2 year old 5246 still worth shooting?

Joe Farris · January 9, 2006

Hello All,

Does anyone have any experiences shooting out dated stock? I have 4 1000ft rolls of 5246 that were stored at room temperature for the last 2 years. I had a lab do a density test on each of the rolls. According to the lab Kodak recommends density values of roughly 18/60/94. The 4 rolls each came out with about the same readings of 29/70/97. I'm not exactly sure what these numbers are referring to. From what the lab explained I would see some fogging especially in the red, that over all the image might seem a little flat. So I guess I'm asking is this what others have experienced? Is there anything that can be done to counter this? If the image looks flat can I bring it back in the transfer? I'd hate to have to throw out 4000ft of film. Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

Jeremy · January 9, 2006

PLEASE! I issue an open call to everyone! Never throw out film. Give it to a film student with lab density information and let them use it... or to me. I can always find a use for it at some point! :)

I would use them, especially if you haven't shot a lot of film. If the colors are skewed, you can tweak them in telecine. Keep in mind that, yes, the image might be a little fogged, so don't use it to shoot something for a client, but use it, experiment, and have fun!

Dominic Case · January 9, 2006

Should be more or less useable. I'd recommend increasing your exposure by about a stop to get more of the image up out of the most-affected toe region of the curve.

As it's 5246, you probably won't notice any increase in grain.

The numbers (29/70/97) are the density readings of the unexposed (d-min) negative. R, G, B in that order. The "aim" figures are essentially the density of the base plus the masking dyes. Anything over that (in this case +11, +10, +04) is fogging due to age - in other words, totally unexposed areas of the film still develop up a bit of image - as it's the largest grains that tend to be most affected, you do get increased graininess in the image too.

John Pytlak RIP · January 9, 2006

I agree with Dominic that a bit of overexposure should help keep scene information off the slightly age-fogged "toe" of the film's characteristic, so the fog will have less effect on the image quality. Probably should avoid push-processing the film. Definitely avoid underexposure.

sinisa.kukic · January 9, 2006

if you decide to not use the film. i am interested in buying it from you. let me know.

thanks

sinisa

L K Keerthi Basu · January 11, 2006

what happens if we push Process the film? Will this lead to any distortion to the film.

L.K.Keerthibasu

John Pytlak RIP · January 11, 2006

what happens if we push Process the film? Will this lead to any distortion to the film.

L.K.Keerthibasu

If age has fogged some of the silver halide grains, push processing will just add to the fogging.

Robert Edge · January 11, 2006

What is a sensible rule of thumb regarding age when buying stock that has been refrigerated but not frozen if you don't have a chance to test it first? As I understand it, Kodak says that refrigerated film is fine for 6 months. Does experience bear that out? If not, is it one year, two years...?

Stephen Williams · January 11, 2006

What is a sensible rule of thumb regarding age when buying stock that has been refrigerated but not frozen if you don't have a chance to test it first? As I understand it, Kodak says that refrigerated film is fine for 6 months. Does experience bear that out? If not, is it one year, o years...?

Hi,

The speed of the film seems to be important.

Fujifilm in Switzerland say 64D has a shelf life of 4 years. I had complained that I had been receiving the same stock for over 2 years! Their view is that 250 asa is good for over 2 years. I have used 5218 that had been in my fridge for 1 year, it matched fresh stock perfectly!

I was under the impression that Kodak Guaranteed stock fresh for 1 year after delivery, assuming proper storage.

Stephen

Adam Frisch FSF · January 12, 2006

The analogy of recording level in the audio world is applicable to film. Your rec level is your exposure.

Every sound medium has a base sound level, or hum, in the tape/disk. This is called noise. As a sound recorder you want a high signal-to-noise-ratio, meaning as high a rec level (without it clipping) as you can get compared to the noise level already in the tape. You want to put as much distance between what you want and what's already there as you can.

Exactly the same thing can be said for film. Film has inherent "noise" in the form af grain. This grain level increases over time due to self-exposure and cosmic rays. To put some distance between what you want to be recorded and the base fog or grain, you need to increase your signal-to-noise-ratio. Only way to do this is to raise the rec level, i.e. exposure. The nice thing with film is that it doesn't clip at the top in such an abrupt way as digital sound or film cameras do. It behaves more like analog tape - yes, eventually, you'll start to distort at the top, but it's not a ridge, it's more of a soft shoulder.

Hence, as long as you don't overexpose beyond recovery, you'll find that film responds just like old tape does - a high rec level insures a nice distance between what you want to show and what you don't.