richard_eaton1

<p>I have 9.5mm film from the 1930's which is still usable and projectable (although I've had the personal stuff of sentimental value transferred to video).</p>

<p>16mm and smaller has, SFAIK, always been "safety film" base, as compared with the flammable nitrate base of original 35mm., and I would expect that this would have been reasonable stable for many years. But, if your mother had treated the film with some unsuitable preserving fluid, this could perhaps have had a solvent effect on the base and made it brittle?</p>

<p>For anyone in the UK - I use Photo Express, Hull, Yorkshire. Always top quality work from APS and 35mm (and digital), usually returned in the next day's mail.</p>

<p>I use APS from time-to-time, although the stock of film in my freezer is getting low. Processing is from a good mail-order firm who use a top-end minilab and good printing equipment (they do a lot of professional work on other formats).<br>

<br />I've not (so far) had any problems with film outdated up to 7-8 years, and the cartridges seem totally light-tight (perhaps more so than 35mm), so long as you're reasonably careful and don't leave them in the sun all day!</p>

 

<p>There are a lot of postings on various forums over several years, and the Lab and its owner appear to have gone out of business and bankrupt. I think that the prospects of recovering any film now doesn't look good.<br>

All I can find is a (long) blog, dating from 2010, which gives some advice and the contact details for the bankruptcy trustee (in red)....might be worth an email or letter there, as a last resort.<br>

http://blog.timesunion.com/chuckmiller/how-to-get-your-film-back-from-rocky-mountain-film-lab-maybe/2153/</p>

<p>Last year I was given a Kodak disposable camera (containing 400ASA color new), expired 2002 and part exposed, presumably around that time. The last two-or-three years the camera had been in forgotten in the bottom of a car trunk, so must have had significant heat exposure.<br>

I exposed the remainder of the film, and (to my suprise) these "modern" shots were fine, looked as good as fresh film. but the "old" exposures had deteriorated to almost unusable images.</p>

<p>Was the film stored for a length of time (either in or out of the camera) near any chemicals or other possible sources of fumes or vapours ?<br>

I have a box of processed Agfachrome slides (processed by the then "official" Agfa lab) which were left in a desk drawer for a couple of years near a (closed) bottle of Typex correcting fluid. In that time the fluid had evaporated and the slides turned a pretty green color. The maximum deterioration was in the end slides in the box and towards the edges of the slides.....</p>

 

<p>I enjoy experimenting with old films and other consumables from time-to-time, but I keep this separate from my "serious" photography.<br>

As others have said, the main costs of holiday and outdoor photography are time, travel and other expenses, rather than film and materials, so I keep to in-date quality films and chemicals.<br>

If I want to experiment (e.g. at the moment I'm trying out 25 year o/d Orwocolor films with a view to getting a pastel-look result), I'll take two camera bodies and just duplicate the shots on known and unknown films.<br>

And, to answer the main question, I'd be very cautious with chemicals nearly half-a-century(!) old. Even those that are still sealed and look good may have deteriorated significantly (I spent some years in healthcare, and would compare with medicines...most carry an expiry date, and, while they may look fine and never become actually harmful, their efficiency <em>will</em> gradually deteriorate once that date has passed).</p>

<p>Mukul - I was trying to be helpful, I <em>had</em> read "what had been said earlier, twice", so there is no need for you to be rude when people are trying to assist you. No-one here is paid to answer your queries.<br>

If the dark edge is not to be seen on the unexposed part of the film, why is it then there beneath the unexposed gaps between the frames? ("Pity you had no time to read what was said earlier" on that point. :-) )</p>

<p>Surely it's just a line imprinted on the film at the same time as the various edge markings and numberings. I've seen similar colored lines on various makes of film.<br>

Not sure why it should be done, although I did read that frames were printed on 126 film because it evened out the exhaustion rate of the processing solutions (otherwise, as with 35mm film, there are always large areas of emulsion in the margins and between frames which are never exposed.</p>

<p>@Lex Jenkins - that suggestion re. Pan F's effective speed is interesting. I haven't used it for many years, but don't recall a problem....though this was when I was first interested in photography and I may have been using very basic bottled developer (probably "universal" print-and-film developer, IIRC.). I purchased some current Pan F recently, so will be interested to test it.</p>

<p>@Francois P.Garnier - My apologies for being rude in my last posting - I had had a frustrating day at work, but that's no excuse for my being discourteous! Your English is far better than my schoolboy French and German, of which I am ashamed! :-)<br>

<br /> I hope that the small producers of film are successful, and that the Agfa film overcomes these "yellowing" problems. I guess that we all miss the time when we could go into a local photographic shop and choose from piles of different makes, types and sizes of film.<br>

I will definitely give the Wittner version of the film at try.</p>

<p>@Francoise P. Garnier. - I accept your rather ungrammatical correction, and agree that I abbreviated what was said.<br>

I was merely suggesting that the repacking of old bought-in aerial stock by small manufacturers for general use (and all credit to them) might not be as secure a source of product as a large manufacturer producing and packing at the factory. You say that Agfa will <em>maybe </em>produce the film again...they may not. And there has been long correspondence on the faulty (yellow-cast) batches which seem to have been released....not perhaps encouraging that it is, so far, as trustworthy as a product designed and produced for general photography.</p>

<p>I've seen somewhere (maybe on the APUG group) that the latent image stability on Pan F is not as good as some other films, and that reasonably prompt processing is recommended.<br>

Could it be that latent image of the pre-exposed frame numbering has faded for this reason? But that doesn't explain where your exposures have gone....puzzling, that must be a separate issue. As had been suggested, was your film somehow swapped for an unexposed film.....</p>

<p>I recently finished off a half-exposed film in a Kodak disposable camera which had been forgotten in my wife's car boot for a couple of years (hot and cold), and before that in a cupboard at room temperature. Expiry date was 2005, and it contained Kodak 400 ASA C-41 film.<br>

The shots taken around the expiry date (i.e. 7-8 years ago) were very poor and unusable, the recent exposures were fine, looked like fresh film.<br>

As has been suggested, I think you could try having one of the films processed as a test...100ASA should have deteriorated less than faster film. OTOH, I always try to finish off a film within a few weeks, or a month or two maximum...I sometimes keep a note of any test or experimental shots which I want to take, then use the last 2-3 frames on a film for this purpose.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>@C Watson - E6 film from Kodak is dead, which leaves Fuji as the only major manufacturer of transparency film for general photography; SFAIK, Agfa aerial film is repacked for general photography only by small independent manufacturers, without the more general distribution of Fuji.</p>

<p>And why suppose that Ferrania should be bedevilled by quality issues. The Impossible Project is a totally different product recreated and reformulated from scratch, with a different business plan, whereas it's only a few years since Ferrania were producing good quality film; they have the same equipment and many of the same staff, so why should they have any unusual quality problems. Let's see before we judge.</p>

<p>According to an authoritative source on the APUG forum (well, probably as authoritative as anything ever is on that group! :-) ), Agfa in Belgium are not producing further color aerial film when current stocks run out. Which presumably limits the future for the repacked versions produced by other suppliers.<br>

Given that this would leave only Fuji as a mainstream manufacturer, it would be great to see Ferrania back with a good range of quality color products, with Ilford/Harman to fly the B&W flag.</p>

<p>FWIW, the legislation quoted above by Jeff Spirer and John H. is very similar to that applied by the UK Inland Revenue in determining if someone is an employee or a freelance contractor. Employees have very restricted claims which they can make against tax, freelancers ("self-employed") have much more flexibility in their claims; hence the rules are applied very strictly and it is very important to get all the customer agreements clear and in place.<br>

Even as a freelance, any work done for a customer cannot, except by agreement, be used for extra personal profit. I do some work as a freelance consultant for various clients, provide my own office facilities and equipment, professional indemnity insurance, travelling and training updates. But all my work is confidential for the particular client, and cannot be used for any other benefit to myself; this is all set out in the agreement with the client, together with the client's exact instructions and requirements. Tedious, but essential!</p>

 

<p>I have an uncle in his late 60's who's moving house to a bungalow, and is in the same dilemma! He tells me that he's decided to keep just his film processing gear, (as he says, a few tanks and bottles take up little room) and go over to scanned negs and digital printing.<br>

He based his decision largely on the limits of time in retirement....he's done lots of quality and club work over the years, big color and b&w prints, and now has so many other calls on his time! But he can still carry on his photography in more limited space, and without any issues of chemicals and equipment in a smaller domestic environment.</p>

<p>I've had several orders (to the UK) from "Films Festival" in Thailand (advertises on Ebay) with no problems at all...quick delivery and well-dated films. And a good range available.<br>

In theory imported packets could be charged tax by UK Customs (20%!), but my relatively small orders have not been charged (so far!).</p>

<p>I agree with Eugene, above. Have you actually tried printing the negs either optically or from a careful scan? Color negs are notoriously difficult to judge by eye, and can seem to show little color, particularly if the original subject is in dull light or has few bright colors.</p>

<p>The last new ones cost £75 here in the UK, about 12+ years ago (about $110?). At that time good small digital cameras hadn't really taken off, so there <em>may</em> have been more serious Minox shooters wanting them (rather than collectors). S/H ones on Ebay seem to fetch considerably less now...maybe less interest from users, IDK?</p>

<p>It seems really weird not to return negs. Why should the ordinary snapshotter (as opposed to the serious/hobby photographer) then bother with a film camera...it makes it seem a more difficult, slower and expensive way just to get their images onto computer when they could do it themselves with a digital camera (or phone). Or do Walmart simply want to get rid of film?</p>

<p>Which country?</p>

<p>If storage conditions have been reasonable, I'd go for poor quality processing. I've had no probs with my own or my Dad's slides going back 30 years (which was around the time that E6 became the standard process for almost all slide films), these would be either manufacturers' official lab, or a reputable pro lab.<br>

I wonder if "other brand" chemicals could be an issue.....e.g. comparing the C-41 process, Fuji and Kodak use a separate bleach and fix, while some independents (e.g. Tetanal) use a combined bath. The negs from the latter are absolutely fine for use, but some users suggest that the long-term permanence may not be as good as the official process.</p>

<p>You need a "film leader retriever" gadget, Ilford and others used to make them. Now just $1 or 2$ on Ebay.</p>