30 year old Ektachrome 64

<p>I was scrounging through some old film that I've kept frozen for the past 20 years, much of which expired in 1983, but the guy I bought it from claimed that he'd kept it refrigerated or frozen for the 10 or so years he'd had it. I've been slowly working my way through the stash and then today I ran across this roll of daylight-balanced Ektachrome 64 that I didn't know was in there. So I'm gonna go ahead and shoot it.</p>

<p>Most of the frozen film is ISO 125 Plus X Pan, also dated to 1983. I've shot and developed about a dozen rolls of it over the past couple of years, and what I've found is that if I increase the developing time by about a minute (using D-76), I get respectably dense negatives. I'm thinking that if I decreased the ISO value somewhat, this might also help -- say to ISO 80 or so. Oh, and I'm getting no base fog to speak of, which I attribute to a couple of factors: its rather slow ISO and the fact that it's remained frozen for all these years.</p>

<p>But the Ektachrome is a different animal, hence my post here. I really don't know what to expect, or if I should make any adjustments to the ISO, or give the developer any instructions regarding its development. I'm hoping that, since it is a slow ISO 64 that base fog will be minimal to non-existent. But anyway, I could use the advice on what to expect, and it will be much appreciated. This is the only really old roll of slide film I have left, so I won't be having to do this again.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If it had been frozen since it was fresh, then you should shoot it at ISO 64. If it has been refrigerated (not frozen) for only 10 of the 30 years since it expired, Then it is likely not worth the effort. Since you don't know how it was stored, the safest approach would be to shoot at ISO 64 and then take it to a pro lab where they can do a clip test for you (or process it yourself). </p>

<p>I would rather buy fresh film and pay for standard developing. </p>

<p>Try one roll and see, but unless it was frozen nearly all of its life, it's likely not going to be great. Even if it has been frozen, there may be some base fog and some colour shifts.</p>

<p>There are also degrees of "frozen"... frozen at -3 C is not as good as freezing at -17 C, e.g.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys. Yeah, Jim, I've wondered about the depth of the freeze myself. In my case, the film has sat in the bottom of a horizontal chest-style freezer, largely forgotten for probably a good 15 to 18 of the 20 years I've owned it. But without sticking a thermometer down into that unit, I couldn't tell you how cold it gets.</p>

<p>Ron, I'd rather buy fresh film, too. But this is the only roll I have like this, and it's more a case of waste-not-want-not, which I hope won't turn into a case of "penny wise and pound foolish." :-) Anymore these days, I take my slide film to the only pro lab left in Houston that still does E6. Costs me about 10 bucks for a roll of 36, which I guess isn't too bad nowadays. Plus they do an excellent job and have same-day turn around (in by 11am, out by 3pm).</p>

<p>Well, I've loaded it up in my brand-new-to-me Canon T90, which arrived only yesterday, so this is gonna be a trial run in more ways than one.</p>

 

<p>As a general rule-of-thumb, film as it ages gains speed. This is true because the silver salts (light sensitive goodies) need exposure to light to be rendered developable. As film ages, even in cold storage, chemical changes take place that fog the film. We are taking about chemical changes that dives the silver salts over the threshold making them developable.</p>

<p>Film is sensitive to light and to heat and to pressure and to exposure by ionizing radiation. Always a factor is bombardment from space of X-ray and gamma ray. While these are low dose exposures however film accumulates these hits. Thus, old film is driven closer to the development threshold over time. Not that the film will be not be good, it just won't be optimum. Exposed films have been recovered from failed exploits. Exposed and frozen for years in the arctic clime, they developed up and yielded decent images.</p>

<p>My question would be, why waste your time. See if they have value to some museum like George Eastman House in Rochester, NY. If true donate them. In a few years, films will be on display next to the Civil War medical instruments. </p>

<p>I suggest shooting it and cross-processing it. It's likely you will get unusual colors and contrast, so why not go for it deliberately? Either that, or with the probability of a color shift, use it for sunrise/sunset shots, where exact colors are not so important, and more subjective.</p>

<p>Re: ancient frozen E64..... why not? Since it is a reversal film, your base fog will manifest itself as reduced maximum density, so your contrast and shadow densities may be reduced somewhat. The bigger and more objectionable problem might be if the different color records have responded differently to this extended storage, causing changing color balance throughout the tone scale (crossed curves). Still, as long as you you don't use this roll for irreplaceable opportunities/events, then all you risk losing is a little time and money for the fun and curiosity of trying. And isn't that the point of a hobby?</p>

<p>15-18 years in a chest freezer is about ideal. Chest freezers are usually at -10 to -18 C.</p>

<p>Thanks again, guys. Les, it looks like -2 EV is about right for that old Ektar of yours. Reminds me, I have a couple of rolls of Ektar in my stash of frozen film. I think they're ISO 200, though.</p>

<p>I bought a metal slide storage box that was full of slides at a flea market probably 15 years ago. Some of the slides were infrared Ektachrome, and I've always liked the colors it rendered. So if this Ek 64 has seriously shifted colors, I really don't care. That'll just make the results more interesting. If they've just shifted, I can correct that easily enough in post processing after I've duped them.</p>

<p>I've been busy, so my T90 is still sitting there, frame 1 unexposed. Maybe later today. Sunsets are a good idea, whether sunsets themselves or the way they illuminate things or people.</p>

<p>I like the -2, also. But isn't that relative to 32, so closer to the 125 that it is supposed to be?</p>

<p>Kodak Ektar is a color negative film. Negative films are popular because of their generous exposure latitude. Negative color films have greater tolerance to overexposure than to under-exposure. On the other hand, color slide material such as Kodak Ektachrome have little latitude in either direction. Proceed with caution, I stand by my previous post that warns that aged film gains speed.</p>

<p>I've used some E64 in 126 format that expired in the early 80s, but had been stored frozen the whole time. It turned out with a slight magenta shift, but it was properly exposed at ASA 64. Anything less would have been overexposure. If I were you, I'd bracket 0 and +1.</p>

<p>Alan: I am not sure I follow you. Aged film loses speed. I have 30 yr old Panatomic-X that I have to shoot at ISO 12. At 32, it is very underexposed.</p>

 

<p>A tip of the hat to Mark O'Brien from Alan Marcus</p>

<p>While your experience is, age induces a loss in film speed, this possible but not generally the facts.</p>

<p>Imagine a fresh film needs 1000 photon hits to render the typical imbedded silver salt crystal developable. During the camera exposure, exposing photons stream through the lens/shutter and play on the film. The number of photon hits is proportional to scene brightness. Some areas of the film will receive far more, some less. A correctly exposed film, properly developed yields an optimum negative or positive.</p>

<p>As film ages, the light sensitive silver crystals undergo a slow but steady change. In time, most will become developable even if they are never hit by a photon. If you develop aged film you will likely find that it has a high fog level and film super advance in age is likely completely fogged.</p>

<p>Now recall the imaginary film above needs and average 1000 photon hits. As it ages, internal chemical instability and outside sources such as hits by radiation such as X-ray or gamma rays (from the sun expose through the packaging) move the crystals closer to their development threshold. Thus, an aged film likely only needs 600 photon hits to render it developable. This aged film if placed in camera should be handled as if it has an elevated ISO.</p>

<p>What we are talking about is called the "hypersenitization effect". This is an increase in ISO. Usually we induce hyper-sensitize by some treatment during manufacture. Sometimes we flash film. This is a calculated short exposure to light. The idea is to close the gap by adding photon hits to bring the film closer to its development threshold. Many high speed films are actually slower films that have been flashed during manufacture. Sometimes hypersentation is a chemical treatment, exposing the film to some fogging agent like ammonia, or a bath is an organic acid or exposed to mercury vapor. Astro photogrpahes commonly bake film at elevated temperatures in a chamber filled with a mix of hydrogen and nitrogen gas to hypersensitize. The temperatures and gas ratio is a trade secret. Astro photographers often use a camera with a special holder that keeps the film super cold during the exposure. Cold-pack cameras don't hypersanitize, they keep the ISO up during long exposures.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that Panatomic-X is a negative film with considerable exposure latitude. My guess is fresh Panatomic-X ISO 32 will look just fine exposed at 12 ISO. Maybe your freeing of this film just suspended its ageing? I stand by my comment, old usable film undergoes a speed increase. </p>

<p>More gobbledygook! </p>

 

<p>If I may add my own personal experience in this regard into the mix...<br>

I recently also came across a roll of Ektachrome 64 from 1986. The box was falling apart but the canister was still perfectly sealed and I was told it was stored in cold but they weren't sure of its actual functionality.<br>

So, I decided to test it in B/W chemicals since the first step of E-6 is B/W and I figured it would give me some form of idea of what condition it was in.<br>

I started with a small roll of about 15 or so shots going from ISO 640 at exact exposure and going lower on the ISO and longer on the exposure by a stop for 3 stops, then I started leaping from 10 second, 20, 30, 40, 50 second exposures etc until I had completed the roll. <br>

I figured this would tell me exactly how badly it had changed over time since everything I read told me this film would age around 1 stop in exposure per 10 years. I figured worst case if it somehow went the other way I'd' see how over exposed it was and know next roll to go the other way.<br>

That entire roll was jet black and even with a 300lumen flashlight behind it I could not see but the faintest of images after developing in Diafine. So the next roll I ran through the same exposure test, and went through the Diafine 3 times with it, I could barely see an image on the longest exposures at this point but the scanner would not pick anything up.<br>

Next roll, same exposures, run through DD-X for 10 minutes. Nothing. Next roll, DD-X, 20 minutes, nothing but super dense barely visible images with the same high lumen flashlight.<br>

I got a C-41 kit and did some cross processing of some Fuji film in it and it came out great, so I thought I'd run it through that as well. First time through came out blank pink film. Second run was super dense and useless as the others before this.<br>

I hope yours fairs better. It was a real letdown to get such a lovely roll of film like this and find out it was bad. But considering how much expired film I've purchased before I can't complain too much.</p>

<p>The only thing I've not done yet is E-6 processing, or push it as many stops as I possibly can.<br>

I also haven't done a 1-10 minute exposure film roll either. I've pretty much given up on the film.<br>

If any of you have access to a proper lab and want to try it, I'll be happy to send you some of it. Maybe you can get it to work and it will get the camera love it deserves.</p>