13 year expired film

L

lubitel

Well-known
Local time
6:52 AM
Joined
Jul 4, 2005
Messages
1,268
I got 2 rolls of Agfapan APX25 film which expired in 1993!

and its iso 25! :D

what does this mean? Do I have to develop it twice as long or even longer ? has it become less sensitive and has to be used at iso 12? can I use this film at all?

thanks all!
 
Lub
The fog level will be higher so the effective speed (above fog level will be lower) i.e. x exposure by 2 or use one stop more exposure etc. The development should be kept as per normal.
Everything should be ok, except you will be spoilt by the lack of grain.
Noel
 
I shot some old kodak c41 iso25 a couple of months ago that expired in 1991, I was surprised at how well the prints came out!!!!
 
Actually, an ISO 25 film should still be close to normal speed (whatever normal is for you, of course) after only 13 years. That's not that long. Tri-X, for instance, has a rule of thumb of 1 stop every decade. but that's a film that is 4 stops faster...

allan
 
Ditto what the other people says. The lower the iso, the better it will keep from fogging. I have Plus-X in my IIIf, which expired in 1983 (a bulk load roll, frozen since then) and it works well with a little overexposure (using iso 80 and 100 and printing through the small amount of fog showing). So use it as normal, if it hasn't been stored badly. And prepare for high contrast and almost no grain!
 
Allan and Jerevan: I think you should explain why that's so.

Fogging is due to "exposure" to cosmic rays. The higher the sensitivity, the "faster" the fogging, in a nutshell. You may have a better, more eloquent explanation.
 
Gabriel,
Nope, that about covers it :). Faster film is more sensitive to visible light and cosmic rays (which can't be stopped by anything less than like 20' of lead). So Tri-X, which is 400 speed, will increase fog by about 1 stop per decade. so you need to add 1 stop of exposure to get the same image density as if it were fresh. With a slower film, you don't have to worry as much. You should be fine, though if they are important shots do a test roll first.

okay. off to vacation! :)

allan
 
APX 25 in Rodinal

APX 25 in Rodinal

Rodinal has been cited as a very low fogging developer. Agfa film. Agfa developer. A perfect union. That's how I plan to develop my 7 rolls of APX 25 when I find a suitable use for it. Agfa lists time/temp/dilution information for APX 25 @ ASA 20. That might be the best solution.
 

Attachments

  • Rodinal.pdf
    26.5 KB · Views: 0
I recently bought a 50' bulk roll of APX25 that expired in 1987. Guess what? It's fine. It's not only fine it's perfect!

I also got a hold of some 1998 APX25 in 120 and the same, just fine. No adjustments in exposure or development times.

Last week I won an auction of a 100' bulk roll of EASTMAN PLUS-X Negative Film 5231. It's an 80 speed B&W movie stock version of Plus-X. Expired in March 1975! I bought it on a whim for only $3.25 from a guy who even said it had been in the back of a closet for the last 15 years. Shot a few rolls this weekend. It seems fine to me! See here for one example from this 31 year-old expired film:

http://contaxg.com/document.php?id=27301&full=1

I've bought many, many expired bulk rolls and individual rolls of B&W film from Plus-X, APX25, Tri-X, Neopan 400, Delta 100, HP5+ and FP4+ and have never had any problems with any of it. Of course I load the bulk film and spool, shoot and develop a single short roll before using any seriously to be safe and sure it's ok, but so far no problems and no fog that I can detect on any of it.

BTW, you ask if you should shoot the APX25 at 12. Many people always felt that 12 was APX25's true speed even when fresh so take that for what it's worth.

APX25 is very nice in Rodinal but I find HC-110 dil H to be a winner for it as well.
 
There's only one question to be answered: has it ever been kept in a glovebox compartment of a car that's been sitting in the sun?

One day under such conditions ages film faster than a year on the shelf at 20 centigrade..
 
I have some old Kodak film (RX60 from memory) that expired in 1978 (really!). It has not been kept in ideal conditions, but still produces a reasonable result if exposed at 50asa and given around 8 to 9 mins in T-Max dev.

This is so old that Kodak don't have any record of having made it. I got 5 x 100ft rolls from the commercial darkroom at work when it closed down 10+ years ago. I only use it for foolong around now, but it goes to show that b&w materials can last an awful long time!
 
Does Kodachrome age like black and white film? There's nothing in kodachrome to fade, right?- all the color stuff is added in the development, isn't it?
Is it just fogging to worry about? I've never been able to tell slightly expired Kodachrome from fresh, but my poor exposure/composition/focus/subject/lighting always swamp any ill effects that may show from film shortcomings.
 
A high ISO film (such as say, a 400 or 1600 iso one) will have bigger grains of silver to be that sensitive, while a lower iso film will have progressively smaller grain clumps of silver (and thus it is comparatively less sensitive to light). Grain is always there, even if you'd need a big magnification to see it sometimes.

A T-grain film (like Ilfords Delta and Kodaks Tmax) has its silver clumps spread in a more uniform way, and while the silver amounts are the same, the look of it is different.

Hope that helps a bit. :)

I'm not sure about the T400CN, but it is a different type of film, processed in C41 (colour process) and it may be that such a film, expired even by just a few years may have a slight fogging or something. In the cases where I've seen grain in colour process film, it has been because my exposures have been off and/or the lab may have overdeveloped it.
 
Last edited:
Jerevan said:
And prepare for high contrast and almost no grain!
Click to expand...

While some films lends themselves to be more prone to higher contrast than others no film in particular HAS to be high in contrast all the time just because of what film it is. Contrast is much more a factor of exposure and development regime---APX25 included. You can get very strong contrast if you want by over-exposing it, in bright conditions, and then develop at normal times, or over-develop it as well.

But again, if you do not want high contrast in the negs you just pull back a little on your exposure, (i.e. APX25 at 12) but then also pull back on the development time by 20% at least. You'll often get thinner negs but much better control of contrast, in particular this is better if you are scanning.

I do this with almost all my B&W films if I'm going to be shooting in mid-day and in the sun with high contrast subject matter. For example, I'll shoot Tri-X at 200 but then pull development back 20-25% in such conditions. It really saves the highlights from burning out too quickly and still gives good details in the shadows----result: controlled contrast.

People are too quick, IMO, to outright characterize certain films as a "contrasty" film, such as APX25 or Neopan 1600 for example, as if we need to watch out for it, or only use it if you want high contrast, and I think this confuses less experienced people looking to learn, and also perpetuates myths about certain films.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rich815 said:
People are too quick, IMO, to outright characterize certain films as a "contrasty" film, such as APX25 or Neopan 1600 for example, as if we need to watch out for it, or only use it if you want high contrast, and I think this confuses less experienced people looking to learn, and also perpetuates myths about certain films.
Click to expand...

For myself, I am in this case speaking from my own experience with APX 25, but that's just what it is: my opinion. A lot of things surrounding film and development of film, is either perpetuated myths ("silver rich films" come to mind) or sloppy wording, such as in my own case - I should have written it was an opinion and nothing else.

As you say, there is very few things in a certain film type that cannot be changed. Tonality, contrast, grain, perceived sharpness - all are possible to change with quite a few variables, such as for example exposure or development.

It's the hard thing with all this - there's a lot of room for interpretation in how we look at the film we're using.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom