Time limit to process a film after it's been exposed

[galileo42]

<p>Is there a time limit to process a b&w flm after it's been exposed, or can it wait a few weeks, or even months, without damaging it? Thank you.</p>

[rnt]

<p>Faster is better, expecially for color. Having said that, B&W film can sit (in benign environments) for decades and still be printable.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>Kodak says to do it ASAP, and if that is not possible, refrigerate it. I have processed B&W sheet film (Bergger) shot months before. There were some defects but I liked the results.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>You mean that that film I shot in 1979 should already have been processed? Dang!</p>

[iliafarniev]

<p>There is no limit but fimal quolity will change detiriorate with time. For a 100 ISO films few weeks is nothing.</p>

[janne_moren]

<p>How about an unknown half-shot roll in a junk camera, possibly 10 or 20 years old? I thought I'd finish the roll before taking it out and having it developed.</p>

[derek_kennedy]

<p>Janne: I *love* winning old cameras on auctions that have film still in the camera! I develop it right away! SOmetimes its better that getting the camera.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>Gene M has done a lot of those "found films." If you go over to Classic Cameras forum, you will surely find one of his web pages that show some of his finds. He gets some interesting effects by finishing off the rolls of film sometimes.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>It depends, Michel. This question comes up occasionally. Let's see if I can summarize my standard response...</p>

<p>If it's b&w film, ISO 400 or slower, and wasn't underexposed, the latent image will be remarkably stable in good storage conditions (average humidity, room temperature between 60-75F) for many years, even decades.</p>

<p>If it was underexposed the latent image is less stable and any shadow detail will begin to suffer quickly. For example, I experimented with rolls of Tri-X, HP5+ and TMY pushed to 1600. I exposed half of the roll at the beginning of a month, waited a month to finish the rest of the roll, then processed immediately. There was a noticeable loss of already-thin shadow detail in the first half of the roll after only a month.</p>

<p>Ultra-fast b&w films are vulnerable to fogging from ambient radiation and latent image stability, even when not underexposed. Delta 3200 and TMZ should be processed immediately after exposure. And when I have a roll of unexposed Delta 3200 that's more than a year old I'll rate it 1600 or less, usually closer to 1000. Since less development is required then, there are fewer problems with fogging.</p>

<p>And as John notes regarding Gene M's experiences, it appears that the latent image of b&w film remains reasonably stable for many, many years and it's usually possible to wring out at least some image.</p>

<p>Color film stability seems to be all over the map. In general it's fairly stable but I've had too many weird experiences to generalize about any of 'em. For example, one older roll (more than a year out of date) of Kodak professional color negative film might turn out fine while the next would be foggy and muddy. Same with a batch of Kodachrome that was a year out of date - most rolls were fine, one was murky. I once left a half-unexposed roll of Provia in a camera that I misplaced for a year. When I finally found the camera again I finished the roll and had it processed promptly. The entire roll looked fine, no distinctions between older and more recent frames. All of these were processed by the same two local pro labs, so it's fairly unlikely these were processing errors.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>My worst experience has been with the old Ilford Pan F. Even a few months would make a difference. The best experience I had was with the old Agfapan 400. I left some in a camera in about 1995 and I must have developed it more than five years later. It was fine. A few years ago I developed a batch of film for a family friend. He shot the film in the 1970s. Some of it was Efke film and that was almost completely fogged. The Tri-X was surprisingly good. There was fog but it could be printed through. The best was the Plus-X. The fog was very slight. </p>

[adolphius_st._clair]

<p>I had some "C41" type color developed last year. This film was kept frozen for 18 years after exposure. The latent image on most of the negatives was lost. The latent images on the TRI-X film was degraded but printable after 18 years "cold storage".</p>

 

[alexander_ghaffari]

<p>I'll freeze my latent images and develop them a six months later. No visable loss of image quality.</p>

[galileo42]

<p>Thank you all. Still not developed. I'll do it over the week-end. Cheers.</p>

[robert_meyer3]

<p>Three or four years ago a friend asked me to develop some film that had been shot in the 1950's and never developed. I did manage to get decent prints, but the negatives were very fogged. I found development in Diafine worked better than D-76, and that Kodak anti-fog pills didn't help.</p>