Expired film, storted at room temp, for bin?

[Pat Kearns]

Anette,
On John Sexton's May 2016 newsletter, John wrote an article about the film backing issues on Kodak 120 film. Below are the lot numbers of the affected rolls. You can go to John Sexton's website and read the entire article on film backing. Check your lots numbers against these listed below.


Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

[LabRat]

120 film (even different brands) does not store well over long term conditions...

Years ago I was shooting a Rolleiflex on a large scale, and a lot of Agfa APX 100 and other B/W films... Built up a large backlog of exposed films I couldn't keep up with the processing, so many ended up (50+ rolls) in a large brick of film stored at room temp, but in a cooler part of my place... I had found that developing more than two rolls at a time in a developing tank would lead to agitation issues with the middle rolls in the tank, so two at a time was best, but that was a lot of film sitting there waiting to be processed, and some sat over several years...

When the film finally got processed, I could see clearer areas on the film that had the pattern of the #'s of the backing paper on the negs... I asked a great uncle of mine who was a research chemist and industrial investigator if he had any idea what could have happened... He had an answer there and then that the inks used to print on the backing paper contained ferricyanide compounds (common in ink), but these were also a photographic desensitizer, and being in contact with the film so long caused the problem... (High storage humidity can accelerate this effect...)

Film makers figured this out over time, but Kodak (or their vendor) seems to have forgotten this issue, and it came up big time in above mentioned posts... Now most use soy based inks that don't cause this issue, but can still happen obviously...

Some advice about shooting 120 film is to shoot it fresh, and process it asap, but it is also suspect to drying funny from ends of roll, possibly causing drying issues after development... (Other roll & sheet formats don't share this issue as much due to thicker bases or narrower film sizes etc...) Excessive drying on long flights can cause issues too... Maybe not a great format for frequent world travelers when every roll counts...

Steve K

[mitrajoon]

That's impressive. I have some 10-year-old 4x5 and 8x10 colour film, reversal and negative, and you've inspired me to give it a go. How much work was involved in "fixing" your scans?

Thanks. I use ACR. Worked each shot individually. Set white balance then went through making minor adjustments. Most tweaks were what I would do normally for any photo, digital or analogue. Local adjustments where needed (sharpening, a touch of clarity, etc.,). I then brought them into Photoshop and again working individually, added a contrast curve (40-20-0) to most. I know that's an old fashioned, inefficient way to work, but I'm an old dog.

[AnetteB]

Anette,
On John Sexton's May 2016 newsletter, John wrote an article about the film backing issues on Kodak 120 film. Below are the lot numbers of the affected rolls. You can go to John Sexton's website and read the entire article on film backing. Check your lots numbers against these listed below.


Emulsion numbers that may exhibit the above problem only in Kodak 120 format roll film:
(Emulsion numbers can be found on the film box, the foil wrapper, and printed on the clear edge of processed film near frame number 11.

Kodak T-Max 400
Emulsion 0148 004 through 0152

Kodak T-Max 100
Emulsion 0961 through 0981

Kodak Tri-X
Emulsion 0871 though 0931

Hi Pat,
Thank you - very useful information indeed. Checked my films against the list. I have 2 boxes/10 films within those emulsion number series. So, I'll put those aside to not use for anything kind-of-important but for test shoots etc.

[r.e.]

Thanks. I use ACR. Worked each shot individually. Set white balance then went through making minor adjustments. Most tweaks were what I would do normally for any photo, digital or analogue. Local adjustments where needed (sharpening, a touch of clarity, etc.,). I then brought them into Photoshop and again working individually, added a contrast curve (40-20-0) to most. I know that's an old fashioned, inefficient way to work, but I'm an old dog.

Thanks. This is encouraging.

[Pat Kearns]

Anette, check with local camera stores to see if they can put you in touch with the Kodak Distributer and see it they will exchange it for new rolls. It couldn't hurt, the worst they can say is no.

[Tin Can]

I submitted a request when those rolls were still in date

KODAK did not replace my 120 rolls

They ignored

Good luck

[John Olsen]

Toss 'em. The days and creative energy you waste shooting with free film aren't worth it. One roll will be fine, the next two will be badly fogged. There are enough uncertainties with composition, metering and development without adding questionable film to the mix. The sooner you throw away expired film that hasn't been frozen, the better. I'm done wasting my creative energy on chancy materials. People give me stuff that has been laying around with mold on the box, I thank them and toss it in the first trash bin I see. Good luck anyway,
John O

[jmdavis]

I wont speak on the 120 film, but I would definitely shoot the 4x5. Last summer I found a box of Forte 200 that had expired in 2006. It had additional B+F but it was printable and the negatives looked good. If nothing else use it as practice film. In this case I shot it at 100 (which I always did anyway) and processed in Pyrocat at what my notes say is my normal speed. Technically I accidentally added a minute.

Try it.