Film Longevity

Hi, I was hoping to get some input on the films with the longest lifespan. After re-entering film photography, I focused on the cheapest film (Kodacolor/Colorplus 200), and inexpensive processing. I have since decided that I want my negatives to last. I researched the longest lasting color films, namely Kodachrome, the Fujichromes, Ektachromes, and Agfachromes for dye stability. This is interesting for color dye stability, but another issue is vinegaring. This seems to happen to all acetate-based films. Agfa RSX 200 is the only still film I know of that uses polyester, an indestructible base it would seem.

 

Is there a difference between acetate and triacetate ? I have found that nearly all of the still films today are triacetate, with Kodak Ektar being an acetate, and Agfachrome being polyester.

 

I would like to know your thoughts, because I have a lot of Kodachromes from the 1960s that have held up, so whatever that base is seems very good. I don't know much about C-41 longevity, but I would like to know if you've had any experience with a very stable C-41 film or how to prevent vinegaring.

 

Thank you in advance.

Have you read The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs?

Have you read The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs?

 

I have read that book, and it is very helpful. I was just wondering if anyone had any of their own input on the subject.

Ektachrome in whichever incarnation was never archivally stable. Kodachrome, yes, but it depended a lot on the quality of the storage of images, namely keeping the slides in archival quality sleeves, in dark storage.

 

My own Kodachrome slides date back 60 years across two generations of family, along with my own from the 1970s to early 1990s (before I switched to Fujichrome). All of these are stored in archival sleeves in ring binders in their own cupboards. I have never had a slide projector, instead, I am one of these who have constantly printed from slides through the traditional Ilfochrome Class (years ago) to now hybrid RA-4 process.

I think that Wilhelm's book, as referenced, is about as good a general source as you're likely to find despite it being nearly 25 years old. Obviously it doesn't list any modern films, but it does have a fair amount on the "vinegar syndrome." The general rules to avoid it seem to be: don't let either temperature or humidity get very high, and don't keep the film sealed up (in taped metal cans, etc. See at least the beginning of chapter 9.

 

The only personal knowledge I have of a film's actual dye stability was with Kodak's VPS III, the predecessor to Portra 160. I observed density changes @20 and 25 years closely matching Kodak's published predictions based off Arrhenius tests. So I feel comfortable with the test method, at least for film.

 

If I had to pick a film with longest potential life span, it would be b&w. In color neg, probably either a Kodak or Fuji pro film. But I don't have evidence that these are best, I'm just presuming that they are using the most stable dyes in these films. There might be data published by Aardenburg; I don't know exactly what they study.

There is a large number of sources beyond the book available at

 

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

 

Probably a good idea to download any that interest you and save as pdfs

 

For another kind of Wilhelm action (a stock sound effect) here is

http://www.bigsoundbank.com/sound-0477-wilhelm-scream.html

There is a large number of sources beyond the book available at http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

 

Hi, certainly a terrific amount of great info for those who are concerned with print longevity (I have been for many years). But unfortunately I don't think there is hardly any testing on film, at least past the book.

If you look at page 203 of this Wilhelm publication, you will find that the best image stability of any color film is achieved by recent versions of Ektachrome. with a predicted life of 220 years, it is better than Kodachrome (at 185). Now that Ektachrome 100 is available again, I plan to archive some of my favorite digital images on Ektachrome slides.

If you look at page 203 of this Wilhelm publication, you will find that the best image stability of any color film is achieved by recent versions of Ektachrome. with a predicted life of 220 years, it is better than Kodachrome (at 185). Now that Ektachrome 100 is available again, I plan to archive some of my favorite digital images on Ektachrome slides.

 

 

Chasing windmills.

Ektachrome 100 is not available and faces an uphill battle to actually bring it to fruition, even if you consider the spin from Kodak's PR machine.

And you are assuming, rather wildly, that it will be the Ektachrome of the past. It will not be. None of the engineering or chemical input exists at Kodak to recreate the original Ektachrome emulsions (same with Kodachrome); everything must be reconstructed from the ground up. Kodak does not have this capacity at this time or in the near future so it is very much a "wait and see" game.

 

Do not compare archival stability of Kodachrome vs Ektachrome because both films are entirely different emulsions in terms of technology. Especially Kodachrome.

And after Wilhelm's spectacular fall from grace a few years ago with his oddball flawed methodology of comparing RA4 and Ilfochrome Classic archival stability, no wonder people turned away in droves.

Mr. Street is correct that I should have used the future tense: "Now that Ektachrome 100 will be available..."

 

I disagree with his contention that Kodak no longer has the capability to produce Ektachrome 100 is it was in 2012. I used to work in film manufacturing. I know some of the people who are still there. The process equipment is still there. It is possible that one or two if the raw chemicals will come from a new supplier, but they can handle that.

 

As for Kodachrome, there is almost no chance that it will return. It wouldn't be too hard to produce the film again, but re-establishing the processing again would be a huge task.

. And you are assuming, rather wildly, that it will be the Ektachrome of the past. It will not be. None of the engineering or chemical input exists at Kodak to recreate the original Ektachrome emulsions (same with Kodachrome) ...

 

Silent Street, before you get in to this much deeper, you might look at this thread (especially Rowland Mowrey's post) to learn something about Ron Andrews, the fellow you are trying to educate. -

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/kodachrome-again.428135/#post-4413230

 

<br><br>In the older version of photo.net, it was possible to click on someone's name to see a bio, if they had one posted. Or you could see a complete list of their posts, scrolling through a list of thousands of them in just a few seconds. Without those old tools, and with the loss of the old names, it's much harder to appreciate the knowledge level of the people you are addressing.

<br><br>

Update: whoops, I see that Ron has already weighed in while I was pecking this out.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Bill C

Silent Street, before you get in to this much deeper, you might look at this thread (especially Rowland Mowrey's post) to learn something about Ron Andrews, the fellow you are trying to educate. -

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/kodachrome-again.428135/#post-4413230

 

<br><br>In the older version of photo.net, it was possible to click on someone's name to see a bio, if they had one posted. Or you could see a complete list of their posts, scrolling through a list of thousands of them in just a few seconds. Without those old tools, and with the loss of the old names, it's much harder to appreciate the knowledge level of the people you are addressing.

<br><br>

Update: whoops, I see that Ron has already weighed in while I was pecking this out.

 

 

I am well familiar with Rowland through his inclusive and very detailed responses on apug.org where similarly nauseating threads spring up like rabbits about Kodachrome. Kodachrome isn't coming back. Ever. But don't let that discourage the beans out there from getting hyperexcited over ... nothing at all. I would recommend that legions of hyperactive keyboard jockeys carrying on about Kodachrome to get cracking and use existing films and become engaged with photography skills. From what I have seen, it's all talk, talk, talk and ... frankly, absolutely piss-poor, very ordinary, unremarkable photographic efforts.

 

But really, it is not enough to "used to work in film manufacturing". It is the here and now and future that is very, very different, especially at Kodak.

Randrews needs to read up on the problems Kodak faces with Ektachrome (apug.org), much less the fantasy vision of Kodachrome. RM sets out everything in clear and concise detail about Kodak, a subject that has really, really, really tested his patience.

 

• What is going on with all this html formatting I have to pick out like ticks??

Silent Street, this thread is not about Kodachrome. I apologize that I misled you with my link, but my intended point was that the person you were "educating," is substantially experienced in the manufacturing of Kodak color films.

<br><br>

What this thread is about: the OP said, "I decided that I want my negatives to last." and is asking about any experience with "a very stable C-41 film." My only useful contribution to this point is that I have personally observed a particular film's aging (in a dark file under typical US office conditions) and compared it to Kodak's published predictions (per Arrhenius tests) from roughly 25 years earlier, AND THE ACTUAL ROOM TEMP-STORED FILM FOLLOWED THE ACCELERATED TEST PREDICTIONS VERY CLOSELY. I had first-hand knowledge of the exact processing conditions and original density values of the film, so I was able to test out the predictions at about 15, 20, and 25 years.

<br><br>

Anyway, this gives me some confidence in the Arrhenius test method for dark storage of film. So if anyone here can FIND such info on a current film, it's likely a good predictor for how the film will behave in long-term storage. Provided that humidity is kept under control and no polluting gases come into the system.

Yes, I think we are lucky to get more Ektachrome, and that Kodachrome isn't coming back.

 

I suspect that the KodakAlaris statements are more like the usual "not confirm or deny" of government officials. With 0 labs to process it, it doesn't make much sense. As long as Fuji still produces E6 films, there will be E6 labs around.

There are two problems for old film. Thermal is one, and cosmic rays the other. Thermal should be Arrhenius, so cold enough should last close enough to forever. Higher speed films are much more sensitive to cosmic rays. A rule that I learned many years ago, is that the keeping properties of color film, not counting color shifts, are pretty much like those of a black and white film of four times the ASA value. (Yes, that long ago.) That makes some sense, as with the filters and such, each layer gets about one fourth the light. Slower speed black and white films last close to forever. (Long enough that they probably weren't made as well back then.)