Old expired paper worth it?

[Chrissy]

Hello 🙂 these old FB papers are going quite cheap on a local auction site, is anyone familiar with Tura and old Agfa papers? I'm only interested because they're much cheaper than FB paper new here, ( I recently bought an ilford FB 100 sheet box for $247 ($157 US) here because with high international shipping it was worse and this stuff - if not fogged - might be interesting to use, around $20 USD for 40 sheets total), but anyone know if these brands stand the test of time? Seller says all packets are unopened and the Tura unknown what grade. I read somewhere that old papers can drop a grade or two in contrast, so the Agfa if not fogged being 4 and 5 might be more useful if it drops down. I've also read that Agfa paper can generally last well? I got burned last year with older Ilford grade 3 all fogged tho factory sealed but the grade 2 box of the same vintage was fine. Any thoughts and anecdotal experiences? And any extra considerations for printing beyond usual FB procedures? Thanks 😊 

[AJG]

Any older paper like this will be a risk--even if the package is unopened you don't know how it was stored and high heat or humidity can damage it.  It all depends on how technically perfect you want your prints to be.  At the community college where I teach I was looking at some prints a couple of months go that a student had made that were obviously on fogged paper that I would have tossed immediately along with the rest of the unused paper from that package, but she was happy with them. I didn't agree, but she wasn't in one of my classes.  The other parts of the equation are the value of your time and the chemistry that you use.  Photography has both artistic and scientific components.  If your materials aren't consistent then the scientific aspects of photography can become quite unpredictable and time consuming.  I feel your pain regarding the price of fresh paper, but encourage you to consider the frustration that results from substandard materials.

[Chrissy]

Thanks AJG, you make some very great points. I would definitely not be satisfied with poorly made, imperfect looking prints; I was thinking along the lines of different papers have certain qualities and charms...reminds me when I used a Thornton Pickard quarter plate camera and everything I shot had an antique look no matter what. It just lent a charm to every negative. A bit like also how old portraits can look beautiful in part because of the now obsolete paper they're printed on, I have a wonderful old print of my grandmother and the paper has such an exaggerated velvet stipple that it lends another dimension to the photograph. And storage...had stored some Kodak Polymax RC for some years, thought it kept cool and dark but all factory sealed packets were fogged and moldy when I came to use it...and maybe they would've ended up that way regardless just thru age. So yes from that point of view a big risk and you're right, no way of knowing how stored. 

[AJG]

I agree that older materials and equipment often have a unique look that can enhance an image, and regret that some of the printing papers and films that were available when I started in photography 50+ years ago are no longer around.  My commercial work has been all digital for at least the last 15 years but I still shoot film for my personal work because I like the look and I enjoy using the equipment-- primarily Zeiss Contax rangefinders from the 1930's and 1950's and their accompanying Zeiss and Nikon lenses. The digital simulations of older technology have frequently left me cold--there is usually a uniformity and artificiality to these that doesn't look authentic to someone like me who knows the real thing.

[Chrissy]

AJG - I just looked up your Zeiss Contax Rangefinders and what a beautiful little camera that is 🙂 it looks lightweight too? Having used Nikkormats all my life it seems, they are pretty chunky, your camera looks a lot easier on the wrist. I think I read that Robert Capa used a Zeiss Contax at some point too, it looks like it'd be a very convenient war-time camera. Here's hoping you never have to use it for that!!! Again tho, am sure the equipment we use will have its effects on many levels. Have just acquired a very clean looking little Wollensak 50mm lens for my faithful Omega DII and looking forward to seeing any difference to the Nikon one that's always been used by me on it. It'd be nice if it lent an old-world charm to the prints 🙂 And totally agree, having worked as a commercial magazine retoucher now for 25 years, although Photoshop is amazing in it's own right it just feels so empty, and too easy compared to the hard-won darkroom victories. And it's depressing the standard of submissions that can come in now to magazines, many images shot on phones and drone cameras.... all this nostalgia is now making me want to buy that old paper!!! 🙂 

[AJG]

The pre WW II Contax cameras aren't particularly compact and the lenses aren't particularly light weight, but the post war Contax cameras and some  lenses are considerably lighter and smaller.  Pre war lenses were almost always mounted in brass barrels so they are quite heavy; post war 85 mm and 135 mm lenses are mounted in aluminum barrels so they are noticeably lighter. All of the lenses are still smaller than their SLR equivalents since they are single helical (not fun with a polarizer since the barrel rotates as you focus) and don't have any diaphragm automation.  You might save some weight over a Nikkormat and Nikon lenses but probably not that much. The viewing experience and the quiet shutter with no flapping mirror are very different, though.

As for your Wollensak enlarging lens, get used to softer corners and lower contrast compared to your El Nikkor.  I made that transition about 40 years ago and never looked back.

[glen_h]

My not so scientific testing shows that older paper is better than not so old.

 

I have some Agfa paper that might be 50 years old that seem fine.  (Close enough, anyway.)

 

Some  not all that old Polycontrast IV that isn't good at all. 

Strangely, still in the factory sealed package, it is fogged except for about 1/4 inch from the edge.

(A fuzzy edge, not a sharp edge.)

 

One explanation I was given, is that newer papers have developer built-in, and can be activated.

I think most of the old paper was given to me, though some for a very low price. 

 

And much of the old paper, has nothing similar in new paper. 

 

You might buy one and try it, and hope it is representative of others.

(That is what I recommend for old color film.)

 

$20 is more than I would pay for 40 sheets, but it is hard to say.

[jose_angel]

Too risky for me. I have way more recent paper that is already yellowed or fogged.

Photography is not cheap. I want to be sure that I'm successfully spending my money and time.

Edited January 13, 2023 by jose_angel

[randy_boren1]

I use old outdated paper for contact sheets. If I want a higher quality contact sheet I then use fresh paper. 

[Chrissy]

That was my thinking too when getting 100 sheet boxes of cheap older Ilford for contact sheets and work prints, but one whole box of 3 was fogged but the 2 was fine, came from same place, a closing down shop and stored in the same way, both factory sealed. Must've been the luck of the draw or an Ilford thing 🤔 

[glen_h]

There are many places in the US that will make 4x6 (inch) prints for about USD 0.10 each.

Those are color prints, but if you scan a black and white negative, the print will come out black and white.

(And many of them print on AgBr based paper, commonly Fuji Crystal Archive.)

 

Larger prints cost much more than proportional to the print area.

 

[Chrissy]

That's interesting Glen, that's very a cheap service! I wish I lived in the US where there is so much to choose from. I'm interested in your point about modern papers having some degree of developer present, is this why older papers like the old Soviet, Czech or German ones do well as lith printing paper and not modern ones?

[AJG]

Developer incorporated papers have been around for a long time--before RC papers came on the market in the late 1960's/early 1970's there were fiber based stabilization papers that processed quickly in simple processing machines.  These prints needed to go through a regular fix/wash cycle if they were to be reasonably permanent, but for quick newspaper use they lasted long enough to be half toned and used for a printing plate.  Later, both Kodak and Ilford released RC papers that were developer incorporated.  There may have been other brands as well, but these two are the ones that I am most familiar with.  I still have a lot of contact sheets made on Ilford Multigrade III that have turned brown on the back but seem to be holding up reasonably well after 30+ years.  But I wouldn't seek out any of these papers if they were outdated.

As for $.10 prints, my experience is that it is very difficult to get neutral grays when printing on color papers in the way that Glen H describes. We tolerate more color variations with color images than we do when we know that an image should be neutral shades of gray and black. I suspect that a side by side comparison wouldn't make you happy.

[AJG]

On 1/11/2023 at 7:40 PM, Chrissy said:

AJG - I just looked up your Zeiss Contax Rangefinders and what a beautiful little camera that is 🙂 it looks lightweight too? Having used Nikkormats all my life it seems, they are pretty chunky, your camera looks a lot easier on the wrist. I think I read that Robert Capa used a Zeiss Contax at some point too, it looks like it'd be a very convenient war-time camera. Here's hoping you never have to use it for that!!! Again tho, am sure the equipment we use will have its effects on many levels. Have just acquired a very clean looking little Wollensak 50mm lens for my faithful Omega DII and looking forward to seeing any difference to the Nikon one that's always been used by me on it. It'd be nice if it lent an old-world charm to the prints 🙂 And totally agree, having worked as a commercial magazine retoucher now for 25 years, although Photoshop is amazing in it's own right it just feels so empty, and too easy compared to the hard-won darkroom victories. And it's depressing the standard of submissions that can come in now to magazines, many images shot on phones and drone cameras.... all this nostalgia is now making me want to buy that old paper!!! 🙂 

I've never owned a Nikkormat, so I have included a Pentax LX with 50 mm f/1.4 lens for comparison with a Contax II w/f/1.5 Sonnar on the left and Contax IIa w/50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor on the right.

The IIa is definitely a bit smaller and lighter but without a light meter so you have to factor that in if you're comparing it with a more modern SLR.

[Chrissy]

AJG - thanks for sharing that pic! Wonderful looking those Contax cameras. Beautiful looking condition too. I looked up the weight and it says the Contax II body is only 610gm, that's a very nice weight. My Nikkormats weight in around 880gm without lens and I just weighed in my main one with its chunky Nikon 135mm lens and it's 2.8 pounds/1.27 kg for my (little) wrist. Got my first Nikkormat at age 15 that a teacher helped me buy and in hindsight what a heavy thing for a young girl to be using. Better off with something like your Contax but so used to them I probably wouldn't change now. Very sturdy and one easily survived being dropped on a train track once 🙄 

[AJG]

17 minutes ago, Chrissy said:

AJG - thanks for sharing that pic! Wonderful looking those Contax cameras. Beautiful looking condition too. I looked up the weight and it says the Contax II body is only 610gm, that's a very nice weight. My Nikkormats weight in around 880gm without lens and I just weighed in my main one with its chunky Nikon 135mm lens and it's 2.8 pounds/1.27 kg for my (little) wrist. Got my first Nikkormat at age 15 that a teacher helped me buy and in hindsight what a heavy thing for a young girl to be using. Better off with something like your Contax but so used to them I probably wouldn't change now. Very sturdy and one easily survived being dropped on a train track once 🙄 

Thanks--your Nikkormat is a much more practical camera in many ways, and has a lot more lenses available.  Good luck finding a 135 f/2.8 for a rangefinder camera other than Leica, and a Contax with a 135 requires a separate finder in the accessory shoe on top. "Heavy" in photography is a relative term--for many years I did landscape work with a 12 lb. 4x5 Toyo 45 G and another 12lbs. of Manfrotto tripod and ball head, plus a spot meter, 8x Schneider loupe, a couple of extra lenses on metal lens boards and half a dozen film holders. After that, any 35 mm outfit that doesn't include a 400 f/2.8 lens is a lightweight.

[glen_h]

On 1/14/2023 at 2:49 PM, AJG said:

Thanks--your Nikkormat is a much more practical camera in many ways, and has a lot more lenses available.  Good luck finding a 135 f/2.8 for a rangefinder camera other than Leica, and a Contax with a 135 requires a separate finder in the accessory shoe on top. "Heavy" in photography is a relative term--for many years I did landscape work with a 12 lb. 4x5 Toyo 45 G and another 12lbs. of Manfrotto tripod and ball head, plus a spot meter, 8x Schneider loupe, a couple of extra lenses on metal lens boards and half a dozen film holders. After that, any 35 mm outfit that doesn't include a 400 f/2.8 lens is a lightweight.

I have the Canon LTM 135/4, which my dad had longer than I can remember. 

(Maybe when I was two.)

And yes it has a separate viewfinder.

I never looked for a 135/2.8.

[glen_h]

On 1/13/2023 at 7:15 PM, AJG said:

 

(snip)

As for $.10 prints, my experience is that it is very difficult to get neutral grays when printing on color papers in the way that Glen H describes. We tolerate more color variations with color images than we do when we know that an image should be neutral shades of gray and black. I suspect that a side by side comparison wouldn't make you happy.

I did Christmas cards one year with the Kodak black and white C41 film.

(Which has an orange mask, unlike XP-2.)

I believe it isn't so hard to get gray, but I cheated and got them sepia toned. 

Reminds me, though, of the Kodak black and white papers (when they made them)

that say "warm tone" or "cold tone".

It seems, then, that it isn't so easy, even with black and white silver image, to get neutral gray.

But also the popularity of sepia toning in the early days.

[Chrissy]

Hey Glen, is this like your camera? So cool you have your Dad's one :) my Dad didn't ever use a camera once! I have no idea where my interest came from.

[glen_h]

39 minutes ago, Chrissy said:

Hey Glen, is this like your camera? So cool you have your Dad's one 🙂 my Dad didn't ever use a camera once! I have no idea where my interest came from.

(snip)

The camera is the predecessor, Canon VI, with coupled light meter that goes on top.

The lens is this one:

https://collectiblend.com/Lenses/Canon/135mm-f4-Serenar-(SM,-M39).html

all brass, chrome colored, and with the viewfinder shown.

The Canon VI has adjustable viewfinder for 35mm and 50mm lenses, only.

[AJG]

13 hours ago, glen_h said:

I did Christmas cards one year with the Kodak black and white C41 film.

(Which has an orange mask, unlike XP-2.)

I believe it isn't so hard to get gray, but I cheated and got them sepia toned. 

Reminds me, though, of the Kodak black and white papers (when they made them)

that say "warm tone" or "cold tone".

It seems, then, that it isn't so easy, even with black and white silver image, to get neutral gray.

But also the popularity of sepia toning in the early days.

You're right that most black and white papers aren't truly neutral--I have always toned exhibition prints in a dilute selenium toning solution which makes the slightly green tint of most b&w papers closer to neutral. But I still remember some prints made by a photographer who worked at a custom color lab from b&w negatives--none of them were close to neutral as she had given up trying to get them to be true black and white. 

[glen_h]

As well as I know it, the early papers were AgCl based, less sensitive than AgBr, but warmer tone.

About 10 years ago, I saw an old contact printer in a Goodwill store, maybe about a 2 foot cube, all wood.

Big enough to hold four 200W lamps.   Would have been fun to have, but it was so big!

 

When I first started in darkroom photography, I had a little contact printer, might be from Kodak,

with a 10W bulb.  The top had a hinge, so you could attach down one side, and fold open the other.

And that was also from Goodwill.

 

Not so much later, though, I got an actual enlarger, and then mostly 35mm printing.

 

Earliest paper I remember is Velox, which I think was already rare 55 years ago.

 

I think, then, they went to mixed AgCl/AgBr papers for higher speed, but a different tone.

[Chrissy]

I do think tho that the perception of neutral grey is an individual one and also depends on the viewing conditions. For example in photoshop neutral grey is rgb 128/128/128 and it always looks warm to my eye, but then again I'm not viewing it under strict 5000k daylight conditions and perhaps I might be tired so my eyes are performing differently and my monitor is calibrated differently to another person's etc etc. Plus people just perceive colours and tones differently.