Adventures in Expired Film Photography
Discussion
I hope this is alright, but for the last 12 months I've been doing a lot of film photography after not doing any sort of photography before hand. Recently though I've been doing some photography with expired film just to see what it's like. Turns out that with some of the film that's available there isn't much about it on the internet (Kodak's VR film from the late 80's is available via eBay but only one person has spoke about it), so I decided to document the experiences I have with the expired film, either for the interest in it or the technical aspects of it.
But here's a link to the first article I've written about using some Fujifilm 160 NPS which expired in 2005. Hope you find it interesting or useful.
As always, critque is welcomed and encouraged!
Adventures in Expired Film: Using Fujifilm Pro 160 NPS, expired in 2005
But here's a link to the first article I've written about using some Fujifilm 160 NPS which expired in 2005. Hope you find it interesting or useful.
As always, critque is welcomed and encouraged!
Adventures in Expired Film: Using Fujifilm Pro 160 NPS, expired in 2005
I found that rather interesting, and would like to see more! 
Are you sure the purple patches are from the images curling on the scanner? One of the shots has the purple right in the middle, which surely is the last place its likely to curl up?
As for the idea of halving the ISO rating for it being a decade out of date, they don't look like they're underexposed to me?
Are you sure the purple patches are from the images curling on the scanner? One of the shots has the purple right in the middle, which surely is the last place its likely to curl up?
As for the idea of halving the ISO rating for it being a decade out of date, they don't look like they're underexposed to me?
Kermit power said:
I found that rather interesting, and would like to see more!
Are you sure the purple patches are from the images curling on the scanner? One of the shots has the purple right in the middle, which surely is the last place its likely to curl up?
As for the idea of halving the ISO rating for it being a decade out of date, they don't look like they're underexposed to me?
Thanks! I've written another one for some other film but I have to take photos of the actual canister, leader and scan of the box which I should do tonight. Are you sure the purple patches are from the images curling on the scanner? One of the shots has the purple right in the middle, which surely is the last place its likely to curl up?
As for the idea of halving the ISO rating for it being a decade out of date, they don't look like they're underexposed to me?
The purple patches are from the scanner, because the film just wants to curl. When the film was sat in the brownie carriage for my Epson you could see it's all bending up etc. I've read online that the best way to scan these is to use a bit of glass with some liquid, but I haven't got round to trying them out yet.
As for the ISO thing, they're not underexposed as I didn't know about that rule until after I shot them and had them developed. I've tried out the rule in the next blog post and I think the rule is more pronounced there, although I think it depends on the situation as well.
sgtBerbatov said:
As for the ISO thing, they're not underexposed as I didn't know about that rule until after I shot them and had them developed. I've tried out the rule in the next blog post and I think the rule is more pronounced there, although I think it depends on the situation as well.
My point was that if you were using the light meter to expose for ISO160 because that's what it said on the can, when if you followed the rule of thumb you should've been exposing for something like ISO60 for a film almost 15 years out of date, surely your images should have been under-exposed by around 1.5 stops? The fact that they're not suggests that that rule of thumb is very variable.Kermit power said:
My point was that if you were using the light meter to expose for ISO160 because that's what it said on the can, when if you followed the rule of thumb you should've been exposing for something like ISO60 for a film almost 15 years out of date, surely your images should have been under-exposed by around 1.5 stops? The fact that they're not suggests that that rule of thumb is very variable.
Ah I see what you mean, sorry it was early and the coffee had kicked in.Well, there is merit to the rule. But I think it's film dependent. The next post will explain.
Following on from the previous post where I shot with some Fujifilm Pro 160 NPS, I bought some Kodak Kodacolor VR 1000 film which expired in 1984. The results across the two are very different.
This time, I was mindful of halving the ISO for every 10 years of expiry, and I took the same shot three times with each shot underexposed in steps. So we can see what difference the rule can make and how the rule may be subjective.
Adventures in Expired Film: Using Kodak VR 1000, expired in 1984
This time, I was mindful of halving the ISO for every 10 years of expiry, and I took the same shot three times with each shot underexposed in steps. So we can see what difference the rule can make and how the rule may be subjective.
Adventures in Expired Film: Using Kodak VR 1000, expired in 1984
It's been a long while since I did anything with expired film. I was writing an article about my Peugeot 107 and decided to take some photos of it with some expired Kodak TMax 400 film. During the scanning process I remembered I used the same film in York in May last year. So I decided to compare the two. This is what I found out.
Adventures in Expired Film: Using Kodak TMax 400, expired in 1999
Adventures in Expired Film: Using Kodak TMax 400, expired in 1999
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff