banned film from the fridge. I seal them in a ziplock and try to suck all the air out of it, but I have put plain boxes back in the freezer before. I put exposed film back in the freezer in plain cardboard boxes.


Has anyone run into issues with condensation or defrosting?
No. I have even taken film right out of the freezer and loaded it in holders. No problems, but I would recommend letting it warm up. Kodak recommends 1/2 hour, I believe, for sheet film in boxes.


How long can I expect the film to last if properly stored?
This is my first-hand experience, with continuously frozen film:

I have found 100 speed color slide film to be practically unaffected for 10 years after expiration. It may go longer. I'm not a pro film photographer that relies on perfect color balance, but I can't see anything wrong with the slides.

I would expect 100 speed B&W film to last 20 years past expiration with no significant degradation. It will go longer, but with steadily increasing fog, grain, and slowness. I have shot lots of Ilford film from the 80s that was fine.

400-speed B&W, I have limited experience with. I would expect it to last at least 10 years past expiration.

For film stored at room temperature and worse circumstances, bets are off, especially for high-speed films. I have seen 3-5 year expired 400 speed B&W film already have increased base fog and grain, which can be significant for 35mm. I have shot some 10-year expired Ektachrome, that was completely junk.

Also note that for whatever reason, sheets of film toward the middle of the box are better off than those on the ends. I had a 100 sheet box of old Ilford B&W that was terribly fogged in from the edges, but only the last 20 or so sheets in the stack. The inner 50 sheets or so were perfectly fine. So I guess if I was stockpiling film I would get the largest capacity boxes possible.

[rguinter]

Dan: At the risk of reiterating things that others have said, here is my procedure:

I have separate upright freezers and refrigerators that I purchased for use only for film. No worries about wives (or anybody else) complaining about valuable food storage space lost. My film freezer is the size that could hold two 20-pound turkeys if I wanted to squeeze them in and take the film out.

Bulk film purchases I put in the freezer after sealing inside food-storage (vacuum-packing) bags. I do not use the vacuum function only the sealing function because I believe the heavy vacuum may be detrimental to long term storage. No scientific data to support that but just my opinion that heavy crushing forces from vacuum sealing against the film packs may not be so good. I try to squeeze out as much air as possible before sealing and I do it in a low humidity environment.

Once a pack is out of the freezer for use I transfer unused amounts to the refrigerator and not back in the freezer. These amounts I keep in zip-lock bags for easy use and replacement.

Simple as that.

As others have said, I have some films that are over 10-years old in storage and I see no degradation.

I hope this helps... and I hope you get no complaints from the wife. I mean, what could possibly be more important than storing discontinued film?

One can always run down to the local supermarket and get another chicken... but not so with many valuable films. One has to make that perfectly clear.

Cheers.

Bob G

[danchan]

This is great information!

Bob and Vinny, I hadn't thought about using vacuum-sealed food bags. I'll need to look into that.

Jerold, I think you're right about chest freezers. I looked into them briefly and they do seem a bit less expensive and I haven't found one that's frost free.

BetterSense brought up another interesting point about storing exposed film in the freezer. Is this necessary? I never thought about exposed film degrading over time!

[Frank Petronio]

Sooner or later, quicker with color, the emulsion and the backing will separate, whether frozen or not. All the freezer does is slow the process down.

Moisture is what will ruin your film. An opened box belongs in a cool, dry place. Even with sealed wraps and bags, pulling it in and out of the fridge or freezer every six months will probably ruin your film faster than anything else.

Buy ten sheet boxes of color if you aren't using it fast enough?

[Cor]

Moisture is what will ruin your film. An opened box belongs in a cool, dry place. Even with sealed wraps and bags, pulling it in and out of the fridge or freezer every six months will probably ruin your film faster than anything else.


Frank,

Did you experience above? I am doing exactly that for the last 7 years or so, and have not seen any bad side affects

I keep my stock in the freezer, and have a small amount (say 10 sheets or so) in my fridge. Fridge stock empty, thaw freezer stock and re-lad fridge stock..yeah way over kill I guess...

best,

Cor

[Frank Petronio]

I worked for guys who would throw a half used box of color into a Ziploc and then throw that into the fridge too, with never a second thought, but then they would use it only for tests or toss it after a year or two anyway.

But if you are thinking about long term "film to store as long as possible" then I would only want to freeze it once at the get-go, not cycle it.

My most recent experience was 2006 EXP color neg that had the emulsion lift in spots this Summer. that's four years over, with good but not frozen storage.

[rdenney]

On the other hand, the guy that taught me darkroom work was still working on what may have been a 1000-foot roll of 35mm black and white film--maybe Tri-X. This was about 1970 or so, and he had put that roll, in a (large) taped metal can, in the freezer in the early 50's. He'd been pulling it out, thawing it, cutting off what he needed to load a bunch of cassettes, and refreezing it that whole time. His words: "It's not like milk." No damage that I could see. Maybe the issue you saw was unique to color negative materials.

He passed away in the early 80's and I'll bet there was still film left on that roll.

Rick "who learned about properly print washing from him after having to pay to clean the cloth belt on a print dryer" Denney

[Ben Syverson]

Maybe it's superstition, but I prefer to refrigerate film rather than freeze it in our auto-defrosting freezer. The freeze/thaw cycle seems pretty destructive, judging by the roads around here.

[Drew Wiley]

I bought one of those little freeze-dry bagging machines but still haven't used it! I put
sheet film which is still in factory-sealed foil packs in the freezer, with two added tight
poly bag outside each. Once the inner foil itself is open, I don't re-freeze the film due
to condensation risk, though I could start actually using my freeze-dry rig, in which I'd
certainly double or triple the outside layers. But in my experience, Fuji sheet film starts
to lose some of its color balance characteristics anyway in about a decade, even when
frozen. So I wouldn't keep any Astia around that long. I too am going to miss it, and
only have one box of 8X10 left in the freezer.

[danchan]

Thanks again for everyone's comments and suggestions. I thought I'd give everyone an update.

It turns out I only have space for an upright freezer, so I got a Frigidaire with a temperature read-out and stocked it with film. I ended up double bagging the film -- individual Ziplocs around each box, squeezing out as much air as possible, then several bagged boxes per larger Ziploc. The temperature read-out is great. I've set the freezer as low as it can go: -10 deg C.

[Jim Becia]

Just some quick anecdotal evidence about freezing film (mainly color transparency). I have been buying and stocking up on Velvia and other films for the past 10 year or so. Whenever I get a chance to pick some up with short dates or even expired ones, I have. I usually just throw it in the freezer and just make sure to let it defrost before using it. Recently I found a box of 5x7 Velvia that I had purchased well after it's expiration date of 1994. It had been in and out of the freezer several times, but I finally decided I had better use it. I was a little skeptical, so I loaded one sheet of the 1994 Velvia on one side and another sheet of current Velvia (that I had cut down from 8x10) on the flip side. I then proceeded to shoot both sheets at the same time on the same subject. So I picked the film up at the lab and looked through it, I could not tell the old from the new. They matched exactly. Asked the lab owner if he could see any difference and he couldn't. This is film that was 16 years past the expiration date and that I had bought after it had been expired. So, at least to me, freezing seems to do the trick. Jim

[Jim Jones]

Since photography, and especially digital photography, will certainly result in the discontinuing of supplies for us who also occasionally paint and draw. Therefore, I've hoarded enough pencils to last a lifetime. They require no refrigeration!

[Liam:]

Since photography, and especially digital photography, will certainly result in the discontinuing of supplies for us who also occasionally paint and draw. Therefore, I've hoarded enough pencils to last a lifetime

Hi Jim, I am intrigued as to how much film you have bought? I have a feeling film is not going to last my lifetime but being 19 I really can't afford more than about 1 box at the moment....:rolleyes:

[Jim Jones]

Hi Jim, I am intrigued as to how much film you have bought? I have a feeling film is not going to last my lifetime but being 19 I really can't afford more than about 1 box at the moment....:rolleyes:

I prefer to use whatever film is available rather than stock up on a favorite. This means having to do without a few of Kodak's great LF films; Tech Pan, High Speed Infrared, and Professional Copy Film. If I were a really good photographer, how well I use any available film and camera rather than using the material that best suits my limitations would be most important.

[John Kasaian]

Since photography, and especially digital photography, will certainly result in the discontinuing of supplies for us who also occasionally paint and draw. Therefore, I've hoarded enough pencils to last a lifetime. They require no refrigeration!
This is indeed the "golden age" for pencils. With digital taking over, why most places are giving their pencils away!;) I keep mine in a tin box---protection from termites:)

[sanking]

Over the years I have lost so much film from improper storage in freezers that my attitude now is if I am not going to use it in a reasonable time just sell it, give it away or throw it away. That applies especially to film in half open boxes. Now, if the film is still stored in the hermetically sealed bags I would trust it stored frozen.

I just don't have the patience any longer to worry about the condition of the film when shooting a scene. Have had too many disappointments from bad film to spend much time in that place again.

Sandy

[Preston]

I am with Sandy. If the film is in it's original sealed packaging, I will freeze it. Boxes that have been opened are stored in a cool dry place and used as soon as possible.

--P

[Jay DeFehr]

When I told Julia I wanted to sell off my 8x10 gear and buy a DSLR, I thought she'd cry. "Over my dead body", she said. "Digital is empty and lifeless", she said. She started talking about hoarding film, etc. A few nights ago, I borrowed a friend's DSLR and made some photos here in the arctic, and emailed some jpeg files to her. She immediately began talking about buying a DSLR, ASAP, and wondering if we should use our remaining 8x10 film, or sell it, too. What a woman! We'll use our remaining stock, and then pass our 8x10 gear along to someone willing to pay the premium to shoot 8x10.

[Liam:]

When I told Julia I wanted to sell off my 8x10 gear and buy a DSLR, I thought she'd cry. "Over my dead body", she said. "Digital is empty and lifeless", she said. She started talking about hoarding film, etc. A few nights ago, I borrowed a friend's DSLR and made some photos here in the arctic, and emailed some jpeg files to her. She immediately began talking about buying a DSLR, ASAP, and wondering if we should use our remaining 8x10 film, or sell it, too. What a woman! We'll use our remaining stock, and then pass our 8x10 gear along to someone willing to pay the premium to shoot 8x10.

Wow, must have been some photos! I don't want to start a debate but images on a computer screen are very different to large prints...

[Jay DeFehr]

Liam, those differences are largely technical. Julia likes the photos very much.

[Michael Kadillak]

Liam, those differences are largely technical. Julia likes the photos very much.

Hope that digital experience continues to serve you well.

I continue to hear of more folks that are coming back to film after a few years of shooting digital and it is music to my ears. The reasons vary. I have been told from a few friends that some of the renaissance is to differentiate themselves since they claim that their images tend to look like images from others using the same camera and lens combinations. They are also getting tired of the relatively high entry into the game and the steep depreciation in value. Some say that they miss the challenges of thinking about what they need to consider in the final print as opposed to being able to correct just about everything with software including perspective.

If it would be possible to personally thank all of the folks that decided to exit stage left with their analog gear I would do so. It allowed me to acquire all the gear I longed for at a fraction of the real value. A 30" Doctor Apo Geronon, a 305 Computar, a dozen additional new Toyo 8x10 film holders, many hundreds of sheets of film with much more on the way, etc. etc.

Fortunately there are many many folks around the world that feel the same way so sheet film will continue to be readily available for many many years.

Life is very very good and getting better every day!

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

You make some interesting, and contradictory points.


I continue to hear of more folks that are coming back to film after a few years of shooting digital and it is music to my ears.

More than what? Certainly even you don't believe more people are switching from digital to film than the other way around.


If it would be possible to personally thank all of the folks that decided to exit stage left with their analog gear I would do so.

So you're happy when people switch from digital to film, and you're happy when they switch from film to digital. Good for you! That's a very positive attitude. I don't care much either way, but I do hope people are happy with their decisions and enjoy their photography.


It allowed me to acquire all the gear I longed for at a fraction of the real value.

Some would say the real value is the market value, and your valuation is subjective and meaningless, except as related to your personal negotiations. Nonetheless, your larger point is correct; the mass migration from film to digital is knocking the bottom out of the used film gear market, at an accelerating rate, as I described in another thread. By selling off my 8x10 gear now, while film is still available for it, I stand to get a much better price for it than I could get later, when film is harder to find, and more expensive. If I want to buy back in to 8x10 at some future date, I'll pay much less to replace the gear I sell now. Realistically, I'm more likely to invest that money into a system for making digital negatives than in buying back into a marginal format.

As far as the digital experience goes, I'm planning a project that can only be realized with a digital camera, and I'm very excited about it. Life is good, and it is getting better every day!

[Drew Wiley]

You're rolling the dice, Jay. You should at least hang onto your favorite 8X10 lenses
and the filmholders. You might have real regrets someday. What's likely to go up is
the price of leaf shutters, so the value of desireable lenses might continue to increase, once we're past the recessionary road bumps.

[sanchi heuser]

...
What's likely to go up is
the price of leaf shutters,
...


Why that?

Andi

[sanchi heuser]

Jay,

do you think the future will come on a prefixed track?

"when film is harder to find and more expensive"
Why do you want to know that for shure ?
Is it a kind of unchangible natural law?

Andi

[Michael Kadillak]

Yes, many people were interested in evaluating the prospects with digital and went in that direction. This decision seemed to be easier since some felt that they had little choice since film was a "goner" anyway. As it turned out digital was just another alternative to making images and not the product substitute that some predicted.

The demise of film was highly exaggerated since we continue to enjoy a very diverse offering of emulsions to continue to chose from. I do not see that changing anytime soon.

At popular places to photograph I see the glow of the dozen or more LED screens all lined up pointed at the landscape waiting for the light to come over the horizon so that they can snap off 20 + images in two minutes in auto mode. Then in no time at all they all fold up shop and the parking lot is empty. Yes, digital photography has allowed many that would never have attempted to be outdoors with a camera previously to participate in this past time. All they need is the $5,000 price of admission for their 5D with lenses and they are in "business". To what degree do they understand the nuances of photography remains questionable. I contend that the developers of these products have removed the need to have a clue. All you do is point, shoot and click with your mouse later. An absolutely perfect marketing plan utilizing planned obsolescence as your business cornerstone.

I will always be appreciative for the opportunity to be one of a few than one of the masses. It is an extension of my company business model. There is nothing quite as attractive for me as the darkcloth and the ground glass.

[Jay DeFehr]

I don't have a lot of expensive lenses. My Verito is probably the most valuable one, and it isn't in a leaf shutter. I have a Kodak 17.5" Ektanon in a brand new Copal 3 shutter, but I never use it; it's just way too sharp and contrasty for portraits. The lenses I use most often are Turner/ Reich triples- not terribly expensive lenses. I'll probably keep one or two lenses and my 8x10 Graflex Studio camera, because they're not worth much, as it is. I just don't see myself paying over $5/ sheet for film, except possibly for a special project. I don't enlarge 8x10, and I don't do much alt process printing, so 8x10 is kind of a luxury format, for me.

[Jay DeFehr]

Andi,

Yes, in a way it is an unchangeable law; the law of supply and demand. As demand for film declines, production follows, until it reaches a stable level, at which it remains profitable to produce. There's another law that comes into play, as well; Moore's law, which predicts the rate of development in computing. If I wanted to take the time, I could graph the number of films discontinued on one axis, and when they were discontinued on the other. The graph would show the acceleration of the trend, which is undeniable, and there are many explanations for it, most having to do with photographers of all kinds switching from film to digital. As the trend matures, and more and more films are discontinued, an increased incentive is created for remaining film photographers to switch to digital, further accelerating the trend. There is no reasonable scenario in which the trend could be reversed, or even mediated, so the only logical question remaining is not if film will disappear as a mainstream product, but when? I think film could be available for a long time, and I expect the last manufacturers standing to be Chinese.

Michael,

The diversity of available films is changing, and has been for some time; that you can't see that, or won't, changes nothing. Your characterization of digital photography is desperate and fundamentally flawed. Many of the most successful (financially and artistically) photographers in the world shoot digital, almost all professionals, and almost all consumers. Whatever you say about digital photographers, you say about photographers.

Nearly every member of this community uses a digital camera of some kind, for something, when they could use film instead. More and more scan film and print digitally, others use digital capture to make digital negatives for contact printing. If you can't see where this is heading, you're in a delusional minority. For me, photography is not about film, and there are more like me than there are like you.

[John NYC]

While I agree with the guess that film will continue to slowly decline in variety and increase in price, I don't necessarily agree that LF gear will inevitably continue to decline in price. Eventually, it might not make (business) sense for many of the people making 8x10 cameras to keep making them. So, perhaps in 10 or 15 years, my Wehman will actually be worth more than it is today if I keep in like-new condition as I have so far. Look at the ridiculous prices people pay for Deardorffs. The old stock of used cameras will get traded and used and banged around, and there might not be new ones replacing them. Same goes for (at least some) LF lenses potentially. Even if the pool of users gets smaller, if the supply of good used gear gets even smaller (and new gear at reasonable prices isn't there to replace them), then prices could go up eventually from where they are now.

[SW Rick]

Why that?

Andi

I was told by someone "in the biz" that the price of shutters went up, IIRC, by $300-400. Yes, that would be huge.

Rick

[Jay DeFehr]

John,

I'm afraid your analysis doesn't make much sense. If a decrease in demand for cameras makes them unprofitable to make, where will the demand for used cameras come from? If one wanted a new camera, one could always have one custom made, and the same guys building cameras now, like Wehman, would step in and build them if the market justified it. The idea that decreasing demand for cameras is going to increase the value of used ones is wishful thinking. I know I'll never pay as much for an 8x10 camera, under any circumstances, as I can sell mine for now.

[sanchi heuser]

I was told by someone "in the biz" that the price of shutters went up, IIRC, by $300-400. Yes, that would be huge.

Rick

Hi Rick,

Then I should be lucky:
All of my lenses (mostly Nikon's) have Copal shutters which seem to be very reliable,
and I try to treat them very nice:)
Only exception is one very charming old Linhof branded Super Angulon 1:8 /65mm with nearly flawless glasses and charming imaging qualities, although only for 6x9/6x12cm,
which has a tiny shutter mounted on a lensboard whith ~25mm diameter hole and somewhat my 'problem child'. Needs special care.

I hope they will serve me at least the last decades that I hope to live yet:) .

Andi

[rguinter]

Over the years I have lost so much film from improper storage in freezers that my attitude now is if I am not going to use it in a reasonable time just sell it, give it away or throw it away. That applies especially to film in half open boxes. Now, if the film is still stored in the hermetically sealed bags I would trust it stored frozen.

I just don't have the patience any longer to worry about the condition of the film when shooting a scene. Have had too many disappointments from bad film to spend much time in that place again.

Sandy

I posted my procedure in post #6 so no need to repeat it here.

But any time you want to discard film you're welcome to toss it my way.

I don't have any clients or any financial incentives to worry about and I enjoy shooting a few extra sheets of old or unusual film alongside the new.

Often makes a hobby photographer's efforts very interesting.

Here's one fresh out of the scanner... from a very old box of EPY.

Bob G.

[Sirius Glass]

Do your patriot duty and buy up as much discontinued film as you can afford and store in a freezer, so that you can keep the hoarders from buying it up!

Fight the hoarders!

[John NYC]

John,

I'm afraid your analysis doesn't make much sense. If a decrease in demand for cameras makes them unprofitable to make, where will the demand for used cameras come from? If one wanted a new camera, one could always have one custom made, and the same guys building cameras now, like Wehman, would step in and build them if the market justified it. The idea that decreasing demand for cameras is going to increase the value of used ones is wishful thinking. I know I'll never pay as much for an 8x10 camera, under any circumstances, as I can sell mine for now.

You are assuming a perfect sync of supply and demand and a perfectly reacting marketplace of willing builders who might restart their businesses after exiting, while I am not. There are likely going to be peaks and valleys over the next decade or two, with an inefficient supply chain caused by makers existing the business. I am also assuming that certain makers' cameras will demand a premium over some inexperienced new person building a custom camera, and that it is not a simple thing to jump into the camera making business. I doubt many of us would buy a camera from a total newcomer. It just isn't as simple as freshman economics.

[Jay DeFehr]

John,

You might be right; only time will tell.

[sanchi heuser]

Andi,

Yes, in a way it is an unchangeable law; the law of supply and demand.
...
...
There is no reasonable scenario in which the trend could be reversed, or even mediated, so the only logical question remaining is not if film will disappear as a mainstream product, but when? I think film could be available for a long time, and I expect the last manufacturers standing to be Chinese.
...
...


Hey Jay,

maybe it's changebable by us as we are working for it?

I could very well imaging a scenario when more young people appear which wants to
have excellent image quality, but are unwilling and of course unable to
buy expensive digital high end stuff and don't want the burden of a bank's credit.

I see these youngsters more and more coming to the german speaking LF forum
asking for help.
Some weeks ago a fellow photographer and I decided to make periodically local meetings and costfree workshops especially for LF beginners and students in design or
art photography. first one will be on february the 12th.
BTW, everybody crossing the region
of Düsseldorf at that time can join and have a cup of coffee or a local
fresh brewed beer:rolleyes: please feel invited.

Will be our contribution for the encouragement of film.

Jay, I understand your realistic approach very well, and obviously there are
certain principles, but for me it's also a physical fact that the future is unwritten,
it's not happened yet physically...

Andi

[Michael Kadillak]

John,

I'm afraid your analysis doesn't make much sense. If a decrease in demand for cameras makes them unprofitable to make, where will the demand for used cameras come from? If one wanted a new camera, one could always have one custom made, and the same guys building cameras now, like Wehman, would step in and build them if the market justified it. The idea that decreasing demand for cameras is going to increase the value of used ones is wishful thinking. I know I'll never pay as much for an 8x10 camera, under any circumstances, as I can sell mine for now.

There are camera makers that are continuing to make and sell new cameras. Your assumption that they are unprofitable to make is just not the case. The demand for cameras (new and used) will come from emerging markets such as China, India, South Korea and elsewhere around the world. Canham continues to be very busy as do other makers that have a sounds business model and exemplary customer service and since I have four of them I know that they are not exactly giving them away.

Trying to time a market assuming that you know what the future value will be is simply wishful thinking. Even five years ago the general consensus was that film would have already been dead and buried. I could care less what the forward market for cameras is because it is immaterial to my desire to participate in using my wide range of equipment for my enjoyment.

If you sell all of your camera equipment won't you miss 510 pyro? Have you proper succession planning in place?

[Jay DeFehr]

Andi,

I'm not suggesting there aren't people interested in film photography, or even that there are new photographers choosing film, but that the larger picture shows unequivocally the trend is definitively one sided with huge numbers of people giving up film for digital. If new film users even remotely approached the number of former film users, we wouldn't see films being discontinued at an accelerating rate. The anecdotes just don't match the statistics. This is a sea change, and there's nothing that can be done to reverse it. Consumers use cheap digital cameras that perform more than well enough for their needs, which are increasingly web-based and not print-based. Professional photographers have all but made the transition to digital. More and more feature films are shot digitally, and more and more theaters are converting to digital projection. Emerging markets like China and India are embracing the digital age. A 10mp digital camera is a lot less expensive to use, and a lot more practical for these markets than a film camera, since there are few film processing centers, and the use of film would require the addition of scanning for the most popular applications. So, in many important ways the future is happening now. To predict the tide will turn in favor of film is a bold prediction, indeed.

Michael,

It wasn't my assumption that making cameras would become unprofitable, it was John's. Neither of us suggested it is unprofitable now. I mentioned the role of China in film production, but if you believe the cameras the emerging markets will demand will be film cameras, you're out of touch with the reality of those markets. Check the sales figures if you doubt me. Timing the market is not difficult when the trend is as well established as this one. If you think I'm wrong, you could buy my gear and resell it at a profit when prices go up.

I'm not thinking of selling all my cameras, just one of my 8x10s, and some 8x10 lenses, and other accessories. That leaves 5x7, several 4x5 outfits, 3x4, several MF outfits and several 35mm outfits. I'll hold on to each format until film becomes prohibitively expensive or unavailable. I'm not sure what you mean by "succession planning". 510-Pyro is no longer my primary developer, but I do use it when appropriate; here in Alaska, for instance.

[sanchi heuser]

Hi Jay,

OK, you're right with the big mass trend.
But I strongly believe there will be a sufficient number of film users left
on a more or less constant level, even when the masses turn away.
That will make film production still interessting.

Film will keep it's inherent magic and attraction to people,
and then we'll be there to show them the craft and encourage to keep on.
That's what we try with our meetings and costfree workshops here in Düsseldorf.
Will be more a mutual learning and sharing of experiences, cause
my fellow and I are not
so advanced to act like a teacher or something.

We all have to do something to keep the thing running,
don't we?

Most of success with your projects in 2011.

Andi

[Liam:]

Some would say the real value is the market value, and your valuation is subjective and meaningless, except as related to your personal negotiations. Nonetheless, your larger point is correct; the mass migration from film to digital is knocking the bottom out of the used film gear market, at an accelerating rate, as I described in another thread. By selling off my 8x10 gear now, while film is still available for it, I stand to get a much better price for it than I could get later, when film is harder to find, and more expensive. If I want to buy back in to 8x10 at some future date, I'll pay much less to replace the gear I sell now. Realistically, I'm more likely to invest that money into a system for making digital negatives than in buying back into a marginal format.


I would normally agree but have you seen the price of polaroid film and polaroid cameras such as the sx-70....

[Michael Kadillak]

Hi Jay,

Film will keep it's inherent magic and attraction to people,
and then we'll be there to show them the craft and encourage to keep on.
That's what we try with our meetings and costfree workshops here in Düsseldorf.
Will be more a mutual learning and sharing of experiences, cause
my fellow and I are not
so advanced to act like a teacher or something.

Andi

I will be doing the same thing here in the US. There are any number of places where people want to hear about the opportunities available again with film.

In any event this is getting to be old news. I could care less about the "masses" and what they do. I am into solutions, not throwing the cards down along with people like Jay with such complacency. I would rather spend my time kicking a ULF film deal into the done column which is the next priority. Those that no longer feel the need to use film will see the rest of us 5 and 10 years from now with that much more experience and joy from our proactive actions. I am reminded of the age old adage that may even have a religions origination -

"It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness"

[John Kasaian]

A real estate developer once told me "If you think you'd like to live there, chances are good other people will want to live there too." That philosophy applies to hobbies as well and I think traditional photography is a good example.
If there is a market, there will be suppliers.
The situation is beginning to remind me of Husserl and the phenomonolgy movement in that the very act of taking and printing images has value and the effort put forth has a definate bearing on the phenomenon. Photography with sheet film,fishing with a fly rod, navigating with an E6B slide rule, riding a horse, fencing with swords, growing your own tomatos, or playing a musical instrument have all been surpassed in terms of efficiency but this efficiency also isolates, to some (great) degree, the man from the act

[Jay DeFehr]

Andi,

Your workshops sound great. I do the same kind of thing in Idaho, teaching kids how to build pinhole cameras and contact print their paper or film negatives. It's a lot of fun, and I meet great people. I've had more than a few parents join the group, and they have as much fun as the kids do. I would love to attend your meetings if I was in your city.


We all have to do something to keep the thing running,
don't we?

I think we have differing ideas regarding what the thing is. For me, photography is about making images, by whatever process. I use film for lots of reasons, but mostly because it's fun, and I enjoy sharing that fun, especially with kids. I think every one of my kids' friends has had some kind of photography lesson at my house. Some use film, others digital, but that's not the point. The point is they develop an appreciation for the expressive potential of a photo, and feel free to see in a new way.

Liam,

I think the price spike for SX-70 cameras correlates to the introduction of the instant film by Harmann. I actually have an SX-70; I should probably sell that too!

Michael,

Your "solution" to your problem, which consists of persuading people to buy into group special orders, is not exactly innovative as much as it's one possible response to changes in the marketplace. Your evangelical zeal and characterization of anyone who doesn't share it as complacent illustrates your egoism. My decision to get out of the 8x10 format is a personal one, and no one asked you to follow my example. Why do you see every circumstance in absolute terms, as a zero sum game?


Those that no longer feel the need to use film will see the rest of us 5 and 10 years from now with that much more experience and joy from our proactive actions.

Why do you set this up as an antagonism? Why would I care about your experience or enjoyment of using film? And why do you insist on suggesting I'm no longer using film when I've repeatedly stated I will continue to use film in other formats, for as long as it's available and affordable? Lots of people get out of various formats for all kinds of reasons. Are you so offended because I'm (mostly) getting out of 8x10 due to the price and availability of film, or because I plan to use the proceeds to buy a DSLR? Or, is it simply a matter of someone making a different choice than you've made that irritates you?

If, for reasons of your own, you want to pay a premium for special order film, and pay to store it on a long term basis, that's your prerogative. I don't see anything particularly noble or admirable in it, and I don't think it will have any effect on the market; it's just a personal choice you've made. For me, there's nothing exclusive to the 8x10 format that warrants that kind of sacrifice. You might feel your being "proactive", but you're just postponing the inevitable and ignoring the opportunities. A truly adaptive strategy would be to learn to make digital negatives that print as well as film negatives, like Sandy and others are doing. You might say it's useless, or that digital negatives will never equal a film negative, but that's just defeatism and complacency, and I have more respect for the people actually making the commitment to address the issues and solve the problems than those who are determined to go down with the ship, which doesn't really take much courage at all.


Change only favours minds that are diligently looking and preparing for discovery.

Louie Pasteur

[John Kasaian]

Jay,
We do what we must do. I wish you good fortune in your quest to improve digital photography. I am captivated by traditional 8x10 photography. I think the responses you're seeing are born of concern, not animosity. The enjoyment you derived from 8x10 has changed and we need to respect that(even though we can't wrap our minds around it---like James Taylor dumping Carly Simon, something deep inside of me wants to shout "Brother James, noooooo!") Just as you see us luddites stressed out about which emulsions are vanishing from the face of the planet---so much so that it saps our resources to fill and maintain multiple freezers full of 10 sheet boxes of TMY, agonizing over impending threats of thawing power outages(you know it's going to happen---better get an emergency generator) to the point where we've become obsessive, cutting ourselves off from our glass coating pioneering ancestors and the Edward Westons who cavalier shot whatever was affordable and available in order to get it done.
Your points are well taken. We are concerned for each other's contributions to the art because we value those contributions and friendships which have formed over time.
But we all got to do what we've got to do.
It helps not getting too uptight over things.

[Jay DeFehr]

Thanks John.

My enjoyment of 8x10 hasn't changed. 8x10 was never my primary format; just one of many. And I'm not giving up 8x10 completely; just selling off the most valuable bits of kit. I still have at least a year's supply of film, or more, at the rate I shoot 8x10. I'm just being pragmatic. I need a DSLR for a project I'm planning, and I don't need my Deardorff. I'm not on any quest to improve digital photography, I'm just utilizing its unique properties. Judging by my very limited digital experience, I think digital photography will be as much fun as film photography, and that's a happy surprise.

One of the things I like about Husserl was his willingness to revise his philosophy.

[Michael Kadillak]

A real estate developer once told me "If you think you'd like to live there, chances are good other people will want to live there too." That philosophy applies to hobbies as well and I think traditional photography is a good example.
If there is a market, there will be suppliers.
The situation is beginning to remind me of Husserl and the phenomonolgy movement in that the very act of taking and printing images has value and the effort put forth has a definate bearing on the phenomenon. Photography with sheet film,fishing with a fly rod, navigating with an E6B slide rule, riding a horse, fencing with swords, growing your own tomatos, or playing a musical instrument have all been surpassed in terms of efficiency but this efficiency also isolates, to some (great) degree, the man from the act

Excellent points John. There is no question that the market is ripe for film consumption as we put the 8x10 deal for over 220 boxes in four days from a large group of passionate photographers. There is more work to be done to keep the ball rolling. We will get 50 sheet boxes back from Kodak and other positive developments shortly. TMY is also fabulous in ULF cameras so that will also come soon.

You are free to do and believe in what you want Jay. I simply want to make my point in this discussion for other photographers that may not want to buy into your "film is dead" conclusion.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

I know I'm free to do and believe as I like. I never concluded "film is dead", just that it will continue to become more expensive and less available at an accelerating rate, which is certainly true now. Time will tell if my reading of the trend is accurate.

[mdm]

Hey Jay,

maybe it's changebable by us as we are working for it?

I could very well imaging a scenario when more young people appear which wants to
have excellent image quality, but are unwilling and of course unable to
buy expensive digital high end stuff and don't want the burden of a bank's credit.

I see these youngsters more and more coming to the german speaking LF forum
asking for help.
Some weeks ago a fellow photographer and I decided to make periodically local meetings and costfree workshops especially for LF beginners and students in design or
art photography. first one will be on february the 12th.
BTW, everybody crossing the region
of Düsseldorf at that time can join and have a cup of coffee or a local
fresh brewed beer:rolleyes: please feel invited.

Will be our contribution for the encouragement of film.

Jay, I understand your realistic approach very well, and obviously there are
certain principles, but for me it's also a physical fact that the future is unwritten,
it's not happened yet physically...

Andi

Will Gurski be there?

[mdm]

Michael,

I know I'm free to do and believe as I like. I never concluded "film is dead", just that it will continue to become more expensive and less available at an accelerating rate, which is certainly true now. Time will tell if my reading of the trend is accurate.

Your argument is falacious. There are a lot of large format cameras in this world and they are not going away. What has changed is the economics of using film.

Here is an example. You liked nice pictures so you bought a 35mm camera, then a medium format camera, a 4x5, another 4x5, an 8x10, 5x7, 20x24. You do not need all theese cameras to make pictures. Now you have a rinky dink digital.

The opportunity cost of that darkroom is now very high. You can get a scanner and a printer, that dosent require a whole room with plumbing.

Now developing film just gets to be a chore, lets face it, it always was. The opportunity cost of owning all of those cameras is now very high. You can sell your deardorff and buy a better digital. A rational economic participant would sell nearly all of it. Perhaps there is utility in keeping the 20x24, it helps you to relax and feeds your ego. Cool.

All theese cameras still exist, you have sold them for what people will pay and they have bought them because they believe the utility in owning them and using them exceeds the cost of ownership and the the value of the stuff they could do with the money if they did not. All theese cameras still require film.

However, not many of them are being used proffesionaly. Also small format cameras are now used much less, because they have been replaced with digital cameras and camera phones. Now the economics of selling film has changed. The high volume commercial users and snapshooters have gone. Left are only the enthusiasts and the very poor in the developing world who do not have electricty, let alone computers. The camera phone may eventually take theese people out of the market. Still, you and I, low volume enthusiasts will be using film in our cameras. There are enough of us to be a viable market and film producers will change their distribution model to meet our requrements. We are spread thinly all over the world. The market is no longer big enough to support many different types of film, only some, the most economically viable (not the best ones) will survive. That does not mean film will become very expensive, because it has a substitute, digital cameras, which are becoming less expensive or at least better for the same price. If the price of film goes too high we will all go digital, so there is a cap on the price of film. Kodak will be the first to test that cap, their film is the most expensive.

So send all of those unused cameras to China and Indonesia, sell them to people who will use them.

Film is not going away as long as there are people making photographs. Can you immagine a place where there is no utility in owning or seeing a photograph. A photograph is a direct descendant of the rock painting. The internet without the image, TV with sound only, newspapers and magazines containing only text, a family ocassion commerated with only a poem or a song. Ghisele Bundchen or Halle Berry unphotographed.

So in the end, the value of your 8x10 deardorff, rare soft focus lens or sironar s may even increase significantly over time, that does not change the economics of making film. In the new model owning a camera does not equate with using a lot of film, only some.

[Armin Seeholzer]

We will get 50 sheet boxes back from Kodak and other positive developments shortly.

Micheal if this happens I also buy 3 boxes a 50 sheets in a heartbeat!

Cheers Armin

[John Kasaian]

Micheal if this happens I also buy 3 boxes a 50 sheets in a heartbeat!

Cheers Armin

Not a bad deal if the dollar is weak. OTOH at the going $250/50 sheets I'm afraid Kodak will have to soldier on without me.:( My kid needs braces!

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

I've read and heard a lot of disavowals of the current state and projected future of film manufacture. To characterize yours as juvenile and ill informed (as well as self contradictory) would be incredibly generous.

The existence of cameras does not mandate the manufacture of film. I recently bought a beautiful Kodak 3A camera at a local antique shop. It's in perfect working condition. There are many, many of these cameras and others like them available on the used market for very little money. There is one (1) place I could find to buy film for it (online, of course). The film is manually cut down from aerial ortho film and spooled for sale at a premium price, and at very limited availability. The Postcard format was once very popular, which is why so many cameras were made for it, and why so many survive today. As photographers abandoned that format, the variety of available films diminished, and then disappeared. The same is true of many other formats. I'm sure 8x10 is different because it's the format you use. You should keep in mind that these old formats were abandoned only as formats, and film manufacture was not negatively impacted, because film was the only game in town, and photographers simply moved to a viable format. That is no longer the case.

You make a lot of bad economic arguments, but this one is my favorite:


Still, you and I, low volume enthusiasts will be using film in our cameras. There are enough of us to be a viable market and film producers will change their distribution model to meet our requrements. We are spread thinly all over the world. The market is no longer big enough to support many different types of film, only some, the most economically viable (not the best ones) will survive. That does not mean film will become very expensive, because it has a substitute, digital cameras, which are becoming less expensive or at least better for the same price. If the price of film goes too high we will all go digital, so there is a cap on the price of film.

The above is very funny, and demonstrates your grasp of market forces perfectly. You seem to think film manufacturers have to produce film, and that low priced, high quality digital cameras will keep film prices down. There is no "cap on the price of film", but there is a lower limit to the volume of film that can be economically manufactured. The price of film IS going too high for many of us, and we ARE switching to digital. This is not theoretical, it's statistical.

I've been to China and Indonesia, and I never saw a single film camera in either place, but I did see LOTS of digital cameras.


Film is not going away as long as there are people making photographs.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but film is not required to make a photograph.


The internet without the image, TV with sound only, newspapers and magazines containing only text, a family ocassion commerated with only a poem or a song. Ghisele Bundchen or Halle Berry unphotographed.

It's almost embarrassing to state the obvious, but......the internet is dominated by digital images. So much so, in fact, that even film based photos must be digitized to participate, which requires a tedious scanning operation with dedicated equipment. TV- also digital. Newspapers- practically extinct due to digital media. Family occasions- almost universally recorded by digital means. Giselle and Halley- more frequently photographed digitally than on film by some enormous factor.


In the new model owning a camera does not equate with using a lot of film, only some.

Wow, are you in over your head.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael,

I know I'm free to do and believe as I like. I never concluded "film is dead", just that it will continue to become more expensive and less available at an accelerating rate, which is certainly true now. Time will tell if my reading of the trend is accurate.

I could not disagree more.

Films have always been a transitional item through the history of the industry even in their best days. They come and go as the demand for them evolves. The development of T grain films has continued with the recent improvement resulting in TMY2 long after the digital revolution.

If those of us that find T Max 400 works for us, all we need is one emulsion. Ditto for Ilford films with other consumers. I also want to make this perfectly clear. The price of sheet film would have to really have to increase in price triple from here before I would even consider alternatives. I will pick up the phone and do as many extra business deals as necessary to make this work it is that important. My communications with others tell me that there are many others that feel the same way.

In the meantime, I and others will continue to stock loads of sheet film and expose it regularly with complete reckless abandon. I can see another 23 ft3 chest freezer in my immediate future.

[Kevin Crisp]

At the risk of getting back to the original question, what problems have people had freezing and storing film? I've frozen film off and on for 30 or more years, putting it in zip-lock style bags, and never had a problem if I let it warm up before I open the bag. This included boxes that have been opened. I just hold the box shut with tape and put it in a baggie and put it in the freezer.

I've kept paper in the freezer (got a bunch of Forte still) and at very low refrigerator temps (37F, more or less) and, again, have never had a problem. It does seem to last a very long time this way. I have some original, original Seagull (from 1989) that still prints fine.

So I am wondering what the disasters were that some people have referred to.



Thanks.

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

I'm not going to do your homework for you, so if you want to believe film is just in some kind of statistical slump, and not in a downward spiral, enjoy your delusion. I know better because I'm able to read graphs and sales reports. Remember when Kodak used to make paper, too? Whatever happened to Agfa? It's definitely a transition- from film to digital. Whatever you're willing to pay for film, even if you would pay 100X the current price, has no effect on the market. Market effects require volume sales, not a few people willing to pay a premium. I'm afraid your "communications with others" are not reflected in the global sales reports that drive decisions about product lines. I hope you find time to use some of that film you're hoarding.

[mikebarger]

I threw out some Ilford film some years ago as base fog just got too high. The expiration date was 1988, been gone now 10 years or so.

Not had any trouble with film or paper other than those 4 or 5 bricks of 120.

[mdm]

Michael,

I'm not going to do your homework for you, so if you want to believe film is just in some kind of statistical slump, and not in a downward spiral, enjoy your delusion. I know better because I'm able to read graphs and sales reports. Remember when Kodak used to make paper, too? Whatever happened to Agfa? It's definitely a transition- from film to digital. Whatever you're willing to pay for film, even if you would pay 100X the current price, has no effect on the market. Market effects require volume sales, not a few people willing to pay a premium. I'm afraid your "communications with others" are not reflected in the global sales reports that drive decisions about product lines. I hope you find time to use some of that film you're hoarding.


Your pessimism turns my stomach.

Why dont you stump up with some facts?

[sanking]

Your pessimism turns my stomach.

Why dont you stump up with some facts?

Now why don't you tell us how you really feel and not mince any words?

The thing about these discussions, if they can be called that, that offers me much consolation is that the folks who do good work in film will also do good work in digital, and conversely, those whose work in film is garbage will also do garbage with digital.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

David,

I'm not pessimistic at all! I'm very excited about the future of photography, and grateful to be present during this transitional phase. The creative possibilities are limited only by our imaginations. Until recently I've mostly photographed my family, but now that my kids are grown and on their own, my attention has turned to more creative and expressive projects. I'm inspired by the the great thinkers, writers and artists of our time, and eager to participate in the larger culture. I do feel bad for those whose enjoyment of photography depends on film, but I don't think there are really so many of you. I think most people will make the transition to digital when it suits them best, just as I'm doing. In my case the transition will be slow, and maybe never complete. I have ideas for film photography, too, and I don't plan on giving up my darkroom anytime soon. No, far from being pessimistic, I'm exhilarated!

If you want facts, find them; it's not difficult. I assume you know how to use a search engine, or if you prefer to go analog, there's probably a reference library nearby ( I assume they have them in NZ?). Your education is not my responsibility. If you're too lazy to do your own research, you can just choose to believe as you like; either way will have no effect on the outcome of larger events. Don't be confused, I don't want film to be expensive and/or unavailable, but I'm rational enough to understand what I want has no bearing on a technology shift.

[James_Spain]

The thing about all of this that offers me much consolation is that the folks who do great work in film will also do great work in digital, and conversely, those whose work in film is garbage will also do garbage with digital.

Many film gone photographers to digital seem to like their new work. I don't feel the same way about their work.

It's harder to see good digital work now. There is even more bad digital work out now in even greater numbers.

[sanking]

Many film gone photographers to digital seem to like their new work. I don't feel the same way about their work.

It's harder to see good digital work now. There is even more bad digital work out now in even greater numbers.

My goodness, you must have been spared the endless supply of 35mm garbage from the last three decades of the 20th century. That is what should compare trash digital to, not the work of talented photographers.

Sandy

[Jay DeFehr]

Michael,

Qualify which credentials? What are you talking about? Surely you don't mean for me to understand you're some kind of industry insider? That would be a hilarious claim. If you do have inside information, we outsiders can only assume that information points to the discontinuation of TMY-2 in 8x10; otherwise, why would you be filling shipping containers with the stuff? I'll decide in which forums to participate, Michael. You're not obligated to discuss anything with me, so I assume you do so of your own free will. Why do you always have to be so nasty? Can't people disagree without resorting to childish name-calling?

[rguinter]

Deja-vu all over again.

I find myself wondering what the last several pages of posts has to do with the OP's basic question about film storage techniques.

I think many of us here (perhaps me also at times) forget that we are a minority of a minority. The vast number of people who take pictures (i.e., photographs) with a camera are only interested in snapshots to record personal events and people in them. It doesn't take a scientific study any more to see that.

Among that majority is a (now) small minority that are continuing to use film. And the rest of us using film for artistic and aesthetic reasons are a minority within that minority.

So why all the arguing about the future of film? The future has arrived... and it "ain't what it used to be."

Bob G.

[Michael Kadillak]

Geting back to the original post intent, anyone storing sheet film should put new boxes in zip lock plastic bags and allow these containers to come to room temperature before loading it. Always use opened boxes first until depleted before opening another box.

Try to acquire film and paper with the longest expiration date possible. Silver printing paper should be at the bottom of your chest freezer or the back of your standing freezer as it is the most susceptible to normally occurring radiation. I would suggest keeping a log of what you have in the freezer that is updated when it is added or subtracted from inventory. That way you know precisely what you have and where it can be found in the freezer. Silver chloride paper is without question the longest lasting photographic product that can be stored. Personally, I would suggest stocking less silver paper as it is the most susceptible to fogging. Similarly, the lower the ASA of sheet film, generally speaking the longer its lasting characteristics. TMY is know from user experience to last well in excess of five years with no problem.

Another lesson that I will share with you. Electrical breakers commonly found in garages do in fact get tripped at the most inopportune times. This usually takes place in the summer with the increase occurrence in electrical storms while you are out for a week or more photographing. If the circuit trips and you lose power this is not a good thing.

I suggest that you either hard wire this circuit, install a larger capacity breaker or have your wife, neighbor or house watcher keep an eye on the "power on" light on the front lid. It can easily be re-set if it does trip.

[mikebarger]

Michael

I'm sure I'm reading it wrong, but you're not suggesting bypassing a circuit breaker with the term hard wire? I don't know much about household electrical systems.

Thanks

[Jan Pedersen]

Michael

I'm sure I'm reading it wrong, but you're not suggesting bypassing a circuit breaker with the term hard wire? I don't know much about household electrical systems.

Thanks

As long as the film is safe who cares about the house :)
Bad advice.
(I am an electrician by trade)

[Brian C. Miller]

I suggest that you either hard wire this circuit, install a larger capacity breaker or have your wife, neighbor or house watcher keep an eye on the "power on" light on the front lid. It can easily be re-set if it does trip.

These are bad ideas. Very bad. Install a lightning arrestor (http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm) for your house. This will clamp incoming surges and protect electrical motors.

Connect your freezer to a large battery backup unit (UPS). There are many units designed for computers, and they provide excellent electrical protection. More importantly, these have automatic signalling. Connect the signal wire to an alarm auto-dial, and then when the power goes out the unit will auto-dial you.

[Preston]

Bypassing a circuit breaker is a sure fire way to come home to no house! Never do this!

A higher capacity breaker won't help if the power goes down, but it will protect the system from an overload. If a breaker trips, it means the circuit overloaded at some point. The system should then be checked for the cause and the fault corrected before restoring power.

--P

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael

I'm sure I'm reading it wrong, but you're not suggesting bypassing a circuit breaker with the term hard wire? I don't know much about household electrical systems.

Thanks

I should not have suggested this alternative although I know guys that have done this for outside circuits. The risk involved is that if a power surge were to take place it could do some electrical damage to the freezer motor. The best alternative is to make sure that you are using the largest capacity circuit breaker possible or investigate other electrical surge solutions. It seems like my power provider really sends some funky stuff down my lines in the summer that trips my circuits half a dozen times or more in the summer.

I am going to hire an electrician to come to the house next week and give me an outline as to my alternatives and I will provide an update at that time.

[Michael Kadillak]

These are bad ideas. Very bad. Install a lightning arrestor (http://www.deltala.com/prod01.htm) for your house. This will clamp incoming surges and protect electrical motors.

Connect your freezer to a large battery backup unit (UPS). There are many units designed for computers, and they provide excellent electrical protection. More importantly, these have automatic signalling. Connect the signal wire to an alarm auto-dial, and then when the power goes out the unit will auto-dial you.

Great advice. I will look into this as it seems like the ticket for when I am out in the field.

[Jan Pedersen]

A higher capacity breaker won't help if the power goes down, but it will protect the system from an overload. If a breaker trips, it means the circuit overloaded at some point. The system should then be checked for the cause and the fault corrected before restoring power.



A higher capacity breaker will not protect the circuit it is meant to protect.
Wire dimension dictates the size of the breaker, if you go beyond that breaker size you may as well just hot wire.

If you are concerned about your freezer, let a proffesional install a new breaker just for your freezer. at least no other appliance will have a chance to interupt or disconnect power to the freezer.

[John Kasaian]

I've stored B&W film in my freezer for years, some has been well past the expiration date and that was over a decade ago when I put it aside, and I've seldom had a problem (this even after electrical blackouts and extended periods of non-refrigeration) About the worse problem was smell after my film had been in a warm freezer for a week with rotting food when the break tripped. It survived.
Some of my frozen film was premium stuff, most of it cheap and bought in quantity when I could afford the luxury. I'll always test long stored film before committing it to a project but quite honestly I've yet to be dissappointed. I've lost more film & paper to flooding and putting the dark slide in with the wrong color facing out than anything else.

[Michael Kadillak]

A higher capacity breaker will not protect the circuit it is meant to protect.
Wire dimension dictates the size of the breaker, if you go beyond that breaker size you may as well just hot wire.

If you are concerned about your freezer, let a proffesional install a new breaker just for your freezer. at least no other appliance will have a chance to interupt or disconnect power to the freezer.

Isn't the dominant criteria Jan the lack of quality of the power delivered by the power provider? For some reason the problems are always concurrent with electrical storms in the area that must be knocking out transformers or other relay equipment in my area.

Battery powered backup is likely my best plan B.

[Jan Pedersen]

Isn't the dominant criteria Jan the lack of quality of the power delivered by the power provider? For some reason the problems are always concurrent with electrical storms in the area that must be knocking out transformers or other relay equipment in my area.

Battery powered backup is likely my best plan B.

Michael, If your grid is that unstable you might want to consider a back up generator.
Battery power or UPS is great for low consumption gear like computers but for a large chest freezer full of yellow boxes you need much more power than what batteries can deliver.
You can of course install lot's of batteries but in the end they will need a lot of maintenance.
A back up generator will be much more efficient.

[Marko]

...big enough for Kodak to update their products.

This three days ago, this could've easily been the joke of the year.

But it still has a great potential...

;)

[rdenney]

Okay, here's what I've learned in this thread.

1. Those who act the most horrified by being insulted seem to be willing to dish out only slightly more veiled insults themselves with no apparent awareness of having done so. Frankly, that makes me sick. The definition of ad hominem is when the debate changes over from ideas to the people expressing them, and yes I've been occasionally guilty of it myself. It makes me sick when I do it, too. Dressing it up in polite language doesn't change its nature. But I'm a piker compared to some, even as exemplified in this thread. I recommend the following credo: If what we are typing negatively addresses the intelligence, maturity, experience, skill or any other personal aspect of the person with whom we are debating an idea, and not the the idea itself, we should delete it before hitting the send button. The more intelligence, maturity, experience, and skill we have, the quicker we should go for that delete key in our own posts. When I don't hit that delete key as I should, I expect to be called names. When I have been called names, however, it wasn't because of that, it was because someone disagreed with my ideas, and I don't recall their posts being deleted by the moderators, but there it is.

2. In an elastic market, supply will emerge to satisfy demand, but only that portion of supply that can be produced at a cost low enough for the price that portion of the demand is willing to pay to provide the desired profit. In the short term, the problem is inelasticity. Kodak and other high-production film manufacturers can't cut their production by 80% and still make enough to maintain high-production equipment. Film companies will have to retool for lower production capacities to be profitable at new demand levels. Some have done so. Some are unwilling to. Some haven't done so yet. When there is demand, there will be supply, though the boxes may not be the same color we are used to. The question is: Will the demand remain even if there are temporary interruptions in supply while these inelasticities get sorted out?

3. I seem to be attracted to niche hobbies. I am renovating a 1973 GMC motorhome. I do amateur radio. I play the tuba. Each of these provides an example of a declining market. In each case, the prices of equipping the hobbies at the same quality level have increased as the demand has declined. In each case, low-cost and therefore low-price manufacturers have entered the market to provide supply at lower price points, even if that has meant a decline in quality that must be tolerated by buyers at those price points. With view cameras, this process has been underway for decades, and was going full steam long before digital started competing with film. At least since the 70's, large-format manufacturers have been trying new ways to capture market at low price points. Low-end amateur use of large-format has steadily declined at least since the SLR boom of the 70's, and little that view-camera manufacturers have done has been able to recapture that market. The reason is that for those users, the SLR was a more appropriate fulfillment of their requirements.

4. Professionals have different requirements than amateurs, and commercial photographers have different requirements than art photographers. Each will make choices based on fulfilling their requirements, and those requirements will be based on what they need to do to satisfy their customers. Amateurs are just the same, except that they are their own customers. The film medium still uniquely fulfills requirements of a determined few art photographers and amateurs, but not most commercial photographers. This is a statement on how good digital tools have become, and on how poorly film fulfilled the requirements of many users. It is also a statement on changing desires and standards of photography customers. Wedding customers, to cite one example, seem to prefer choosing from 1000 images, many of which look like plain snapshots, on some vast web page. Those of us who used to show up at a wedding with two pro-packs of Vericolor and a Mamiya C-330 may kick the dirt about it, but that is where the customers are these days. The digital photographer can have those thousand images online in a day, and let the customer do their editing for them. No more spending hours sending the film out to a pro lab, numbering and sleeving the negatives, providing printed order forms, and only making money on the enlargements because of the time required just to produce a proof-book. No more long-term storage of negatives. No more inventory of proof-books, negative sleeves and enlargement folders, and on and on. Much of what is happening in the market is easier to explain if we go back and look at requirements as driven by what customers want and photographers need.

5. The requirements that are best fulfilled by film are still with us, and likely will be, at a reduced demand, for some time to come. The high-production film manufacturers might not be able to follow that demand, but someone will, if film users are willing to survive occasional lapses and changes in the available products.

6. Branch electrical circuits are protected based on the current-carrying capacity of the wire used in the branch circuit. In the U.S., most branch lighting circuits use 14-gauge copper wire which is sized for 15 amps maximum current, according to the National Electrical Code. Standing equipment that requires more current to run reliably should be provided a special circuit. It is quite common for an appliance circuit to be wired with 12-gauge copper wire and protected with a 20-amp breaker. It uses a (single) receptacle that properly provides for one horizontal spade on the appliance plug, but that will also accept normal 15-amp plugs with two vertical spades. Freezer equipment that requires more will run on 240 VAC and will use special circuits, receptacles, and plugs. But circuit breakers do wear out, and sometimes a flaky breaker can be replaced by a new one of the same rating and solve a problem of frequent tripping.

Rick "whose current requirements are only fulfilled using large format" Denney

[Jim Cole]

Rick,

I don't know about #6, but the rest was well said!

[Kevin Crisp]

I bought a chest freezer off Craigslist for $40 and my paper and film go in there, in plastic bags, kept slightly off the floor of the freezer. Despite its age I measured its power consumption and it is quite frugal. It is in an unheated garage which also keeps power use down.

I keep it well defrosted (once a year, and there is barely anything to melt out since I so rarely open it) and if the power goes out there isn't a great deal of water sitting in the bottom. And besides, the photographic materials aren't touching the bottom where they could get wet. The power goes out often in our local mountains, but a chest-style freezer will keep cold for a long time. I have never had our occasional lightning trip a breaker.

When the power comes back on, everything is fine. This doesn't seem like a really difficult problem to solve.

[sanking]

The world is also a big place, and I think one thing that stands out is that we keep forgetting about China. Chamonix, Fotoman and other brands are all made there, for that market. I wrote Fotoman (about the confusion between Fotoman Camera and Fotoman China .....and the announcement about Fotoman Camera ceasing production causing confusion).......... and the reply was that they were not too worried about sales over here or elsewhere (it is just extra profit, but if you want one, they are NOW able to ship).

Van,

China could certainly supply the market for film in the US, if there is a market and the quality control was up to par. However, I should mention that in spite of the fact that many LF film cameras are made in China the Chinese market for film is almost non-existent as Chinese photographers went almost 100% digital long before photographers in the US. In three trips to China since 2007 in which I traveled extensively around the country I can remember seeing only one other person with a film camera.

On the other hand, I agree that if LF photographers are going to have a source of film in the future it will most likely come from China.

Sandy

[Michael Kadillak]

Clearly irrespective of a minority of adverse opinions I see absolutely no reason why sheet film cannot continue to exist in harmony with digital technologies. Which films rise to the status of remaining sufficiently popular to stay the course is in our hands. Don't get discouraged as there is no reason to do so. All we need to do is continue to support your favorite film to the degree possible and encourage others to do so. I also advise that maintaining an inventory of photographic film and paper is just good common sense. You make the call as to what works for you.

[mdm]

I agree 100%. This thread and all the others that have sprung from the TMY announcement annoy me.

Film will be a profitable niche market for a long time to come. The Autotype company making tissue for carbon and gravure lasted a long time, the experts may differ but I guess that their equipment was ancient and they could not justify big investment in new technology. That is a tiny market, now B&S are making gravure tissue in addition to carbon tissue and are aparrently flat out. Film is bigger than that

Being number one in a small, stable and inelastic market is potentially very profitable.

[Chris Strobel]

By selling off my 8x10 gear now, while film is still available for it, I stand to get a much better price for it than I could get later, when film is harder to find, and more expensive. If I want to buy back in to 8x10 at some future date, I'll pay much less to replace the gear I sell now.

Boy thats the same EXACT reasoning I had for selling off my old Analog synthesizers back in 1988.Digital synthesizers were finally maturing and coming down in price, and boy that sound!Every pop record had DX7's, Synclaviers, Fairlights, etc.Analog was dead.Why hold onto my old Mini Moogs, Rolands, Oberheims, when I could just sample em all and be done with those twitchy oscillators.

So into the recycler newspaper classifieds they all went, 2 Minimoog D's sold $150.00 each, 2 Roland Jupiter 8's $450.00 each, Oberheim OBXa $400.00, and a few others.Took a few weeks but they all sold.Finally I was freed of this rapidly obsolescing gear and felt fortunate to get what I did for all of it.Hell if I ever needed another Mini Moog in the future people would practically be giving em away right.

:eek: Fast forward, Jan 2011, Mini Moogs used on ebay $3500.00 - 6000.00 depending on condition, Jupiter 8's two right now at $9000.00, Oberheim OBXa $2000.00 - 4000.00.Studios that have them in their keyboard rooms are in high demand, and kids half my age lust after them even though high quality digital samples of em all abound.Though I have a high end studio utilizing all digital synthesizers these days that get the bills paid, I truly miss the old boys and their unique personalities.

I've been seriously wrestling selling off all my 4x5 and 8x10 gear since getting my 5DII and getting better with stitching, but the whole analog to digital experience I had in the synth world has me spooked.We never dreamed in 88 analog would be so popular 23 years latter.I'm not sure I want to repeat history with my photography.Who knows, hell none of us are guaranteed another 5 min. of life let alone another 20 years, so its a hard dilemma :confused:

[Brian C. Miller]

I really don't think that China will supply LF film. To my knowledge, they aren't doing it now, so I don't see a reasonable probability that they will do so in the future. The Chinese products may not be suitable for US markets (Jury Slams China Lucky Film with $3 Million Verdict (http://takethef.com/2009/06/jury-slams-china-lucky-film-with-3-million-verdict/), paper chemistry requires amonia).

In case of a market collapse where Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford cease production, the suppliers will be in eastern Europe. Will the quality be top notch? No. I have tried Efke, and sure enough, it does have the occasional defect, with one of them being about 1/2inch long, and I mean no emulsion. But I think that they will truly be the last to fall. Once it's all down, then it's back to coating glass plates.

[rguinter]

Chris:

Well this story may not be unique to the digital music equipment or even now what's occurring with MF/LF photography equipment.

I sold my mint-condition 1969 Z28 Camaro in 1974 for a whopping $1800.

I can only guess what it would be worth today but my guess is $75k.

Who knew? But then again, who in 1974 could afford to garage and maintain a car for 36-years? The cost of storage and maintenance would likely have exceeded the $73.2k difference.

Bob G

[sanking]

I really don't think that China will supply LF film. To my knowledge, they aren't doing it now, so I don't see a reasonable probability that they will do so in the future. The Chinese products may not be suitable for US markets (Jury Slams China Lucky Film with $3 Million Verdict (http://takethef.com/2009/06/jury-slams-china-lucky-film-with-3-million-verdict/), paper chemistry requires amonia).

In case of a market collapse where Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford cease production, the suppliers will be in eastern Europe. Will the quality be top notch? No. I have tried Efke, and sure enough, it does have the occasional defect, with one of them being about 1/2inch long, and I mean no emulsion. But I think that they will truly be the last to fall. Once it's all down, then it's back to coating glass plates.

Brian,

While there may have been some quality control issues with Chinese film in the paste I am absolutely certain that a much better infrastructure exists in China for improving quality control if the Chinese film makers want to do so. Let's not forget that many of our top tech products (iPods, iPhones, etc) are made in China at this time. And they sure have made some fine cameras in Shen-Hao and Chamonix. If I had to bet I would definitely put my money on the Chinese rather than East Europeans.

And BTW, I am still a major film user, though I have shifted my buying primarily to Fuji Acros which I prefer to any other film, Kodak or otherwise. My basic philosophy is that I am going to use what is available now, and not worry about the future. When I can not buy Acros I will shift to Plan B.

Sandy

[mdm]

I am using some Shanghai GP3 in 5x7. I have only used 4 sheets.

It is on a nice thick base, thicker than ilford, and lies nice and flat for scanning and does not scratch easily.
The sheets are a few mm longer than standard 5x7 film which gives a little extra space on one end for handling.
Plain nesting box but the film is in a black plastic coated paper bag, similar to Kodak and inside that is a light black plastic bag.
Sheets are interleaved with thin paper.
It appears to have poor reciprocity characteristics, but I wont put my head on the block with that one.
For me it is nearly half the price of FP4.

[sanking]

I am using some Shanghai GP3 in 5x7. I have only used 4 sheets.

It is on a nice thick base, thicker than ilford, and lies nice and flat for scanning and does not scratch easily.
The sheets are a few mm longer than standard 5x7 film which gives a little extra space on one end for handling.
Plain nesting box but the film is in a black plastic coated paper bag, similar to Kodak and inside that is a light black plastic bag.
Sheets are interleaved with thin paper.
It appears to have poor reciprocity characteristics, but I wont put my head on the block with that one.
For me it is nearly half the price of FP4.

I have used about two full 50 sheet boxes of 5X7 Shanghai ASA 100 film and have not found a single quality control issue yet.

The reciprocity characteristics are not good, but not any worse than the old Kodak films like Tri-X 320. And the film also does not have good expansion capability, but again not much different from Tri-X320. But for the price I can live with this, especially since I scan to print anyway.

I have no problem with people buying whatever film they like, but when Kodak started selling 20X24 film for more than $35 a sheet they lost my business, and once I have made my decision I rarely look back.

Sandy

[Brian C. Miller]

But this was in 2009, Sandy. Not too long ago. Sure, if they wanted to they could do it, but do they really want to do it? They effectively put a distributor out of business with bad products. If Lucky were producing Kodak paper and to Kodak's quality, then I'd say it was good and fine. But Lucky isn't producing a quality product, and what it does produce isn't chemistry-compatible with labs outside of east Asia. Would you say, "oh, sure, amonia in the process, no problem."


Royal’s Vice President, Farshid Ourian noted that “When one of our customers was told by a China Lucky technician who had visited his lab, that he was supposed to add ammonia, I thought he was going to call the police to have the guy physically removed. All of our clients were utterly shocked at what they were being told by the China Lucky representative.”

The Lodima paper is coming from eastern Europe, right? Therefore, I'm guessing that those factories will be where we can get what we'll need.

[mdm]

You learn theese things by experience. Anyway TriX is part of our heritage, that is why I will try it out, even if the the top guns have moved on. The price drop tipped the balance for me. I want to see a base that can be retouched or drawn on with a pencil and how it compares to HP5, if TMY is really worth the price? You dont take peoples word for it, unless you want to be like them.

[John NYC]

Boy thats the same EXACT reasoning I had for selling off my old Analog synthesizers back in 1988.
snip
:eek: Fast forward, Jan 2011, Mini Moogs used on ebay $3500.00 - 6000.00 depending on condition, Jupiter 8's two right now at $9000.00, Oberheim OBXa $2000.00 - 4000.00.Studios that have them in their keyboard rooms are in high demand, and kids half my age lust after them even though high quality digital samples of em all abound.Though I have a high end studio utilizing all digital synthesizers these days that get the bills paid, I truly miss the old boys and their unique personalities.


I feel your pain, as I was a musician back in those days, too, and did similar things as you. And it is exactly why I feel the way I do about the best LF gear maybe not going down so much over the next decade. Even if Chinese manufacturers step in to fill any resurgence in demand due to style trends, there is still going to be a demand for "vintage" gear from the heyday. My gosh look at what those projector lenses are going for, and Deardorffs, etc.

P.S. Another thing I never should have sold was my completely mint condition Yamaha YP-D8 turntable!

[mikebarger]

Michael, the most rational post you've made in this thread. Good common sense, I've got 700 sheets of 4x5 HP5+ in the freezer. The 8x10 Tmax deal did convince me to skip buying an 8x10 camera....cured my GAS.

David, these threads annoy me also, but like a moth to a candle.....I can't stay away.

Mike

[sanking]

Brian,

I believe that Lucky and Shanghai film are not made by the same company. If I am mistaken, I stand corrected.

But if I am correct it is not fair to equate quality control issues of one company with that of another, or to imply that China as a country is not capable of manufacturing quality film. In fact, I know they can because I have used a lot of the Shanghai film and found it of very good quality.

Sandy

[Ben Syverson]

That's great and all, but unless they can manufacture C41 film, it's a lot less impressive. Anyone can spread some silver gelatin on a sheet of plastic.

[sanking]

That's great and all, but unless they can manufacture C41 film, it's a lot less impressive. Anyone can spread some silver gelatin on a sheet of plastic.

You are correct about this. Ron Mowery, a former Kodak photo engineer, has made the same point. The technology to make color film is much more complicated than making B &W film, and once that technology is lost it is very unlikely to come back again. It would just be too difficult to replicate, certainly lacking a reasonable financial incentive.

Sandy

[Brian C. Miller]

Sandy, I think that where we got off track is that I was referencing Lucky color paper products, and you were referencing your experience with Shanhai B&W film products. Two different companies, quite different product lines. The fastest way to find out if Lucky produces good color film would, of course, be to order some off eBay and test it. I don't see any Lucky paper for sale, so it's not easy to see if there is a problem with the RA4 paper.

Both Shanghai and Lucky produce B&W sheet film. Lucky produces 35mm color film, so I'm sure that they could also produce it in 120 and sheet format. I have no idea if Shanghai has a color product line.

[John Kasaian]

This 8x10 hysteria is laughable!
It wasn't too long ago when Ilford went into reorganization, Kodak shut down it's B&W sheet film line and Agfa and Forte went out of business.
Ilford is back at it manufacturing classic emulsions basically unchanged over the last 25 years(why couldn't Kodak do that?) Foma rebadged as Arista is selling for approximately $2/ sheet for 8x10 B&W. Fotokemika & Orwo & Shanghai & Lucky haven't even seriously begun to flex thier marketing skills in NA and you guys are talking of either being forced to throw in the towel or building the frozen film equivalent to air raid shelters.
Get real!
Go out and shoot some 8x10!

[eduardtoader]

I was looking for a thread about expired fim. The search option show me this thread first of all.
So, I have 75 4x5" sheets of Kodak Ektachrome duplicating film and 8 4x5" sheets of Kodak Ektachrome 100 plus. The duplicating film boxes are unopened, unfreezed (keeped in a photo market) and expired since 05/1997.
Someone shot colour film expired from 10 years ago? It´s worth to spend the developer chemicals? What can I do with this film? (some photographic use, shure)

thanks for share your experience.

[Rayt]

I was looking for a thread about expired fim. The search option show me this thread first of all.
So, I have 75 4x5" sheets of Kodak Ektachrome duplicating film and 8 4x5" sheets of Kodak Ektachrome 100 plus. The duplicating film boxes are unopened, unfreezed (keeped in a photo market) and expired since 05/1997.
Someone shot colour film expired from 10 years ago? It´s worth to spend the developer chemicals? What can I do with this film? (some photographic use, shure)

thanks for share your experience.

Expired slide film is useful for cross processing. Will your local lab do this?

[eduardtoader]

Although sound like a madness, could I develop that color slide with HC110 (to obtain BW transparencies)? If yes, should I use the same chemicals as in BW develop process?

If cross process is only develop the slides with C 41, I supose I could make this with my CPE2. Or not?

[BetterSense]

I processed some slides in B&W chemistry and I remember getting a really thick, ugly thing that I didn't even try to print. I think the film is designed to be bleached. Maybe you could cross process it if you underexposed it a lot.

[Chris Strobel]

P.S. Another thing I never should have sold was my completely mint condition Yamaha YP-D8 turntable!

And me my 1960 Pre-CBS Strat........Ouch :eek: Love your Architecture work btw

[sanchi heuser]

Andi,

Your workshops sound great. I do the same kind of thing in Idaho, teaching kids how to build pinhole cameras and contact print their paper or film negatives. It's a lot of fun, and I meet great people. I've had more than a few parents join the group, and they have as much fun as the kids do. I would love to attend your meetings if I was in your city.



I think we have differing ideas regarding what the thing is. For me, photography is about making images, by whatever process. I use film for lots of reasons, but mostly because it's fun, and I enjoy sharing that fun, especially with kids. I think every one of my kids' friends has had some kind of photography lesson at my house. Some use film, others digital, but that's not the point. The point is they develop an appreciation for the expressive potential of a photo, and feel free to see in a new way.



Jay,

with "the thing" I meant using film. Of course the aim is to make
pictures. Great picture were made with film and digital cameras, no question.

I've decided to follow for large format and it works for me,
so I continue with it. It's as simple as that.
If for another digital works, fine.
For me I know exactly I can't anything do with it.

Andi

[ic-racer]

Here are my base density results with HP5. Film in original packaging. Frozen since new. All film processed in the last 3 months.

HP5 Expiration 1986 = 0.74
HP5 Expiration 2001 = 0.50
HP5 Expiration 2013 = 0.21

[Michael Kadillak]

Here are my base density results with HP5. Film in original packaging. Frozen since new. All film processed in the last 3 months.

HP5 Expiration 1986 = 0.74
HP5 Expiration 2001 = 0.50
HP5 Expiration 2013 = 0.21

A base density of 0.21 for HP5 expiring in 2013 appears to me to be horrible. But I do not use HP5.

Five years past expiration I can expect 0.05 density units of increased density from TMY. Current film has base density that is so clear it is difficult to measure.

[ic-racer]

A base density of 0.21 for HP5 expiring in 2013 appears to me to be horrible. But I do not use HP5.

Five years past expiration I can expect 0.05 density units of increased density from TMY. Current film has base density that is so clear it is difficult to measure.

Maybe there is too much radon in my darkroom :D

Some others for comparison.

Again all films processed in the last year:

Arista 100 4x5 (fresh) = 0.23
Arista 100 8x10 (fresh) = 0.22
Trix 35mm (fresh) = 0.25
T-max 400 8x10 (2009 exp.) = 0.25
Delta 100 4x5 (2013) = 0.17

Maybe this is a sign of film sitting around in warehouses or on shelves. I do know my local film shop now keep B&W in the refrigerator as of this year. Previously they only had color film in there.

[Sal Santamaura]

Here are my base density results with HP5. Film in original packaging. Frozen since new. All film processed in the last 3 months.

HP5 Expiration 1986 = 0.74
HP5 Expiration 2001 = 0.50
HP5 Expiration 2013 = 0.21Those are very interesting raw data that are useful to me after some interpretation.

I have found that a given film's base plus fog (fb+f) density varies substantially in different developers. For current, fresh, sheet HP5 Plus in Perceptol 1:1, which I process in a Jobo Expert drum with 5-minute pre-wash, then 7 minutes 0 seconds at 75 degrees F and 46 rpm, fb+f is 0.08/0.09 (the 0.01 variation probably reflecting my densitometer's repeatability). This is associated with a Contrast Index (CI) of 0.50, perfect for my stash of Canadian grade 2 Azo, and an Exposure Index (EI) of 500 with reference to my Zone VI-modified Pentax Digital spotmeter.

What developer do you use with HP5 Plus? I've seen fb+f densities with current, fresh sheet as high as 0.13 in TMAX-RS, but nothing close to 0.21.

In this 2003 thread

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=8297

Carl Weese reported on changes that had been made to HP5 Plus roughly one year before then which extended its characteristic curve and lowered the fb+f level. Your two older emulsions are from the "pre-improved" Ilford film. Based on Carl's posting, in which he noted a reduction of between 0.06 and 0.08 in fb+f, I'll subtract 0.07 from your first two results:

Expiration 1986 = 0.67
Expiration 2001 = 0.43
Expiration 2013 = 0.21

Now we have fb+f increases over 10 and 25 years respectively of only 0.22 and 0.46. Those are very acceptable to me. My Azo, which works perfectly with a Zone VII density 0.9 higher than Zone I, will be very compatible with "printing through" fb+f of 0.55 (current 0.09 + a 0.46 increase due to age) in 25 years. HP5 Plus can reach 1.36 without breaking a sweat. In fact, it'll hit well over 2.0, more than adequate for expansions to support my printing medium.


Maybe there is too much radon in my darkroom...Perhaps there is. Have you tested your house? The US EPA's action level is 4 pCi/L, but I'd prefer to meet the World Health Organization's 2.7 pCi/L action level. There are far greater consequences to high levels of radon than fogged film. Also, if your water comes from a well or community system drawing from wells, have it tested too. Depending on your location, significant radon gas can be released when such well water is used in sinks, showers and washers. That can be treated too, best using a "bubbler" device on the incoming line.

Your freezer-stored fb+f increases over time might reflect a radon problem, in which case my future HP5 Plus storage -- in a location that will most certainly not have high radon levels -- can only suffer less increase. Even assuming your results are from a relatively radon-free environment, I'm reassured by them.


...Five years past expiration I can expect 0.05 density units of increased density from TMY...That doesn't seem too far off from the adjusted 10-year 0.22 increase I calculated above for HP5 Plus.


...film has base density that is so clear it is difficult to measure.What developer are you using with TMY-2? Like most other films, its fb+f varies substantially in different developers. When processed in TMAX RS 1:9, for 6 minutes 40 seconds at 75 degrees F, using the same Jobo sequence I described above for HP5 Plus, fb+f was 0.08/0.09, EI 500 and CI 0.50.

[ic-racer]

What developer do you use with HP5 Plus?

All films processed at 24C to a contrast index around .65 to .75 in T-max developer 1:4.




Perhaps there is. Have you tested your house?



Radiation level of 1.7 picocuries per liter in the darkroom

[Sal Santamaura]

All films processed at 24C to a contrast index around .65 to .75 in T-max developer 1:4...The longer development times associated with your higher contrast index range as well as use of TMAX developer probably account for most of the fb+f difference. Thanks.


...Radiation level of 1.7 picocuries per liter in the darkroomGlad to hear that you're not at risk. Sorry for getting on my soapbox, but it seemed a good off-topic place to go briefly for the sake of health.

[Drew Wiley]

Wierd. With TMRS and TMY I'm getting an fbf way down around .05, virtually no fog at all, and substantially less than HP5 (though I've never used this particular dev for HP5)

[Sal Santamaura]

Wierd. With TMRS and TMY I'm getting an fbf way down around .05, virtually no fog at all, and substantially less than HP5 (though I've never used this particular dev for HP5)Your 0.05 isn't too far from my 0.08/0.09 with that combination (TMY-2). At what dilution are you using the TMAX RS? I've also noticed higher fb+f at higher developer dilutions.

[Michael Kadillak]

I would contact Ilford to see what the normal fbf level for HP5 is from the factory. Simon is around these parts or over at APUG. I cannot fathom the possibility that any film manufacturer would accept a .21 fbf density level for fresh product. That means that the increased density is being added during shipping or is induced in some way where you reside. Either way I find this totally unacceptable given the costs of film today. I went down and looked at my old test data and it shows that in a wide range of developers, TMY and FP4 consistently exhibits insignificant levels of fbf.


By chance are you in Europe or the UK? I have been told that xray during shipping could be more of a problem than here in the US.

[Drew Wiley]

Sal - I use TMRS fairly strong, sometimes 1:1, but only for lab use for separation negs.
For general shooting I use PMK which of course stains, but still leaves only minor fog
on the borders of TMY. TMX is even cleaner, with an fbf approaching .03. It's obviously important to wash out all the anti-halation dye, but this seems to proceed
much more easily than with Ilford films. I do notice significant fbf levels on Ilford roll
films, especially Delta 3200, routinely, but that's acetate base and obviously more
sensitive to cosmic rays. With FP4 I end up with .04 in residual magenta stain which
won't wash out, but fades over time, so a total fbf of around .15 for this particular film. These results have been predicatable year after year.

[Sal Santamaura]

...I do notice significant fbf levels on Ilford roll films, especially Delta 3200, routinely, but that's acetate base and obviously more sensitive to cosmic rays...It's not unique to Ilford nor related to cosmic radiation. Sheets on polyester have the lowest base density. Next comes 120, which is on inherently less clear acetate. Mine typically end up around 0.12/0.13, including fog. Finally there's 35mm acetate, which is not only thicker but includes intentional base density to reduce halation, since it lacks paper backing. Delta 3200 is on the 5-mil acetate Ilford uses for 35mm, thus your "significant" fb+f with that film.

[John NYC]

Maybe there is too much radon in my darkroom :D

Some others for comparison.

Again all films processed in the last year:

Arista 100 4x5 (fresh) = 0.23
Arista 100 8x10 (fresh) = 0.22
Trix 35mm (fresh) = 0.25
T-max 400 8x10 (2009 exp.) = 0.25
Delta 100 4x5 (2013) = 0.17

Maybe this is a sign of film sitting around in warehouses or on shelves. I do know my local film shop now keep B&W in the refrigerator as of this year. Previously they only had color film in there.

Or maybe your densitometer is hosed?

[ic-racer]

Or maybe your densitometer is hosed?

These film bases are dark to the appearance, but just for kicks (and seeing that it is a new year, and time for the yearly calibration) the calibration standard I have is 1.97 and it reads exactly 1.97 with both densitometers.

Those results were obviously from different rolls, but I actually can collect stepwise data from that 1986 HP5 batch. I'll have to go through the negative archives, but it would be interesting to see how a single batch of film, that has been in continuous freezing conditions, ages.

[ic-racer]

I would contact Ilford to see what the normal fbf level for HP5 is from the factory.

I got this curve off their website and interpolated base+fog to be 0.183

[Sal Santamaura]

I got this curve off their website and interpolated base+fog to be 0.183I suspect that curve hasn't been updated since the film was "improved" around 2002, even though the data sheet is marked April 2010. Carl Weese's reported fb+f for the pre-improved film is consistent with 0.183.

[ic-racer]

Ok just for fun I went though my files to pick negatives from a batch of HP5 35mm film marked G79 that I bought used off of Shutterbug ads around the mid 1980s.
After searching the internet and comparing the codes on other Ilford canisters I still have from the 1970s and 1980s, I now believe the G79 is the date of manufacture (so expiration date is probably earlier than the 1986 mentioned for this film in the prior post).

HP5 Manufactured 1979?

Date of process and Base + Fog values:

1988 = 0.37
1991 = 0.63
2010 = 0.74

(development time and temp and developer NOT standardized through these samples)

[Sal Santamaura]

This is from your post #113:

Here are my base density results with HP5. Film in original packaging. Frozen since new. All film processed in the last 3 months.

HP5 Expiration 1986 = 0.74
HP5 Expiration 2001 = 0.50
HP5 Expiration 2013 = 0.21

and this is from your post #128:

...negatives from a batch of HP5 35mm film marked G79 that I bought used off of Shutterbug ads around the mid 1980s...Date of process and Base + Fog values:

1988 = 0.37
1991 = 0.63
2010 = 0.74

Please clarify. It appears that, in #113, the "1986" result (0.74) was for 35mm film and correlates with what you describe as "2010" in #128, also 0.74. Is that correct? What size HP5 Plus film do the other two #113 entries ("2001" and "2013") represent? Sheet, 120 or 35mm?

As I noted previously, the fb+f density of 35mm is always substantially higher than it is with sheets. Further information is needed to ensure an apples-to-apples comparison.

[ic-racer]

Sorry it is a little confusing. In post #113 it is 3 different batches of film all processed in 2010. The 3 batches are HP5 35mm (1979), HP5 Super 16 Negative (2001) and HP5 120 (2013).

In post #128 it is the SAME batch of film, processed in different years. (HP5 35mm)

So, two different ways of looking at it.

[Sal Santamaura]

...In post #128 it is the SAME batch of film, processed in different years. (HP5 35mm)...This appears to be the only part of your data sufficiently consistent (despite varying degrees of development) to even approximate the long-term cold-stored performance of HP5 Plus sheet film.

From 1988 to 2010, 22 years later, the fb+f went from 0.37 to 0.74, an increase of 0.37. In this history of Ilford

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology.html

it's stated that HP5 became HP5 Plus in 1989 and in the Photo Pro magazine article it links to

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Ilford/Chronology/HP5+_Photopro_Winter1989-90.pdf

I can find no clue as to whether HP5 Plus is more or less sensitive to cosmic radiation or keeps better/worse in long-term cold storage than did its predecessor HP5.

Therefore, the best one can do is assume that, since Ilford's "Plus" product was just a refinement, as opposed to a completely new emulsion design like Delta, there was no significant change in long-term fogging performance. A fb+f increase of 0.37 after 22 years still meets the "print through" requirements of my Azo, so I'll happily continue buying/using HP5 Plus, then start accumulating and freezing it as the end of Ilford's site lease in Mobberley approaches 14+ years from now.

[ic-racer]

I have not seen much 'age vs base density' data posted here or on APUG. I was hoping that some others would post their data. Since I don't store film (I buy it as I go) I don't have good long-term data (just the sketchy stuff I posted). In fact I totally ignore expiration dates and never gave much thought to them, let alone recording them in my film record.

My impression is that given similar storage conditions, films of similar ISO would get dark at the same rate. But that is just a educated guess.

[jp]

picked up some ziploc "big bags" at walmart today. They are indeed big. 20x24" for the XL size which is the middle size for their "big bags". The normal 1gallon freezer bags are not quite big enough for 8x10 boxes. This should keep the film boxes nice and pristine in the freezer.

http://www.midcoast.com/~jp/bigbags.jpg

[ic-racer]

This is how I store my open packages of film in the freezer. Either un-exposed, or exposed film. I have no information that it does anything, but I did have some film that looked like it had marks from moisture a few years ago from a 35mm canister I just chucked in a shelf in the freezer for storage.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v670/ic-racer/foodsaver.jpg

[Uncle Brian]

Ok so here's the thing with all this hoarding ...

If you have a freezer full of film but how will you process all of it? The B&W should be ok as i hear you can even develop it in coffee :) but what about C41 and E6 do you have chemicals to create these developers from scratch or could we one day end up like Kodachrome.

Not being pessimistic guys but the loss of Kodachrome and the increase in the number of images being stored digitally make me wonder if one day we could find ourselves painted into a corner.

I had a lot of my digital images vanish in a computer crash and the price of getting colour film processed in little New Zealand is getting silly if you can find a lab. Guess there is always glass plates :)

[jp]

I've got close to a TB of digital images and haven't lost one. off site storage and multiple copies of data are my friend.

I'm not hoarding for the real Apocalypse. I figure I won't be here for that. I'm filling my freezer as a hedge against rising silver prices first and foremost. Secondly, I wouldn't mind slowing building a 2-3 year inventory eventually if a favorite film disappears. I'm not worried about chemicals going away. I like Xtol, but I also like generic developers like PMK and D76.

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

There's not much we can do about the price of film, or its availability, but we can back up our files to protect them from computer crashes quite easily. If your image files are important to you, it's worth a little effort to back them up.

As for freezing a lot of film, I think it can be a rational reaction to the market conditions. There is X amount of film available at Y price, and it's reasonable to predict the availability will decrease and the price increase. The only rational reason to freeze film on a long term basis is if one believes the film will be come unavailable, or at least MUCH more expensive, so that the costs of long term freezing are justified. If, on the other hand, one believes film will remain available, at only a moderately increased price, long term freezing is a poor strategy.

There are home brew recipes for processing E6 positive film, and C41 color negative film. Kodachrome was a different process, not easily reproduced in a home lab.

[Sirius Glass]

Ok so here's the thing with all this hoarding ...

Uncle Brian, we are not hoarding! We are keeping the film from the hoarders so that we will have disappearing emulsions and formats when we need it later. ;)

We are film aficionados. :)

Steve

[Michael Kadillak]

I have not seen much 'age vs base density' data posted here or on APUG. I was hoping that some others would post their data. Since I don't store film (I buy it as I go) I don't have good long-term data (just the sketchy stuff I posted). In fact I totally ignore expiration dates and never gave much thought to them, let alone recording them in my film record.

My impression is that given similar storage conditions, films of similar ISO would get dark at the same rate. But that is just a educated guess.

My experience is the exact opposite.

I have seen general film "degradation" at significantly dissimilar rates. One example that stands out is the difference between T Max 100 and Efke PL100. T Max 100 lasts forever. PL100 falls off of the cliff in terms of increased fbf in relatively short periods. I can pull out T Max 100 from 1999/2000 that looks like new film. I pull out some PL100 from 2008 and it is like I am printing through a contrast mask.

Efke 25 is in a class by itself but I feel it could go 10-15 years + without any problems.

Optimally one would want to inventory a sheet film that has a high degree of density building character such that if FB+F is added as a function of time it is easily managed with nothing more increased printing time.

That is why I stock Efke 25 and T Max 400 long term. I purchase FP4+ to spread the business around a bit.

You can buy as you go if that is what works for you. Personally I do not like to be subservient to the whims and/or variable inventory of stocking vendors. The Out Of Stock reply to my desire to acquire the materials I require to make photographs does not work for me. Plus I get consistent emulsion character to work with.

One buys insurance for any number of things in life and in business to deal with the natural uncertainty in life. I put the ability to make photographs on my terms within the same context. Others may not and that is perfectly acceptable.

[Uncle Brian]

Thanks guys for all your encouragement :) Guess the thing i had in mind was ordering film from the USA as it's getting expensive here.
All of the real labs in my town are closed and so sending away is the only option, well apart from doing it ya self which is this years big plan.
Guess a big order to Freestyle would keep me happy for a year.
Cheers, Brian

[Michael Kadillak]

The only rational reason to freeze film on a long term basis is if one believes the film will be come unavailable, or at least MUCH more expensive, so that the costs of long term freezing are justified. If, on the other hand, one believes film will remain available, at only a moderately increased price, long term freezing is a poor strategy.

For the record of those that may dial this post in at some point, I will just strongly disagree.

Nobody knows what the future brings in life, business and the photographic film industry. To make assumptions along these lines is highly problematic.

I advise CEO's on prudent management of business risk as my profession in my business.

Responsible management of this market "uncertainty" is advisable for those that want to participate long term in this marvelous form of artistic expression with their chosen sheet film. Contrary to your opinion, the price of sheet film is not the critical dependent variable for others as I know it is for you. Availability is.

At the end of the day I pay dearly for my families health, life, dental, homeowners and auto insurance for a reason. It is the responsible thing for me to do. My financial manager also regularly utilizes the options market to take risk out of the uncertainty in the financial markets with my investment portfolio and this is a cost. I look at my desire to participate in large format and ULF from the same perspective.

The upside is that I can always be confident that I know how a given emulsion will perform as a function of time because I have a pile of the same stuff. Yipee!

[BetterSense]

I have some TMX from 1998, and I know it wasn't frozen the whole time either. It's absolutely as-new, with no apparent speed loss and a crystal-clear base. Who knows if it's gained a few points of density, but since I do everything by eye, I would never know anyway.

[ic-racer]

So, after reading 15 pages of this, I can see stocking up on something like TMX. But the faster films, are not going to be worthwhile for me. One thing that I did not post is my results of speed with aging. For example that old HP5 with the dense base comes out to be something like EI 100, so in the long run having the ISO 100 film in the first place may not be such a bad idea for me.

I must qualify my statement that I am probably not in the same league of LF film usage as many here that are posting. For example my big buyout of Freestyle TMY 8x10 was THREE boxes which will be my winter supply. Last summer I shot 2 boxes of 50 sheet TMY 8x10.

[Jan Pedersen]

I must qualify my statement that I am probably not in the same league of LF film usage as many here that are posting. For example my big buyout of Freestyle TMY 8x10 was THREE boxes which will be my winter supply. Last summer I shot 2 boxes of 50 sheet TMY 8x10.

I believe you are shooting more TMY than many posters here.
I don't have a count of my 8x10 film usage but i don't think i have shot more than 100 to 125 sheets in the last year which also was a low compared to the previous few years.

HP5+ does age faster than any other film types i have used, i don't have a densitometer so my experience is purely visual. I have a box of HP5+ from 2004 that i use for comparison to newer emulsions and it visualy have much higher b+f than a 2010 emulsion.
I keep an open box of 2009 Efke PL100 in the fridge to and so far i don't see any change to b+f compared to negatives developed when the film was well within expiration date.

[Michael Kadillak]

I believe you are shooting more TMY than many posters here.
I don't have a count of my 8x10 film usage but i don't think i have shot more than 100 to 125 sheets in the last year which also was a low compared to the previous few years.

HP5+ does age faster than any other film types i have used, i don't have a densitometer so my experience is purely visual. I have a box of HP5+ from 2004 that i use for comparison to newer emulsions and it visualy have much higher b+f than a 2010 emulsion.
I keep an open box of 2009 Efke PL100 in the fridge to and so far i don't see any change to b+f compared to negatives developed when the film was well within expiration date.

It occurred to me that maybe we are looking at this increased fb+f concept from the wrong angle.

Essentially what we have been handed in this instance is a certain quantity of "pre-exposure" that will reinforce shadow detail in the negative when photographing high contrast subjects.

When handed lemons, try and make some lemonade?

[Jay DeFehr]

Digital cut the market in half, so we had to expect a lot of changes, and part of that is less choices when you got a smaller market.

If digital only cut the market in half, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Brian C. Miller]

Based on my calculations from Fuji Film sales information (post link (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showpost.php?p=660715&postcount=231)), Fuji is probably around 1/12th or less from its peak volume in 1999. I have no idea if the fall has leveled off, or if it is still plumeting.

[Jay DeFehr]

I don't see hoarding as a reasonable option for me, but maybe others have a lot more to spend on film than I do. If I had $10,000 to spend on film, I could buy, what, 1,500 +/- sheets of 8x10? That's 4 sheets a day for a year, or 1 sheet a day for 4 years. Either way, it's not a lot of film for someone for whom it is their main film and format. It seems like a year's supply for someone who shoots regularly, but not prolifically. I would not like to be so limited. So, if that keeps you stocked for a year, you can order more next year, if it's still available. If it's not, you'll be out of film and have to switch to something else. What are your options? Buy $20,000 worth now, and have a 2 year supply? I think very few amateurs have the money to buy a lifetime supply of TMY-2, so in the end, we're all facing the same inevitability, and some are willing to pay more than others to postpone that inevitability. Hoarding film is nothing at all like life, health, dental or auto insurance. Buying a little film now is not going to spare you buying a lot in the future. Hoarding film isn't even like an investment, because there is no return to be had, except in the form of enjoyment, which makes it just like every other form of consumption.

[Michael Kadillak]

Hoarding film isn't even like an investment, because there is no return to be had, except in the form of enjoyment, which makes it just like every other form of consumption.

Once again true to form I respectfully disagree.

I do not like the term hoarding because you purposefully use it to fit your context of irrational behavior which it is not. Managing a market uncertainty or hedging is a more correct term.

You believe the end of film is here or "inevitable". Many of us do not.

When one invests intelligently for retirement is the activity of enjoying your later years not also a "consumable?" Enjoyment comes from the ability to have control of these variables not flapping in the wind like you advise. Film fits this model perfectly for me and many others.

Nobody is trying to recommend, advise or convince you of anything relative to this post. You are going to do what you want to do and we all get that.

Have a Fabulous Day!

[Drew Wiley]

Speaking of TMX, it seems it will be much less in demand than TMY, and I wonder how many folks will be willing to get it cut in 8x10 in the future.

[Marko]

Once again true to form I respectfully disagree.

I do not like the term hoarding because you purposefully use it to fit your context of irrational behavior which it is not. Managing a market uncertainty or hedging is a more correct term.

You believe the end of film is here or "inevitable". Many of us do not.

When one invests intelligently for retirement is the activity of enjoying your later years not also a "consumable?" Enjoyment comes from the ability to have control of these variables not flapping in the wind like you advise. Film fits this model perfectly for me and many others.

Michael, I will respectfully disagree with you here, on a couple of points.

I believe that Jay is right saying that hoarding film is irrational behaviour because film is not just a consumable, it is also highly perishable. While you can manage risk in a changing market, you cannot hedge against against physical deterioration which every film is undergoing. Some more, some less, but they all do, I think we can rationally agree on this much.

You can slow it down by refrigeration, but when all the costs are calculated, I don't think it makes much economic sense, if nothing else, then because it would greatly surpass the cost of any alternative. I believe that is what Jay is arguing. And by cost, I mean not only the cost of film itself, but also the cost of a freezer (or freezers), the cost of electricity needed to operate that freezer and the cost of space needed to store that freezer. Then there is the issue of chemicals, both acquiring, keeping and using.

In other words, we are talking about TCO, a term you should be familiar with.

The other point we disagree on is that I do think that film is approaching the end of its cycle. I hate the fact, I like using film and I would love that it remains available for a long time to come.

But all the signs are here, the choices are diminishing rapidly and that's a fact no amount of love or hate can change. It is just the market choosing the more viable and less costly alternative, nothing more, nothing less.

Speaking for myself as a non-commercial black & white user, I will continue to enjoy film for as long as it is available, I will miss it once its gone (and I hope I will live long enough to see that happen), but I will not lose any sleep over it.

[Michael Kadillak]

Speaking of TMX, it seems it will be much less in demand than TMY, and I wonder how many folks will be willing to get it cut in 8x10 in the future.

Quite honestly Drew I do not feel that TMX in 8x10 will make it as a Special Order item. The reasons are obvious. TMX is intensely sharp so its film niche will likely be 4x5 where I feel it will continue to be a great fit and sell very well. My instincts lead me to believe that one T grain film will be more than sufficient in 8x10 and above so momentum can be more efficiently aggregated into one product skew. The collaboration of higher effective film speed with 8x10 and larger formats seems to make TMY the perfect film match. A lack of a UV coating with TMY as opposed to it being included on TMX should alt process photographers into the TMY fold as well. .

The seemingly lack of interest for TMX in 8x10 and above is very obvious to me.

It simply is what it is.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, I will respectfully disagree with you here, on a couple of points.

I believe that Jay is right saying that hoarding film is irrational behaviour because film is not just a consumable, it is also highly perishable. While you can manage risk in a changing market, you cannot hedge against against physical deterioration which every film is undergoing. Some more, some less, but they all do, I think we can rationally agree on this much.

You can slow it down by refrigeration, but when all the costs are calculated, I don't think it makes much economic sense, if nothing else, then because it would greatly surpass the cost of any alternative. I believe that is what Jay is arguing. And by cost, I mean not only the cost of film itself, but also the cost of a freezer (or freezers), the cost of electricity needed to operate that freezer and the cost of space needed to store that freezer. Then there is the issue of chemicals, both acquiring, keeping and using.

In other words, we are talking about TCO, a term you should be familiar with.

The other point we disagree on is that I do think that film is approaching the end of its cycle. I hate the fact, I like using film and I would love that it remains available for a long time to come.

But all the signs are here, the choices are diminishing rapidly and that's a fact no amount of love or hate can change. It is just the market choosing the more viable and less costly alternative, nothing more, nothing less.

Speaking for myself as a non-commercial black & white user, I will continue to enjoy film for as long as it is available, I will miss it once its gone (and I hope I will live long enough to see that happen), but I will not lose any sleep over it.

My two freezers cost me a whopping $10 a month to run. Two runs to Starbucks would eat that up. I continue to state that costs are not the dominant criteria in this process so economics are not the deal breaker they are for you and Jay.

I saw Michael Smith make absolutely drop dead gorgeous prints last year with Super XX film he put in his freezer in 1990. Does film deteriorate? Absolutely. Is this deterioration a fatal condition to the desirable outcome of being able to use it to make beautiful photographs 20 years or more from today?

HELL NO

TMY (and for that matter TMX) have a similar high density building character as Super XX and is superior to Super XX in several key areas. That I can run with.

Many folks naturally exhibit a very complacent personal demeanor and that is fine. Do what you do. I am not one to sit back and accept anything.

At this stage of the dialog I am not adding these comments for either of you but for the other readers of this forum. We are all free to make our choices as we move forward. I wish you well.

[Marko]

Michael, how much did your freezers cost you to buy? How much did the piece of real estate you keep them on cost you to acquire (and how much does it cost you to own on a continual basis)? How much does it cost to fill those two freezers with film?

Last but not least, what does over-priced yuppie garbage they peddle over at Starbucks have to do with any of it?

You state your case talking like an economist and then respond like an advocate. Which one is it? Is it the long-term economic sense of hoarding or is it the artistic and emotional qualities of film that figure in this dialog?

In my response, I made my point on the former, but you chose to answer with the latter. That's no dialogue, those are two monologues. But, as you say, we are all free to do and believe what we want. I hope you will be as happy with your choices as I am with mine.

[jp]

I bought a chest freezer for my basement last year when we and some other people got together and bought a processed cow from a local farm. We decided we wanted locally raised farm meat rather than factory meat. Now we have a freezer 2/3 full of top quality meat, and owning and operating a chest freezer is a prerequisite for that. You can bet I did some calculating on the power consumption of the freezer. I even ran it on a killawatt for a little while. We also buy things from the grocery store when the price is right or when coupons permit big savings rather than when demand necessitates. Call it hoarding if you want. I call it being smart with money if you already have the freezer space. Other people shoot deer/moose/bear and fill a freezer with that. As I already have the freezer and pay to cool it, adding filling the empty space with film won't cost any additional money. My wife might get mad digging around in the film to find dinner ingredients though.

The freezer is fairly full but has some room in it. The writing is on the wall that film prices are going up as Adox and Ilford have apparently announced that as a result of silver costs. Kodak's group buy thing is a price increase and a very noble and brave major change. We have guarantees that they will do what they said, but no "forever" promises. The business is different. I can't go to a pro shop and pick out what I want for film. Sometimes I can't even order it online because it's out of stock. 8x10 is moving up into the ULF realm and that means infrequent orders is how that works.

I'm not not expecting the film to last forever. I have only stockpiled enough for about two years; that's about the expiration date of the film, so I figure it will be still relatively perfect even a couple years past that and I don't expect it to last that long. I'm sorta like the coupon shopper that fills the freezer when ice cream is $2 for a half gallon knowing they'll never see that again, or the hunter who thinks ahead to enjoying his bounty till next season rolls around.

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael, how much did your freezers cost you to buy? How much did the piece of real estate you keep them on cost you to acquire (and how much does it cost you to own on a continual basis)? How much does it cost to fill those two freezers with film?

Last but not least, what does over-priced yuppie garbage they peddle over at Starbucks have to do with any of it?

You state your case talking like an economist and then respond like an advocate. Which one is it? Is it the long-term economic sense of hoarding or is it the artistic and emotional qualities of film that figure in this dialog?

In my response, I made my point on the former, but you chose to answer with the latter. That's no dialogue, those are two monologues. But, as you say, we are all free to do and believe what we want. I hope you will be as happy with your choices as I am with mine.

I got my 23 ft3 chest freezer 10 years ago in the newspaper classifieds for $45. I had a long box pickup to haul it away from the elderly couple that were moving to a condo. It was a year old when I acquired it. My 19 ft3 stand up freezer I got brand new from the local Lowes as a demo with some side damage for $165 that included the delivery and take away of the old one. I have a three car garage so I have plenty of room for another 25 ft3 chest freezer that I am looking for as we speak. I will find one for +/- $50 because I am patient and add it to the mix. I have plenty of room in my house that would easily accommodate a heck of a lot more frozen storage than I have now. That is always an option.

I mentioned how innocuous the $10 power bill per month is for my freezer capacity because we can at least relative to how much Starbucks costs. It was a relative analysis. Relax.

I have no idea how much my film in my freezer costs because I really just do not care. As a result why would I waste my time making such meaningless computations when I have more productive things to do. Several times a year, every year I buy film and paper and chemicals. Part of it is for expressing my support of the manufacturers of these product. I want them to know that I appreciate the fact that they manufacture a product that I enjoy consuming and that I want to continue to use this product for as long as I am on this earth and can trip a shutter. I also use the acquisition process to remind myself that I need to get out of the office regularly to make photographs.

This is not about economics for me. I want quality sheet film and I am ready willing and able willing to pay what it takes to have it because I have worked this into my company business model. I hustled for incremental clients specifically to have the capability of making this happen because it is that high a priority for me. This is also why I take time out of my schedule to assist in making sure that the Special Order process comes together and these activities I feel are making a positive difference.

I am simply taking the time to state my case because I want others that want alternatives to the doom and gloom to see what is possible. Folks are smart enough to make the decisions they need for themselves.

If it does not bother you when you pick up the phone and there is no film stock of your favorite emulsion for a month or ?, go for it. That does not work for me.

[peter schrager]

I bought about $5000 worth of film; 4x5;5x7 and 8x10 in the late nineties...still using it quite well...no biggie to freeze it and not have to worry about your BASIC need in photography...will have to replenish soon!!
Best, Peter

[Michael Kadillak]

I bought about $5000 worth of film; 4x5;5x7 and 8x10 in the late nineties...still using it quite well...no biggie to freeze it and not have to worry about your BASIC need in photography...will have to replenish soon!!
Best, Peter

Great to hear of your success Peter. I have been stocking frozen films for years with tremendous success. Isn't it a great feeling being able to immediately reach for exactly what film in any quantity you want? Like you I am ready to re-stock in preparation of an active spring and summer shooting season.

Even way back in the 1970's Ansel used to regularly recommend photographers maintain one to two years of film inventory. His rational for doing so was grounded in his desire to use the same emulsion and learn it without any unnecessary variables in the equation. I can remember ordering film and asking the vendor to check the emulsion codes to make sure that they matched. And the irony was back in those days film was readily available to the nines. I never once heard of anyone calling those that took Ansel's advice as somehow deficient in their intellectual capacities.

[Sirius Glass]

Michael, how much did your freezers cost you to buy?

I have a refrigerator on the East coast and a refrigerator on the West coast and neither is full. So there no additional cost for me. In fact having a full freezer will lower the electricity costs!

Steve

[Marko]

I have no idea how much my film in my freezer costs because I really just do not care. As a result why would I waste my time making such meaningless computations when I have more productive things to do. Several times a year, every year I buy film and paper and chemicals. Part of it is for expressing my support of the manufacturers of these product. I want them to know that I appreciate the fact that they manufacture a product that I enjoy consuming and that I want to continue to use this product for as long as I am on this earth and can trip a shutter. I also use the acquisition process to remind myself that I need to get out of the office regularly to make photographs.

So, you are essentially an advocate. That's fine, nothing wrong with that in my book. It just doesn't always agree with economic reasons, that's all I'm saying. In fact, it is more often than not the exact opposite. For people like you nothing else is a real consideration then.

There are others who look at it from exactly the opposite angle - for them everything is just an entry in the ledger.

For the rest of us, it is all about balance.


If it does not bother you when you pick up the phone and there is no film stock of your favorite emulsion for a month or ?, go for it. That does not work for me.

I actually don't do it over the phone, I do it over the Internet. Doing business over the phone is also on its way out, at least in my line of work.

[Michael Kadillak]

I actually don't do it over the phone, I do it over the Internet. Doing business over the phone is also on its way out, at least in my line of work.

Rarely do I find a film vendor that updates their internet inventory levels at necessary intervals let alone daily. As a result when I am making a purchase (which for me can be sizable) I do not want to have my credit card languishing in limbo for who knows how long in re-order mode. I want to speak to someone that can tell me in person what they physically have in inventory at that moment to sell to me. That way I know for sure that what I want they have and that it is on its way to me el pronto.

[Marko]

Rarely do I find a film vendor that updates their internet inventory levels at necessary intervals let alone daily. As a result when I am making a purchase (which for me can be sizable) I do not want to have my credit card languishing in limbo for who knows how long in re-order mode. I want to speak to someone that can tell me in person what they physically have in inventory at that moment to sell to me. That way I know for sure that what I want they have and that it is on its way to me el pronto.

If I kept two freezers full of film as a hedge against possible shortages, I would be using up from the bottom and replenish at the top and so definitely wouldn't feel the need to be concerned about timely deliveries.

Strange thing is, I don't keep large supplies but I'm still not concerned about timely availability of film. For me it's just a hobby that helps me relax, so I'm never in a hurry with it, and even if I do run out of film before getting new supplies in, there's always digital.

A photograph is a photograph, as long as I get to take it.

So perhaps there is an element of irrationality in all the hoarding?

[Marc B.]

In your efforts to stockpile large amounts of anything, food or film, and you find yourself short on freezer space, your local butcher/meat-locker storage houses are an option.

Some of the pricing plans for their smaller lockers can be as low as 40 to 50 dollars a year. A group of photographers could pool their money, and together stock larger amounts of film for the group.

[D. Bryant]

Rarely do I find a film vendor that updates their internet inventory levels at necessary intervals let alone daily. As a result when I am making a purchase (which for me can be sizable) I do not want to have my credit card languishing in limbo for who knows how long in re-order mode. I want to speak to someone that can tell me in person what they physically have in inventory at that moment to sell to me. That way I know for sure that what I want they have and that it is on its way to me el pronto.

I agree with Michael, I've had too many screw ups ordering consumables and hard goods online. There are exceptions to this rule, such as when I order through Amazon. When I order film through Freestyle, B&H, or Badger Grahpics I call them. I've had too many instances where what I thought was a completed order turned into a back order.

Don Bryant

[rdenney]

So, you are essentially an advocate. That's fine, nothing wrong with that in my book. It just doesn't always agree with economic reasons, that's all I'm saying.

Even when you are doing purely commercial work, dollars alone are an inadequate measure of return on investment. Nobody does photography on the basis of economics when measured only in dollars.

Perhaps your definition of advocate is one who is making an investment only in his own enjoyment. I do not find that an uneconomic description, nor do I know anyone who enjoys his or her work who is not also an advocate, even if it is sumptuously remunerative. Michael stated a reason for storing in large batches of minimizing the time spent addressing batch inconsistencies. That has economic value even in a commercial setting. For a hobbyist whose time is consumed doing things of far greater economic value, it may be worth even more.

And value is always measured as an opportunity cost. Just because you think only yuppy consumerists might buy coffee at Starbucks doesn't mean you don't have your own spending habits that others would be happy to disparage. And if money is to be wasted or invested in the enjoyment of one's hobby the latter is an easy and economically sound choice, even if both choices seem like money thrown away to someone else.

To me, mindless consumption is buying something that does not bring enjoyment commensurate with what it costs. That is what leads to people owning more and being less happy. That is poor economy indeed, but not because it is expensive.

Rick "for whom enjoyment and satisfaction are a hobby's only stock in trade" Denney

[D. Bryant]

So perhaps there is an element of irrationality in all the hoarding?

Marko using the work hoarding in this discussion is inflammatory and does nothing to advance the discussion and does a lot to imply that people who stockpile consumables are daft or irrational as you put it. IOW, you are insulting those that do stockpile and those who advocate stockpiling.

And suggesting that digital photography is somehow equivalent to film based photography comes across as inflammatory as well.

For me personally I don't hoard or stockpile but as Michael points out for some people having a guaranteed supply of a specific material is essential to their work like Michael Smith and Paula Chamblee. And there are other photographers that could be included on this list as well; for example David Plowden.

And stockpiling isn't limited to film or paper for photo related endeavors. Carbon tissue for copper plate gravure printing is yet another example.

Don Bryant

[Michael Kadillak]

If I kept two freezers full of film as a hedge against possible shortages, I would be using up from the bottom and replenish at the top and so definitely wouldn't feel the need to be concerned about timely deliveries.

Strange thing is, I don't keep large supplies but I'm still not concerned about timely availability of film. For me it's just a hobby that helps me relax, so I'm never in a hurry with it, and even if I do run out of film before getting new supplies in, there's always digital.

A photograph is a photograph, as long as I get to take it.

So perhaps there is an element of irrationality in all the hoarding?

You must be trying to bait me because I am one of the most rational people around.

When I make a film purchase am I at fault to expect an efficient and expedient transaction? This is not the norm online at ANY sheet film reseller in this country. I find it terribly frustrating to have to remember a deal that I previously attempted to complete online and be forced to take time best spent on other matters calling on the status and trying to find out when (or if) it will actually be shipped.

99% of other things I order are all done online without a problem. For some reason these vendors are far more electronically competent.

[Marko]

Even when you are doing purely commercial work, dollars alone are an inadequate measure of return on investment. Nobody does photography on the basis of economics when measured only in dollars.

Perhaps your definition of advocate is one who is making an investment only in his own enjoyment. I do not find that an uneconomic description, nor do I know anyone who enjoys his or her work who is not also an advocate, even if it is sumptuously remunerative. Michael stated a reason for storing in large batches of minimizing the time spent addressing batch inconsistencies. That has economic value even in a commercial setting. For a hobbyist whose time is consumed doing things of far greater economic value, it may be worth even more.

Hi Rick,

Actually, my definition of an advocate is someone who advances a cause. In Michael's case, he makes it clear that he works to advance the cause of using film and approaches this discussion from that angle.

This is, IMO, very different from analyzing an issue with an eye on cost of usage and ownership, which would be an economic approach.

I am not saying that either approach is better or more correct than the other, all I'm saying is that they are two very different methods that serve different angles of view (no pun intended). I am also saying that they are often mutually incompatible, at least when it comes to doing things for emotional, recreational or other noncommercial reasons.

On the other note, and speaking strictly for myself, I do enjoy what I do, both professionally and in my spare time. Photography is a big part of the latter and film photography makes a decent portion of it. And yet, I am not an advocate for any of those things, or at least I do not consider myself as such.

I just thought that introducing economic terms such as "managing market uncertainty", "hedging", "intelligent investment", "consumable", "controlling variables" and such and then following up with statement such as " have no idea how much my film in my freezer costs because I really just do not care" or "This is not about economics for me" when faced with economy-based response was not very consistent. And I still do.


And value is always measured as an opportunity cost. Just because you think only yuppy consumerists might buy coffee at Starbucks doesn't mean you don't have your own spending habits that others would be happy to disparage.

I am actually surprised that you of all the people would misread what I wrote!

I never said anything about those who buy things there, I only qualified the product as an overpriced (definitely) garbage (subjective, but a solid argument could be made) conceived by yuppies for yuppies (ok, wild assumption but rooted in popular and widely held view).

What I did was to question the reason for bringing it up in a totally unrelated discussion. I still do.

And just for the record, I too buy a cup of Joe there on an odd occasion. It doesn't change the fact that it is overpriced, unhealthy and popular.



And if money is to be wasted or invested in the enjoyment of one's hobby the latter is an easy and economically sound choice, even if both choices seem like money thrown away to someone else.

To me, mindless consumption is buying something that does not bring enjoyment commensurate with what it costs. That is what leads to people owning more and being less happy. That is poor economy indeed, but not because it is expensive.

Rick "for whom enjoyment and satisfaction are a hobby's only stock in trade" Denney

We are in complete agreement about mindless consumption.

In my view, money spent on one's hobby or other activity that brings enjoyment and increases satisfaction and quality of life is certainly money well spent, but investment it isn't.

Marko

[Marko]

Marko using the work hoarding in this discussion is inflammatory and does nothing to advance the discussion and does a lot to imply that people who stockpile consumables are daft or irrational as you put it. IOW, you are insulting those that do stockpile and those who advocate stockpiling.

And suggesting that digital photography is somehow equivalent to film based photography comes across as inflammatory as well.

For me personally I don't hoard or stockpile but as Michael points out for some people having a guaranteed supply of a specific material is essential to their work like Michael Smith and Paula Chamblee. And there are other photographers that could be included on this list as well; for example David Plowden.

And stockpiling isn't limited to film or paper for photo related endeavors. Carbon tissue for copper plate gravure printing is yet another example.

Don Bryant

It seems that we have different standards for "inflammatory". In short, and in the context of this thread:



"...hoarding is triggered as a response to perceived or predicted shortages of specific goods."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoarding




"A stockpile is a pile or storage location for bulk materials, forming part of the bulk material handling process."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockpile




And suggesting that digital photography is somehow equivalent to film based photography comes across as inflammatory as well.


I am not suggesting anything, I simply stated the fact that for me, digital is a perfectly viable method of enjoying photography. I really couldn't care less if some might find it inflammatory, this is not APUG and I would never say it there.

[rdenney]

In my view, money spent on one's hobby or other activity that brings enjoyment and increases satisfaction and quality of life is certainly money well spent, but investment it isn't.

Only if you use a narrow definition of "investment". Many measure investment only in dollars, but with hobbies (and with professions if one is to be happy doing them), one's own enjoyment must also be part of the return, and thus it must be part of the economic evaluation.

People change jobs to make less money all the time in order to alter the role they have with respect to their profession. I did so within the last year myself, and took a cut in pay (a cut now extended for two years by the president), which I consider to be an investment in my own satisfaction. Can that be measured in dollars? Not in a way that would please some, perhaps. But it has even greater value and therefore it is wholly legitimate to include it in an economic evaluation, using economic principles and terms.

All money does is provide a surrogate for value so that value can be transported through society efficiently.

By the way, your definition of an advocate would include every salesman I've ever known, and there is not a breed on this Earth more precise in using dollars to measure progress. More generally: An advocate recommends a position, and may bring economic arguments to support that recommendation (perhaps in addition to other arguments). Thus, I cannot find the distinction between the two that you draw.

Rick "advocating a broad view of economics for such silly pursuits as photography" Denney

[Marko]

You must be trying to bait me because I am one of the most rational people around.

When I make a film purchase am I at fault to expect an efficient and expedient transaction? This is not the norm online at ANY sheet film reseller in this country. I find it terribly frustrating to have to remember a deal that I previously attempted to complete online and be forced to take time best spent on other matters calling on the status and trying to find out when (or if) it will actually be shipped.

99% of other things I order are all done online without a problem. For some reason these vendors are far more electronically competent.

Michael,

No, not baiting. Just an attempt at a little humor, should've put a smiley there. :)

As for the rest, as I said in my response to Rick, I did get an impression you were being a bit cavalier in your responses but no bad feelings.

None intended on my part either.

We need to collectively lighten up a bit, I find the levels of noise and edginess have gone up a lot lately, as if all the bile from politics and economy trickled down here... People used to be much more relaxed and discussions more civilized and good natured a few years ago.

Marko

[Marko]

Only if you use a narrow definition of "investment". Many measure investment only in dollars, but with hobbies (and with professions if one is to be happy doing them), one's own enjoyment must also be part of the return, and thus it must be part of the economic evaluation.

I do tend to use definitions a bit narrowly. To me it is very simple (perhaps even simplistic): Investment is an economic term so if it earns money, it is an investment, if it loses money it is a loss and if it costs money it is an expense.

Earning money on a good investment certainly brings satisfaction, but not necessarily enjoyment. There are some expenses that do bring enjoyment, a lot of it even, and those represent money well spent I referred to.


All money does is provide a surrogate for value so that value can be transported through society efficiently.

Only if you equate price and value, but you don't strike me as one of those. :D


By the way, your definition of an advocate would include every salesman I've ever known, and there is not a breed on this Earth more precise in using dollars to measure progress. More generally: An advocate recommends a position, and may bring economic arguments to support that recommendation (perhaps in addition to other arguments). Thus, I cannot find the distinction between the two that you draw.

Rick "advocating a broad view of economics for such silly pursuits as photography" Denney

Not really. As you noted above, an advocate may bring economic arguments to support a position, while a salesman primarily argues for economic gain. Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the difference to me is huge.

[Shen45]

Just a quick note of Efke 100 - mine is expired 2009 and all the same emulsion number. I have my original BTZS test I did in 2005 with D76 1+1 and as I open a new box I will expose a sheet to a step wedge and compare to the original file. So far the results have been as follows --
The original test has a fb&f of .07 and the latest batch is .08. The results are the same for my "stash of Foma 200 as well.
All film is frozen in the freezer at about -18c The results are the same virtually with PMK with both of these films.
I have also used Shanghai 5x4 and have to say it is excellent film. Smooth and sharp.

[rdenney]

Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the difference to me is huge.

My eyesight isn't good enough to split the hairs further, so I'll leave it with you.

Rick "who knows his limitations" Denney

[Marko]

I am growing too old for that too. But I can still see value in your point. :)

Thanks for the civil discussion.

Marko

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

Your points are clear and concise, and your arguments logical and straightforward. Quite refreshing!

[tim atherton]

Ha ha haa - well that was a refreshing read. It's nice to know things haven't changed much!

Anyway - is anyone actually still looking for 8x10 Astia to hoard or stash? Rationally or irrationally?

On moving house I found I had a few 10 sheet boxes of outdated Astia in the freezer. I'll have to check the date, but I think it's about 10 years or so old.

If there is any interest I'll put it up in the for sale section.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Hey Tim, where have you been? I haven't seen you around here in ages.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah Tim, I'd love to hoard more 8x10 Astia 100F (not the older type). It serves as
the best color duplicating film ever made. I've only got one box left in the freezer.
But I also have more than a hundred sheets of official Fuji dupe film, which was simply older-style Astia tungsten balanced. It might or might not still be good; but I bought it cheap and frozen all along. I'm a lot less concerned about the film apocalypse as an energy apocalype, which we nearly had a few years back when
Enron & Friends got control of our grid out here and nearly ruined it. A freezer is no good without electricity.

[Rory_5244]

I actually liked the old Astia more than 100F.

The only film I "hoard" is film that other photographers are throwing out, usually after their compete transition to digital. I'm like waste-disposal.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, for my primary purpose, the Astia 100F was way better because it was not only finer-grained but also on polyester dimensionally-stable base, which is very
important if you're trying to maintain register for masking, duping, or color seps. Of course, I shot some of the stuff for slightly higher-constrast scenes,but my main use for it was in the lab.

[Rory_5244]

Ah, oh, okay: I didn't know that. I just thought the old Astia looked 'warmer' and 100F looked a little 'blue' by comparison. Should have tried an 81A with it but, well, never got to it. 8-)

[europanorama]

Hello
So instead of reading the last 18 pages how about someone offering a Sticky: How to store old or new film.
AND: What will happen with exposed film stored over a long period of time....?
some of the expressions i didnt understand. Frigidaire, freezer etc.
frigidaire goes down to -10° C, freezer to -25° C here, be sure your meter is calibrated.
so auto-defrost freezer would be better, rigth?
I have all kind of film also 70mm, special films also IF b+w and color(newest from kodak)
and 18 years old exposed CN 35mm and 120.
How must they developped, pushed a bit?
I only know old cn-films loose contrast, can be used for ideal constrast control in panoramas (instead of prefogging) but must be overexposed 1 stop and pushed if i dont err. We should open new thread about that.