Roberto Colapietro Posted January 3 Posted January 3 Hi folks, hope you can help me with this Last year I purchased 20 rolls of expired 16mm from a photographer. They were stored in the fridge and they're now in my fridge. 4x Kodak 7266 Tri-X reversal film (2009) 4x Kodak Eastman 7222 Double-X negative film (2002) 3x Kodak Eastman 7278 Tri-X reversal film (1995) 4x Kodak 7201 Vision2 50D color negative film (2009) 1x Kodak 7201 Vision2 250D color negative film (2009) 2x Kodak 7276 Plus-X reversal film (n.a.) 2x Kodak Eastman 7231 Plus-x negative film (n.a.) I tested the oldest roll, a 7278 Tri-X from 1995 and had (in my opinion) decent results Some of the shots here are off, because I didn't know how much I was supposed to overexpose. So I asked Kodak to clip test each type of roll, but when I sent them over the answer they gave was a bit generic, almost like they wanted to discourage me from using this stuff. "Unfortunately, they are no good. As kodak we cannot advise you to shoot on this film as they are too far oof from the Kodak aim. The colour rolls are more that 3 stops over base density. The B&W rolls are 3 – 4 stops over" My guess is that in terms of exposure the 7278 Tri-X from 1995 would be a bit different from the 7266 Tri-X from 2009. Also I've heard from a manager of Kodak that the pull process in the lab can "clean up" the film, especially in cases where there's too much grain. I'm seeking more informations from those who shot with similar expired rolls and I'm wondering what the results have been for you Thanks all
Don Cunningham Posted January 3 Posted January 3 If the person you purchased from was the original buyer, then you should not have issue with the B&W stocks since they were cold stored. If he was not the original buyer, the results may vary depending on how they were stored prior. I have shot multiple rolls of B&W of unknown storage conditions and 90% have been just fine without any compensation when shooting. I had two rolls of Double X that had issues with one having some "flaking off" like dust in-camera (caused an interesting image though) and one being super grainy. Those two appeared to be from the same lot as they were repackaged by a long-gone lab. 1
Roberto Colapietro Posted January 3 Author Posted January 3 Hey Don, thanks very much for this, so would you say that 3-4 stops of overexposure is an exageration? I exposed 2 stops over for the 1995 one but I felt it was a bit too much 25 minutes ago, Don Cunningham said: If the person you purchased from was the original buyer, then you should not have issue with the B&W stocks since they were cold stored. If he was not the original buyer, the results may vary depending on how they were stored prior. I have shot multiple rolls of B&W of unknown storage conditions and 90% have been just fine without any compensation when shooting. I had two rolls of Double X that had issues with one having some "flaking off" like dust in-camera (caused an interesting image though) and one being super grainy. Those two appeared to be from the same lot as they were repackaged by a long-gone lab.
Don Cunningham Posted January 3 Posted January 3 19 minutes ago, Roberto Colapietro said: Hey Don, thanks very much for this, so would you say that 3-4 stops of overexposure is an exageration? I exposed 2 stops over for the 1995 one but I felt it was a bit too much Most likely. If you are unsure then try one stop. Black and white holds up fairly well. 1
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted January 3 Site Sponsor Posted January 3 In my experience B&W films last really well and does Kodak even develop B&W Reversal? I used a 16mm 400ft roll of Plus-X negative for a music video I made for some friends band a few years ago and that roll had expired in 1963 and came out great. YMMV 1
Roberto Colapietro Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 14 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said: In my experience B&W films last really well and does Kodak even develop B&W Reversal? I used a 16mm 400ft roll of Plus-X negative for a music video I made for some friends band a few years ago and that roll had expired in 1963 and came out great. YMMV 1963? Unbelievable. Did you overexpose for it?
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted January 4 Site Sponsor Posted January 4 (edited) 7 hours ago, Roberto Colapietro said: 1963? Unbelievable. Did you overexpose for it? I rated it as 20iso Edited January 4 by Robert Houllahan
Roberto Colapietro Posted January 4 Author Posted January 4 6 hours ago, Robert Houllahan said: I rated it as 20iso insane how it came out! Was it initially 100 iso? Did you overexpose 2 stops? If you had Tri-X from 2009 how would you go about it?
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted January 5 Site Sponsor Posted January 5 4 hours ago, Roberto Colapietro said: insane how it came out! Was it initially 100 iso? Did you overexpose 2 stops? If you had Tri-X from 2009 how would you go about it? This was 1962 Plus-X negative and it was 80iso then so I did 2 stops and rated it as 20iso. I would either rate the 2009 Tri-X as on the box or maybe rate it under a half stop. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now