Developed and stored film lifespan, who knows?

jan normandale

Film is the other way
Local time
2:55 AM
Joined
Aug 31, 2004
Messages
3,877
Location
on Location
There are so many types of film this could get out of hand however lets keep it reasonable. Basically there are
• colour neg films ie C41 processing
• colour transparency film ie E6 processing
• B/W C 41 process
• B/W silver based film

Properly developed and stored what is the lifespan of each of these film types? I’ve been surfing around without much luck. Any facts? Any data resources? PDF’s?
 
From Amazon:

A Guide to the Preventive Conservation of Photograph Collections (Getty Trust Publications: Getty Conservation Institute) (Paperback)
by Jean-Paul Gandolfo, Sibylle Monod, Sharon Grevet, Bertrand Lav'edrine

The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures (Hardcover)
by Henry Wilhelm, Carol Brower

Book Review on Wilhelm's book:

http://my.execpc.com/~jwolf/bookpraise.html

No numbers, but some resources:

US Library of Congress:

http://www.loc.gov/preserv/care/photolea.html

http://www.loc.gov/film/

National Film Preservation Foundation:

http://www.filmpreservation.org/

Most of this refers to motion picture film - but we're basically talking about the same stuff.

The UK version - very nice:

http://www.fiafnet.org/uk/publications/

Good info in this PN thread:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003VHl&tag=

Polaroid permanance (and comparisons, good read):

http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~cochinea/pdfs/a-wilker-04-instantfilm.pdf

You may find some specifics here, but I did not have time to read it all:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/HW_Book_18_of_20_HiRes_v1a.pdf

Parent web page here:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com

More from Wilhelm Research here:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/articles.html



Am I amazing or what? Yes, I am amazing. A real wowzer.

Interestingly - the LoC believes that film is inherently unstable and is in the process of converting everything they can to digital storage. Hmmm.

Oh, heck. Let me just go ahead and say it. BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Sorry, had to get that out of my system.

Anyway, this should keep you busy for awhile. Piqued my interest, I can tell you that. Good information out there, I may order Wilhelm's book.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
I can print my father's b&w silver negatives that are 35-40 years old, no problem. I can print my grandfather's b&w silver 6x9 negs from the 1930's no problem. That's about all the archival-ness I need. Color: not so sure.

Ben Marks
 
Benjamin Marks said:
I can print my father's b&w silver negatives that are 35-40 years old, no problem. I can print my grandfather's b&w silver 6x9 negs from the 1930's no problem. That's about all the archival-ness I need. Color: not so sure.

Ben Marks

I agree. I don't want anything I've ever produced to survive me, and I'm not sure why so many people do.

"Will my inkjet print last 100 years?"

Who cares? Your kids will throw the stuff out with the rest of the trash when they go through your stuff after you snuff it. They'll probably laugh at it first.

Some things should be preserved. But nothing I've ever made.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
It's an immortality thing. Like Ozymandias, king of kings. Look upon my kodachrome slides, ye mighty, and despair.

Nothing beside remains.

Clarence
 
clarence said:
It's an immortality thing. Like Ozymandias, king of kings. Look upon my kodachrome slides, ye mighty, and despair.

Nothing beside remains.

Clarence

"Out, out, brief inkjet! Life's but a walking zone X, a thin negative that struts and frets his hour upon the wall and then is seen no more: it is a photo taken by an idiot, full of light and shadow, signifying nothing." - William Shakespeare; Macbeth (Act V, Scene V).

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Be carefull with pre 1950ish film, it may be explosive! All the negs from my father and grandfater are now in custody of a local museum since they fall under explosive substances and I'm not allowed to have them at my home.
 
Bill yes you are amazing... don't start believing the people that tell you though. I appreciate the LoC stuff. Never thought of there.

Regarding the 'immortality thing' that means the people who shoot film are not worried about 'immortality' just the egocentric digital users are. This is corroborated by the fact LoC sez it's unstable and is converting to digital. heh..

Socke, explosive?? Crazy!

Pretty good crew here at RFF quoting Will and Shelly, no wonder I love this place.

thanks guys
 
Last edited:
I always take this stuff with a large aspirin and giant grain of salt.

Yesterday, following the advice of some here that the Epson 2400 printer was the best to get in the under $1000 range I visited their website.

Therein I was informed that using the proper archival paper, my printed images would be good for 108 years (yes, that precise) or longer!.

Interesting claim for a technlolgy that has barely reached double digits!

Now, I am reminded of my first visit some years ago to the Ontario Science Centre in T.O. where they showed how shoe leather wear time was tested. They had this contraption that "stepped" a shoe onto a surface (I forget what it was) over and over again to seek how many steps it would take for the sole and or leather uppers to wear out.

But that was a physcial test.

How do they do an "age" test on media to be able to tell me it will last 108 years? 😕
 
"Properly processed", of course, sort of upends the comparison. Color negative film, long considered the least stable of the film types mentioned, has undergone tremendous changes in the last twenty years, somewhat closing the gap between color neg and E6 transparency film (itself closing the longevity gap with Kodachrome, which remains the gold standard for color, so long as you don't project it for more than 10 seconds at a time). How many of us insist on having all our color neg film run though a dip/dunk processor at a pro lab? It makes a difference (particularly the extra wash and stabilization cycles), but since my fave lab for this stuff is in Manhattan, only the prize stuff (read: my own projects) gets The Treatment; all else gets the minilab bum's rush – closer, faster, cheaper. Will the minilab-souped negs suffer an appreciably shorter lifespan than the dip/dunk stuff? Maybe. (The woman who runs the lab at my local Rite Aid seems to pay a bit more attention to detail than several dedicated minilabs I've frequented, and a damn site more than two I could name.)

About inkjet prints: I have a bunch of 13x19" and 11x17" prints made with my first photo-quality inkjet printer (Epson SP 1200) are closing in on eight years of age and look great. Granted, this is based on dark storage, and good quality (for the time) third-party paper (Pictorico and Luminos), so this gives me some degree of confidence based on what I'm currently using (HP 8750 and HP's own Premium/Premium Plus papers, which have been duly scoped out by Wilhelm and Co., for what that's worth).

And, as for the LoC doing the mad digital conversion dance, I'd love to know what method of digital storage they're using. CD-R? DVD-R? Guess what these optical media have in common with color film? Dyes. What's that bit of fine print you get on every box of film you buy? Something about dyes changing over time, and that the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for those changes? I've had a number of disks fail on me over the last several years. Since I shoot 95% of anything on film, this simply means I have to pull film from my archives and re-scan. A true PITA, but not the cold-sweat experience I'd suffer had I been shooting digital. In hard drives I do not trust, either; in the last four months alone, I've gone through Hell attempting to retrieve data from dead or suddenly-dying HDs for at least four clients; a few of these clients' computers (drives included) weren't all that old. I had to have one client send his drive off to one of the El Serioso data-recovery services; he got his data back, but the tab would've bought me a nice, black ZI. One can buy enterprise-class, industrial-strength HDs like those used in mission-critical servers and the like, but, yes, they cost extra.

So, it comes down to how much it's all worth to you. Irrepplaceable stuff you're shooting. If you're shooting film, use the good stuff, get it souped properly (whatever it costs, or do it yourself if you can); if you're scanning, or especially if you're doing the digital-capture thing, get the best storage media you can get your mitts on (Mitsui or e-Film CD-R/DVD-R media is supposedly best, but goes for more than $1 a pop; a good compromise for me is Verbatim's DataLife Plus disks, using a more stable dye formula than that used by the usual suspects, and for only a few bucks more per 50-pack spindle). Buy that higher-duty-cycle rated HD, even if it does cost $150 more than the standard-issue model of the same capacity. Keep film and disks in dark storage. Make a second copy to store "off-site". Know your printer, ink and paper, and don't cheap-out on any one of the three. Cross your fingers.


- Barrett
 
Last edited:
Barrett, I would have trouble disagreeing with the points you've made, except one - the CD/DVD longevity canard.

I say 'canard' advisedly, because it relies on a false premise - that the CD/DVD you put a digitized image on will never again be copied - so that when the CD/DVD fails, the image is gone. This not only not often the case, but any good DR premise begins with the assumption of multiple copies, multiple sites, restoral tests, and new copies on new media at periodic intervals.

So I have to grit my teeth when someone says "Well, you know, those CD's don't last forever, and who says you'll even be able to read them with whatever the new DVD will be in twenty years?" Sure, if you make a CD/DVD copy, throw it in a box, and walk away, you could be at more risk than if you store a negative in archival plastic sleeves, file it in a dark place, and walk away. But that scenario should never happen - if it does, it reveals a disregard for simple standards of DR - in essence, the person who does this isn't serious about saving their photos.

If digital storage were such a threat - why would the world's banks be keeping your data - your money - on digital storage? With Check 21 - no more paper checks get moved, even. All electronic from the time the recipient bank gets the check and scans it.

Yes, CD/DVD storage is not a guarantee, and side-by-side with film, USING FILM STANDARDS, digital storage would lose. But a copy of a film frame is not as good as the original. A copy of a digital photo is exactly the same. And again. And again. Etc.

But I absolutely agree with the rest of your statements. And I scan my negs at the highest rate I can and then store BOTH and protect them as best I can. And in the end, I have to get on with my life. I mitigate what risk I can and then go live my life.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Amateriat, are you developing your own BW? What chemicals do you use. What do you store your negatives in? I have heard the sleeves for storing exposed film can be an issue in image deterioration.
 
Wow – this is what I call quality critical feedback. 🙂

Bill: Point well taken. What isn't widely known is that what banks, hospitals and the like (and, one would hope, the LoC) often rely on for digital storage is a highly durable storage medium which was once offered to the general computing public, but rejected as too expensive when compared with, say, Zip disks (yuck!) and, later on, CD-Rs: Magneto-Optical Disks. Probably the most reliable means of digital storage available thus far, and by far the least popular. DVD-RAM disks share MO's longevity, but have fallen out of mainstream favor for the same reasons. More's the pity, since in fact we not only can have better digital longevity, it already exists.

Jan: I am developing my own conventional b/w film (HC-110 developer so far, but I have a Diafine kit waiting to be cracked open). Film – mostly HP5, but also a smattering of Tri-X, FP4 and Acros – gets properly fixed, well-washed, gently machine-dried, then stored in glassine envelopes (one roll to a glassine – never had a problem with scratches or the like, corroborated by David Vestal). Everything else goes out to the lab. Then comes the scanning and printing nonsense.


- Barrett
 
amateriat said:
Bill: Point well taken. What isn't widely known is that what banks, hospitals and the like (and, one would hope, the LoC) often rely on for digital storage is a highly durable storage medium which was once offered to the general computing public, but rejected as too expensive when compared with, say, Zip disks (yuck!) and, later on, CD-Rs: Magneto-Optical Disks. Probably the most reliable means of digital storage available thus far, and by far the least popular. DVD-RAM disks share MO's longevity, but have fallen out of mainstream favor for the same reasons. More's the pity, since in fact we not only can have better digital longevity, it already exists.

I'm hip - I work for a very large bank based in NC, and I do SCM - DR is part of my life, my daily routine. I previously did a lot of consulting work for banks, BA, Morgan-Stanley, Deutschbank, even several of the Federal Reserve branches. I know Sungard in NJ pretty well.

When audit comes a knocking - you can't say "That data is gone, we lost it." That is like saying "I want to go to jail, please take me to jail." Sarbannes-Oxley is part of our lives, now, like it or not.

So I have to be up on DR - keep good backups - have a plan - work and test the plan - and then prove that it works, over and over again.

So it pains me a bit when I hear someone say that digital is not a safe storage method. I wonder if they think their retirement money is in a big box or vault somewhere waiting for them. If digital is safe for money, it is safe for photos. If it isn't safe for money, we have bigger problems than where to keep our photos.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
amateriat said:
"Properly processed", of course, sort of upends the comparison.
...
Will the minilab-souped negs suffer an appreciably shorter lifespan than the dip/dunk stuff? Maybe.

...
And, as for the LoC doing the mad digital conversion dance, I'd love to know what method of digital storage they're using. CD-R? DVD-R? Guess what these optical media have in common with color film? Dyes.

...
in the last four months alone, I've gone through Hell attempting to retrieve data from dead or suddenly-dying HDs for at least four clients; a few of these clients' computers (drives included) weren't all that old. I had to have one client send his drive off to one of the El Serioso data-recovery services; he got his data back, but the tab would've bought me a nice, black ZI. One can buy enterprise-class, industrial-strength HDs like those used in mission-critical servers and the like, but, yes, they cost extra.


Barret, at least the C-41 negs I had develeoped in 24 hour labs during the 80s are deter iorating very fast now. Those I left in the original plastic sleves stored in the prverbial shoebox are nearly gone and I'm scanning some at the moment, those in archival "Pergamin" paper sleves are somewhat better.

As for digital storage, at least Verbatim uses AZO dyes in their CD-Rs and DVD+-Rs, the same dye as in Kodachrome lides 🙂
Stored in a dark place with controlled humidity those should be fine for a couple decades just like the slides.
I still have one of the earliest CD-Rs as a reminder, I left it lying on the window sill for some weeks during summer 1994 and the dye was bleached where the light hit the CD.

As to storage, I do document managment systems for customers who are required by law to store documents for a very long time. The documents are stored on external disc arrays, mostly from EMC^2 with IBM catching up. Those disc arrays are usualy mirrored and seldom safed to tape, optical drives are getting out of use since disc arrays get cheaper and what is left of a price difference is made up in conveniance, i.e. file access time.

One of our customers had a HP Jukebox with 144 5GB MO media and four drives from 1996 until last year, it survived when they broke down the adjacent wall and forgot to switch it off or even covered it. The HP technician cleaned out the debris, dust is the wrong word, witch a vacuum cleaner and cleaned the media with a sponge and some water.
One of our customers used a software revisison from 1993 until last year when we converted the data from Gupta SQL Windows on Windows 3.11 and DOS 6 to MS-SQL 2000 on Windows Server 2003. I had to retrieve the database model from a 3.5" floppy written in february 1994 I found in the depth of one of my deskdrawers!
It took us two weeks to convert Autocad 9 drawings and propriatary bitmap and vector data from a GeoInformation System long gone to todays standards.

For me, digital storage is my bread and butter and I just know that it is doable but you get what you pay for. The cheapest PC with the cheapest media written in a hurry on a cheap drive is a sure way to desaster.

If you value your data, be it pictures or texts or whatever, take care in storing them and they will last a realy long time.

Hm, in Madrid was a guy taking pictures with a huge wooden view camera, he copied the neg with that camera and developed inside the camera, then fixed in a tray and washed in a 1.5 gallon bucket. The negative was neither fixed nor washed since it isn't meant to be stored and I washed the print as soon as I came into my hotel 🙂
It took him 7 minutes from the shot to the print, this won't last 100 years!
 
While most of my Time-Zero prints taken 30 years ago are just fine, I was frantic when my niece made a photo album for my Mom with many of my old pictures in it. She wanted to make them square, so SHE CUT OFF THE BOTTOM PART WHERE THE DEVELOPER BACK WAS! I always told people "That is the holder, put your finger there". Cut-off, it lets air into the layers. I took them out of the album and resealed them one-by-one. I visited a friend, who did the same thing: cut the bottom off!

Don't do that!
 
Back
Top Bottom