Any way to determine if roll has been exposed

[westphoto]

I picked up a bag of camera goodies at an estate sale

last week, including a few old rolls of film. One is

certainly not exposed because it's still in its box. Then

there are two more, one in a standard black plastic

canister, and the other in the camera. The camera was

at 0, so I don't really have any way of knowing if it's been

exposed or not. Are there any tricks to figuring out if a

roll has been exposed?

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>If it is 35mm, look at the curl in the leader and the condition of the notches that engage the film advance sprocket. Curl should smoothly follow the curve of the cassette, notches should be crisp and undamaged. No guarantee though. With film in the camera, advance three or four exposures in case someone opened the camera back and take your chances. You have to test the camera anyway. No loss except processing and there, just go for the minimum. Good luck!</p>

[glen_h]

<p>Most of the time, the end gets wound inside, so you know it is used.</p>

<p>If it is in a camera, with the counter on zero, I would assume unused. Someone could open the back and reset the counter after rewinding, but most don't. </p>

<p>I did buy two rolls of expired Tri-X not so long ago, with the leaders sticking only slightly out of the cassette. Since they don't come that way, and most don't wind them part way in, I assumed that it was exposed, and developed it. It seems that it wasn't, so now I assume the other one isn't exposed. </p>

<p>Some cameras wind the film with the opposite curl form the cassette, in which case, as noted above, you might notice the curl. But most don't, and if it has been out a while, you might not notice. </p>

<p>If this is black and white film, I would try using it, and develop it myself. <br>

For color, the processing cost is high enough that I probably wouldn't try. </p>

<p>For the one in the box, I would decide based on the date. Slow black and white films are reasonable out to 30 or 40 years. Color I wonder at about five.</p>

[randrew1]

<p>The best way is to cut off the first few frames of the roll in a dark room and develop it. <br>

There was a guy in the Kodak Research Labs who could measure the electrical conductivity of film and detect a latent image, but it usually required over exposing by several stops to get enough latent image to detect. At this point, it would takes months of study to learn his technique and build the necessary instruments. </p>

[westphoto]

<p>Sure sounds awesome, though XD</p>

<p>I think I'm going to assume it was never exposed. As for the counter being at 0, the AE-1 is one of the odd cameras that actually counts down when you're rewinding, so it's possible that it was shot and then rewound just to 0, but that sounds remarkably unlikely, and I would assume they would just go ahead and pull the film out.</p>

<p>The boxed roll has a date of 1994 on it, so I can assume all three rolls are around the same era. They're all around 100ASA. Do slower films handle age better than faster ones, or would 20 years make any color negative film a crap-shoot?</p>

[bethe_fisher]

<p>Slower films do handle age better than faster ones, but 20 years might up the chances of odd colors. Or it could be sorta ok. I think B&W weathers age a little better (or less noticeably), but you can only find out by shooting it. It depends on whether it was in a cooler place or muggy one or whatever.<br>

Personally, I'd guess the film in the camera could be exposed and just get it processed. As you say, with that camera, it's possible it was shot. I don't know if you can have that one leave the leader out after rewinding? The roll in the canister may have been shot or not, if the leader can stay out. I'd shoot the one from the box first (on redoable things, mostly) and see how it looks. After shooting it, you may decide it's not worth shooting the other one. </p>

[glen_h]

<p>B&W ages better than color, slow films age better than fast ones.</p>

<p>I have gotten good results from almost 60 year old VP, but 40 years is probably better. <br>

Tri-X at 30 years is starting to fog, so maybe 15 or 20 is better.</p>

<p>I was told many years ago that color films have similarities to black and white films of about 4x the speed. That would make your 100 ISO color negative film about like Tri-X. With negative film, you can balance out some color shifts when printing. But mostly, it depends on the cost of processing.</p>

<p>I can develop my own black and white for a fairly low cost, mostly my time. C41 costs more, either in a lab or, for the chemistry, if I do it myself. I have to balance that with the chance that it will work.</p>

[westphoto]

<p>I appear to have led everyone to the misunderstanding that there are three rolls of the same stock. The box is Fujicolor Super HR 100, 12 exp. The roll that's obviously not been through the camera (given a perfectly stock curve to the leader) is Kodacolor Gold 200, 24 exp. And the roll that was in the camera (loaded and sitting at shot 0) is Agfacolor Mini XRC 100, 15 exp. The internet (or at least Google) doesn't really seem to believe in XRC. It keeps wanting to show me XRG.</p>

<p>The Fujicolor does appear to be from Portugal, given it has Portugese/Spanish translations as opposed to English/Spanish. Apparently the official film of Expo '92</p>

[glen_h]

<p>I might have assumed that they were the same stock, but maybe only that they had the same storage conditions.</p>

<p>Many labs charge the same to develop a roll of C41 film, independent of the length, up to 36 exp. That makes it uneconomical to use old, shorter film, when you include processing costs, and the costs of new film. (Unless you happen to have a special preference for a certain old film.)</p>

<p>It is sometimes interesting to see what is on exposed old film. I have seen old exposed black and white film on eBay go for more than unexposed. Since yours seem to be unexposed, I would suggest not using them. New C41 film is still not all that expensive.</p>

<p>I have about 10 rolls of C41 that came in a camera case I bought from Goodwill. I haven't thrown them away, but also am not very interested in using them. They are in the original plastic cans, but not with the box with expiration date, and unknown storage conditions. </p>

[westphoto]

<p>All good points, Glen. The shop I use does indeed charge the same independent of length, so the 12 and 15 shot rolls are probably pretty well suited to some other purpose. Would be good for practicing loading a developer reel when I get that kit. I've shot some 400 Kodacolor Gold from back in the 90's before and it turned out alright, if a bit fogged. I'd bet the 200, plus my additional experience since then, should turn out decent pictures.</p>

[ciaran_mcmenemy]

<p>Ron Andrews has got it. In the dark, is the film all wound around a take up? If it's still in the can except for the leader, then pull out say 10cm (or less), snip it, and develop it. No need to fix it. If you see the writing e.g. KODAK PKR and no image (blank) then it's usable. <br /><br />If it's old, old film then it may well be fogged but have images on it. Hold it up to a light source and inspect.<br /><br /></p>