Fuji Superia 100 acting oddly

I was recently given 18 expired rolls of Fuji Superia 100. It expired somewhere around 2001 but was continually frozen over that time. I tested a roll by shooting exposures and ranging the exposure comp from +2 to -2 in hopes of receiving a sure idea on how to expose it. Now I've always understood that film expired long enough usually needs to be overexposed, yet these pictures seemed to improve the more they were underexposed. Is this even possible or am I doing something wrong? My local shop did the processing for me (as always) and I scanned these with a Plustek 8200i. The overexposed shots sometimes has a yellowish color cast to them. Below are an example of a test scene from the roll. The overexposed shots are first. Thank you for any assistance that can be given.

 

 

 

 

 

So, I was tired when writing the original post and want to provide more info and background surrounding the problem. I was using a Nikon FE with a Nikkor-S 50mm f1.4 Auto lens. I was shooting at Superia 100's suggested ISO (100). I was locating various compositions and exposing them with +2, +1, 0, -1, and -2 exposure compensation. I have read many places that expired film (especially 17 year-old film) needs some overexposure to compensate for the age, but the underexposure appears to have come out much better (though -2 colors look a bit murky). Is this outcome expected for old Superia or is it the way I conducted the test? Is it possible that the Nikon is metering with a curve? I have 17 other rolls and a Pentax ME Super if I need to attempt another test. Again, thank you to anyone who can shed some light on this.

I don't know which is which, but the uppermost picture looks best to my eyes. But they all have some sort of fogging or overall tone, which should be corrected during post processing. By the way, they look quite good for a 17 year old film. Perhaps stopping down to 5.6-8 would give better results than shooting it at open aperture, who knows. Experiment a little, 17 rolls is a terrific amount.

I don't know which is which, but the uppermost picture looks best to my eyes. But they all have some sort of fogging or overall tone, which should be corrected during post processing. By the way, they look quite good for a 17 year old film. Perhaps stopping down to 5.6-8 would give better results than shooting it at open aperture, who knows. Experiment a little, 17 rolls is a terrific amount.

 

I should have mentioned that the top photo is +2 overexposed and the following ones descend in order. They were taken at f/8. I did notice the haze or fog (a Nikon L37c and hood were on the lens) which gives the first two a yellow tint and the last couple some blue. The more natural colors plus lack of yellow washed out sky give the underexposed an appearance of a better photo, which is why I am confused. Thank you for the help.

Old films like to be overexposed, it is a universally known fact, but from my little experience I can say that they all react differently. For example, a ten year old unrefrigerated Superia 200 worked just like new exposed at ISO 100, while five year old unrefrigerated Superia 400 gave worse results set at ISO 250 than it did on box speed. Yes, weird. Considering Superia generally likes to be overexposed even if it's still not expired. Kodak Gold 100 on the other hand, that was expired only three years ago and was kept in freezer gave such grain that unexpired Ultramax 400 looked way better. So you can never be sure what's going on.

 

I would try to post-process them. The second picture looks best to me, lower ones have too much cyan (that's exactly why I don't like Fuji's cheaper films, C200 for example) and the first is obviously yellow. Try checking R/G/B channels of histogram, to be on the safe side. But of course it's just my personal view on the subject of matter.

I more than appreciate your personal view. I had read that Superia was considered Fuji's budget brand but free film is hard to pass on. The flat "100" photo came out pretty well after playing with the "temp" and "tint" sliders in lightroom. There was also a hint of blue sky. Might try a walk around with the ISO set to 100 and see what happens. Might also try one with ISO 50. About the haze: I looked for the dehaze feature in Lightroom 6 but found it's only available in CC. May need to sign up for it.

Even higher grade film scans sometimes require some fiddling, that is why some people prefer slides over negatives. Hopefully someone experienced will show up with more comprehensive and rational solution. Best of luck to you!

 

In the meantime shoot some more, Pentax ME Super is a nice little camera, if I had it ten years ago, I'd never go for Olympus OM system.

Agreed with ME Super. I like that's it's compact yet solid and easy to shoot with. Haven't tried an Olympus yet, but I would like to. Maybe an inexpensive OM-10 or the like to sit with my ME Super, AE-1 Program, and Nikon FE. Film is challenging and fun.

Just make sure you examine them personally before buying anything, two-digit OM cameras (OM 10, 20, 30, 40/PC) are much flimsier and have cheaper build quality than single digit machines and can be a buzzkill.

 

One big thing where Pentax shines over Olympus is that their lenses can be used on digital Pentax as well (which I currently do), while OM lens mount is a dead end. Other advantages include camera wind indicator, shutter lock button and minimal battery drain.

Thank you for that advice. I may keep my eyes open for an OM-1... and a Pentax MX. Those small cameras are pretty awesome.

"Is it possible that the Nikon is metering with a curve?"

 

- No! Any 'curve' is built into the film, not the camera as with digital. However, it's quite possible that an old FE has a meter that's overexposing. Difficult to tell with negative film.

 

Why not just expose the film at box speed? Contrary to popular belief, film does not lose speed with age - especially if it's been frozen. It gets a higher base fog and gets more grainy, but the basic speed stays much the same.

 

The main thing wrong with the posted shots is that the colour balance and scanning exposure are all over the place.

 

I took the liberty of editing the second from last of your shots on my smartphone -

A big improvement I hope you'll agree.

 

So not much wrong with the film, or the exposure.

 

Just shoot it at box speed and stop worrying over nothing.

I see what you're saying. The shot you cleaned up was taken at -1, so basically at 200 ISO. Your edited version looks pretty good. What exactly did you do to clean it up, especially the sky? I'm using Lightroom 6 but would like to switch over to CC for better editing. My scanner is the Plustek 8200i SE and I'm still learning how to use it, so color casts happen sometimes.

 

I am probably going to shoot at the standard exposure on the next roll. The shadows on the underexposed are a bit much in my opinion.

Edited May 7, 2018 by bryaneberly

I see what you're saying. The shot you cleaned up was taken at -1, so basically at 200 ISO. Your edited version looks pretty good. What exactly did you do to clean it up, especially the sky? I'm using Lightroom 6 but would like to switch over to CC for better editing. My scanner is the Plustek 8200i SE and I'm still learning how to use it, so color casts happen sometimes.

 

I am probably going to shoot at the standard exposure on the next roll. The shadows on the underexposed are a bit much in my opinion.

 

- I used the curves tool in the Android phone image editor. The curves tool is usually all you need for any colour or tonal correction.

 

The 'auto colour' option got most of the way there, but left the extreme highlights yellow and didn't place the white and black points correctly.

 

A more sophisticated image editor would undoubtedly have made the job easier and quicker. The tiny Android editor never ceases to amaze me though!

 

The curves tool takes a bit of practise, but it's definitely worth putting in the time to master it. Most powerful tool in the box for colour correction IMO. With that and the hue/saturation tool there's almost no colour issue you can't fix - always provided you have enough colour bit-depth to start with.

Back in 2002 I mail ordered some Fuji Superia 100 rolls. Finished last one in spring 2016. This film maintains its properties very well over time, even when stored in room temperatures. I exposed the last roll as ISO 80 and were happy with results.

 

Scanning with Minolta Scan Dual IV lost some of the highlights, but offered better resolution. Canon Canonscan 9000 Mk II was better with highlights, but not so good in details.

 

If I had 17 or so rolls of Superia 100, I would probably shoot them as ISO 100.

Old films like to be overexposed, it is a universally known fact

 

I've shot a lot of out-dated film, much of it not even refrigerated, and I'm not so sure about this "fact". Overall, I've had best luck shooting the film at the original "ASA" speed and developing normally.

Slide film is another story, but the changes in the film over time normally have to do with loss of some colors.

 

Here, for example, is pre-1985 Kodachrome 25, developed in the last batches to go through Dwayne's in 2010

 

Such images can be improved, but not quite "restored," in digital post-processing.

Back in 2002 I mail ordered some Fuji Superia 100 rolls. Finished last one in spring 2016. This film maintains its properties very well over time, even when stored in room temperatures. I exposed the last roll as ISO 80 and were happy with results.

 

Scanning with Minolta Scan Dual IV lost some of the highlights, but offered better resolution. Canon Canonscan 9000 Mk II was better with highlights, but not so good in details.

 

If I had 17 or so rolls of Superia 100, I would probably shoot them as ISO 100.

 

Thank you for the confirmation. I intend to try one or two at 100 and see how they come out. I have 17 to play with.

 

Does anyone have experience with the Plustek Opticfilm 8200i SE? I have it for 35mm and it seems to make good scans except with an occasional color cast problem. May need some help with figuring it out.

Here, for example, is pre-1985 Kodachrome 25, developed in the last batches to go through Dwayne's in 2010

[ATTACH=full]1244552[/ATTACH]

 

Such images can be improved, but not quite "restored," in digital post-processing.

 

Ouch, look at the fashion. I fully intend to try a roll of Ektachrome when it actually hits shelves. It may not be entirely the same as the old but the name stands out. Hopefully they bring back Kodachrome in some way so I can try some.

Despite my reservations about when it will come out, I shot some Ektachrome at the end, and was very impressed. Let's hope the new one will come and that it will be as good or better!

I've shot a lot of out-dated film, much of it not even refrigerated, and I'm not so sure about this "fact". Overall, I've had best luck shooting the film at the original "ASA" speed and developing normally.

Slide film is another story, but the changes in the film over time normally have to do with loss of some colors.

 

Here, for example, is pre-1985 Kodachrome 25, developed in the last batches to go through Dwayne's in 2010

[ATTACH=full]1244552[/ATTACH]

 

Such images can be improved, but not quite "restored," in digital post-processing.

TBH, as they say, you can do a fair amount of correction, even in a short time.

 

I think the 'fixed" version illustrates my point exactly... some, but not quite all, even with a lot of Photoshop work.

I've been given a pile of Kodak ColorPlus 200 that has expired around 2008, and has been kept at some sort of room temperature in a pretty warm room. A lot of this film is still OK, and can be used at its nominal ISO200 without much issue.

But it's not consistently so. I've shot a fair amount of it now, and while many rolls are fine (as fine as this film gets anyway), some rolls also have shown pretty heavy colour casts. For scanned images, it's typically the difference between "a bit of editing" and "needs some serious work" but I've also had one case where blue was so lacking that getting the overall colour balance right was close to impossible.

 

So, while the expiry dates may typically have been rather generous, do consider that it may be a hit-and-miss affair. Perfectly fine for fun photos and experiments, but better avoided for any serious work.

The grey-point eyedropper tool used on something neutral is another good way to get close to correct colour.

 

Not as good as including a greyscale/colour swatch in the first frame of every film. Keeps your processing house on their toes too!

The grey-point eyedropper tool used on something neutral is another good way to get close to correct colour.

 

Not as good as including a greyscale/colour swatch in the first frame of every film. Keeps your processing house on their toes too!

 

I see. So you're saying that including a gray card in the first frame will help to set the tone in the following 35ish when post processing?

I see. So you're saying that including a gray card in the first frame will help to set the tone in the following 35ish when post processing?

 

- Not just a grey card necessarily. Something like an X-rite colour checker is far more useful. No need to spend ££££s on one though. Just go to the nearest decorating store and pick up some free paint sample swatches to glue to a card!

 

Paint samples are what printers call 'spot colours' - a much better check of colour accuracy than printed CMYK dithered tones.

I think the 'fixed" version illustrates my point exactly... some, but not quite all, even with a lot of Photoshop work.

I allowed myself ten minutes and only Curves in Photoshop.