10 year old film usability

[Jim Andrada]

Just stumbled on my unfrozen stash of 8 x 10 expired film and wondering how much degradation I should expect. Expiration dates are mostly 8 - 10 years ago. Storage was at regular room temp.

Films are TMX400,Tri-x 320, Efke PL 25 M (50 sheets), Efke PL 25 ORT.

Also found a 100 sheet box of Fujicolour Crystal Archive Glossy

Also a couple of partial boxes of mixed speeds of 8 x 10 Portra exp 2010 +/-

Yeah, I know - "Just try it. and see." but now being a power wheelchair driver wrestling with the 8 x 10 Kardan Bi might be a tad beyond my capabilities at the moment. So best guesses welcome!

Oh yeah - there are a couple of boxes of 5 x 7 Fuji Acros as well

Edit: On the other hand if you think the results would be reasonably close to normal I might be tempted to get someone help with schlepping the camera about.

[xkaes]

Would taking one sheet and cutting it down into smaller sections or strips be an option for simple testing purposes? The main issue will be how much fog is present, and can it be controlled. You don't need full sheet exposure -- or any at all -- to figure that out. The issue is how much fog is created through development. All you need are bits of film and a developer.

[Vaughn]

There is a good chance that all B&W will be good...perhaps a little bit of base fog on some of it. I've used older kept similar.

[Mark Sampson]

I've recently tested some 4x5 Tri-X that expired in 1974. Fog has driven the speed down to EI 25 or so, but it still looks good. I was very surprised.
The color, well, who knows?
Jim, I have built a darkroom since last we met. If you do expose some b/w test sheets, I will happily process and proof them for you.

[Jim Andrada]

Thanks - I should have thought of the test strips. Duhhhhhh. 10 months of looking at white ceilings in a hospital does bad things to one's mental processes - seriously. Probably should fix out one undeveloped strip and one developed strip. My guess would be that the Efke is slow enough to show little or no degradation and the faster film might be a bit worse but probably OK. Color film might be more of a crapshoot. This would be easier if I had a darkroom, but I don't.

To be honest, I'm debating using some and/or selling some, but I wouldn't want to sell something that would be below reasonable expectation. Not trying to advertise, just looking for inputs at this point.

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Mark - thanks for the kind offer. I posted before seeing your post. I might take you up on it.

[Mark J]

I recently found 20-year old HP5+ to be significantly fogged and not worth using ; it had been in a freezer for about 17 of the 20 years and in a room-temperature cupboard for 3 .

[xkaes]

I recently found 20-year old HP5+ to be significantly fogged and not worth using ; it had been in a freezer for about 17 of the 20 years and in a room-temperature cupboard for 3 .

Just a note to everyone else. Just because film is "significantly fogged" does not mean that it is useless. Not only are there ways to deal with fog, we all have our own standards. What may be unacceptable or too much work for one shutterbug might be perfectly fine for someone else's purposes.

[j.e.simmons]

I'm still shooting from a case of TMX that expired in 1995.

[tundra]

I routinely use monochrome film that is 20-30 years old. I've found that semistand processing it in Pyrocat-HD is particularly useful (if clumsy). I suspect the color film will be less well preserved.

The issue is what "room temp" means. Heat is the enemy of film over time.

[tundra]

I recently found 20-year old HP5+ to be significantly fogged and not worth using ; it had been in a freezer for about 17 of the 20 years and in a room-temperature cupboard for 3 .

Try it in D-23 1:1 or Pyrocat-HD.

[Mark J]

I developed it in PMK. How would your suggestions cure serious base fog ?

[paulbarden]

I developed it in PMK. How would your suggestions cure serious base fog ?

It won't. Faster films don't age well, and if they have severe age base fog, then there's very little you can do to "cure" it. You can experiment with adding benzotriazole, but it only fixes fogging to a degree. It won't fix a severely age-fogged film. Nothing will.

[Mark J]

Yes, I bought some new film !

[Vaughn]

I developed it in PMK. How would your suggestions cure serious base fog ?

I do not suggest staining developers for out-dated films with base fog* -- especially for alt processes requiring UV. light. The base fog gets stained and adds printing density on top of the fog -- lengths one's print exposures. The stain itself blocks UV.

*edit to add...significant base fog...which becomes a significant issue when experimenting with old films. For example, I have some 8x10 Kodak Copy Film that I use for its unique characteristics in low contrast situations. Even for its slow speed, the fog is sever enough to go with non-staining developer -- my printing times under UV are already long!

I have negatives with base fog (non-staining developer) that cleaned up nicely with a minimum bleaching. Carefully done, it can give a snap to the negative. Redevelop if one goes too far (haven't tried that with film).

[xkaes]

Even new film has fog. There's no escaping it. Just like the density of the base, you add time to the exposure. Fog in film is not the destroyer that some make it out to be.

Fog in paper emulsion is another story.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Send me the Efke 25. I know what to do with it.

[paulbarden]

Fog in film is not the destroyer that some make it out to be.

Surely you recognize the fact that after a certain point, severe age-induced fog makes a film unusable.

[tundra]

I developed it in PMK. How would your suggestions cure serious base fog ?

It may not. But fog - up to a point - mostly just reduces contrast somewhat and can be printed through and corrected with VC or digital techniques. Severely fogged films cannot be rescued.

I find that D-23 1:1 produces much cleaner negatives than Pyrocat-HD when used side-by-side as semistand developers for very old film. The cost is that the grain will be more visible with the D-23. But in both cases, the long standing, low agitation methods sees to calm the visible fog down somewhat.

PMK is a very active developer with a high aerial oxidation rate. It cannot be highly diluted and left to stand for an hour. Or, at least, I don't think it can, I've never tried it.

[tundra]

Surely you recognize the fact that after a certain point, severe age-induced fog makes a film unusable.

Of course, "at a certain point". But, within reason, all fog does is reduce contrast and require somewhat more exposure under and enlarger. Here are a couple shots of SuperXX that went out of date in 1961 - over 60 years ago - seminstand processed in D-23 and Pyrocat respectively. They look just fine to me (note that SuperXX was a fairly grainy film so the grain has nothing to do with the age):

https://ozzie.tundraware.com/SuperXX/

[xkaes]

Surely you recognize the fact that after a certain point, severe age-induced fog makes a film unusable.

I really hope you don't lose any sleep over ever encountering this improbability.

[Vaughn]

...
I find that D-23 1:1 produces much cleaner negatives than Pyrocat-HD when used side-by-side as semistand developers for very old film. The cost is that the grain will be more visible with the D-23. But in both cases, the long standing, low agitation methods sees to calm the visible fog down somewhat.
...

One can bleach a negative developed in a non-staining developer, then redevelop it in a staining developer if so desired, I suppose...

[Michael R]

I think the idea long development times with low agitation reduce fog would require objective testing/measurement as it would be surprising - it should have the opposite effect.

In any case, while there is not a whole lot one can do to reduce age-related fog, developers known to produce relatively low chemical fog are probably the best choice under these circumstances. Probably best would be Ilford PQ Universal but HC-110 and Rodinal are also good performers in this respect.

[Jim Andrada]

Send me the Efke 25. I know what to do with it.

I do too - just a small issue of not being quite physically up to the task these days. Some of my favorite 5 x 7 negs are on Efke 25.

[Rod Klukas]

Some notes to you. You should never freeze film unless you have an old 1950s freezer. The freezers with frost-free freezers since 1970s do a flash defrost/freeze agin cycle to eliminate the buildup of frost ice inside.
This is what causes freezer burn on meat, for instance.

Refrigeration will be sufficient for B&W film for many years.

Oh and Polaroid, is best kept about 50-60degrees F, as lower will dry out the chemistry and it is somewhat good to about 75 degrees. But eventually will dry out anyway. Freezing yields a very short life.

Freezing Fuji Velvia and the like, from them is also a killer. Fuji transparency films began to get a rusty, reddish veil, after about 6moths past date. The Kodak transparency films were much more stable.

Just some info.

Rod

[Rod Klukas]

I once salvaged some B&W infrared film for the local medical examiner here, July in Arizona, even though he carried it to me in his chest pocket. It was to get images in situ of evidence from a fire.

I added Bezotriazole, you can use Anti-fog #1, as well, to the developer and it cleaned it up a great deal. Not perfect but printable and useable.

These old films can perhaps be salvaged if that is all you have, By adding some these antifog chemistry to clear the fog a great deal.

Hope this is helpful.

Rod

[Tin Can]

Thank you Rod!