Expired film
- Thread starter Teo
- Start date
frederickykfoo
Senior Member
Seems there is a liking to use expired film nowadays as compared with the film days before digital days. :think:
Why is it so ? :dunno:
Why is it so ? :dunno:
depends a lot how the film was stored. I had some B7W film that was expired for 15 years, but as kept in a fridge, and it turned out fine, a bit less contrast than it should have, but totally useful for scanning. On other occasions I had to increase development time by up to 30 % to get some usefull contrast. If you have more than one film, do some tests before. One bigger problem with really old film is, that certain areas can be exposed by pressure, means it looks light the film was exposed, but this happened not due to light, but due too mechanical pressure. There is a interesting Kodak research paper on this , but cant find it at the moment , as I am in the middle of moving house . I had this more often with 120 roll film that was more than 10 years expired.
Inreply to frederickylfoo
its quite logical actually.
During the film days, film was the main medium for photography. And since "pro" photographers always chase for "the perfect photo" (i.e. w/o distortions/flaws), they naturally will not want to use expired films since expired films introduces an "uncertainty" factor/imperfections. Its the same reason why "pro" digital photographers now-a-days do post processing in PP/lightroom, go after the best lenses and use lens hood/filters etc...
Lets not forget the high development costs of film in those days.
Now that digital is "the way to a flawless photo". People want something different.
With the introduction of lomography (and lower development costs), people have the purchasing power to begin embracing that "uncertainty" factor and imperfections in expired films. Again, something different from those common-boring-"flawless" photos.
"The ying and yang of photography." Quote from some1 in CS or lomo forums.
its quite logical actually.
During the film days, film was the main medium for photography. And since "pro" photographers always chase for "the perfect photo" (i.e. w/o distortions/flaws), they naturally will not want to use expired films since expired films introduces an "uncertainty" factor/imperfections. Its the same reason why "pro" digital photographers now-a-days do post processing in PP/lightroom, go after the best lenses and use lens hood/filters etc...
Lets not forget the high development costs of film in those days.
Now that digital is "the way to a flawless photo". People want something different.
With the introduction of lomography (and lower development costs), people have the purchasing power to begin embracing that "uncertainty" factor and imperfections in expired films. Again, something different from those common-boring-"flawless" photos.
"The ying and yang of photography." Quote from some1 in CS or lomo forums.
Last edited:
let me give you my take:
expired B&W film risk the chance of losing speed.
losing speed means if the film was rated at 400 previously,
it may be down rated to iso 200 or even iso 100. if you shoot
at iso 400, you may find the film lacking of shadow details.
fog is the other problem, it is like a gray cast on certain
portions of the film.
raytoei
expired B&W film risk the chance of losing speed.
losing speed means if the film was rated at 400 previously,
it may be down rated to iso 200 or even iso 100. if you shoot
at iso 400, you may find the film lacking of shadow details.
fog is the other problem, it is like a gray cast on certain
portions of the film.
raytoei
My current batch of bulk Tri-X 400 was bought from someone who told me it was cold stored but the cans were rusted out of the box. And as expected the resulting pics were grainy and lost speed. After trial and error, I have since rated it at ISO 100 and processing is a low dilution HC in order to suppress grains and overcome the fogged base.
I guess there are ways to overcome effects of expired film but it takes trial and error to understand how bad the deterioration is. I would just take this as a painful and expensive lesson.
Btw anyone who wanna shoot Tri-X 100 film please PM me and see if we can work something out! =D
I guess there are ways to overcome effects of expired film but it takes trial and error to understand how bad the deterioration is. I would just take this as a painful and expensive lesson.
Btw anyone who wanna shoot Tri-X 100 film please PM me and see if we can work something out! =D
losheng
New Member
As many has pointed out, you face a great deal of uncertainty about the quality of expired films, especially if they were not kept under your personal care. Some expired films are so badly fogged that you can hardly extract any useful images from them. All those rolls meant wonderful memories lost forever, despite the fact that an attempt was made to capture them on films.
To put things in perspective, the most expensive part about film photography is not the cost of the films and processing - its your time, and the photo opportunity. There are many shots that you simply won't have the opportunity to shoot them again. If it was something inconsequential, why waste film on it (isn't digital photography invented for this
)? If it is something memorable, why risk it?
To put things in perspective, the most expensive part about film photography is not the cost of the films and processing - its your time, and the photo opportunity. There are many shots that you simply won't have the opportunity to shoot them again. If it was something inconsequential, why waste film on it (isn't digital photography invented for this
)? If it is something memorable, why risk it?
Last edited:
Similar threads
