Expired roll films in SW

Bonderer · 2012-06-02T16:20:35+00:00

[size=4]Hallo[/size] [size=4]Ich habe die Erfahrung gemacht, dass bei älteren 120er Rollfilmen der Aufdruck auf dem Schutzpapier mit der fotografischen Schi...

Bonderer

[size=4]Hello[/size] [size=4]In my experience, with older 120 roll films, the printing on the backing paper reacts with the photographic emulsion. After development, the printing is visible to a greater or lesser extent on the negative. So far, however, I’ve only encountered this with Ilford FP 4 – not with any other film – but it’s particularly pronounced with the FP 4. So anyone who wants or needs to take important photographs should think twice about using this film. All the other 120 roll films I use were free of this problem; even significantly over-exposed Kodak films didn’t have it. I only use Kodak and Ilford, so I can’t comment on other films, but anyone who has experienced this with other films should warn others. [/size] [size=4]Bye Bye[/size]

piu58

The film side of the paper is black, after all – so nothing can react chemically. It’s a light leak that seeps in gradually through the edges of the roll.

Wolfgg

Uwe: I think he’s referring to the contact between the film side and the back of the paper when it’s rolled up. Analoger: Were the old films really still in their original airtight packaging? It could be damage caused by long-term storage in high humidity or even condensation. Regards, Wolfgang

MiJa

tachauch, I had a similar ‘incident’ once, years ago, though with an AGFA Pan 25 – may it rest in peace – : the (exposed) film was stored in the fridge for a while and, of course, forgotten. Two months later, I finally got round to developing it and lo and behold: the frame numbers from the paper were imprinted all over the film! According to our company’s photography expert, the X-rays active in the fridge had done their work. I just accepted that and threw the film away... Apparently, unexposed film lasts almost forever if kept frozen... Best regards, Michael

Wolfgg

Hello Michael, X-rays? Where in the fridge would you find the necessary accelerating voltage of 25 kV to 150 kV? But radioactive radiation could be a possibility, e.g. Chernobyl-contaminated chanterelles from the Baltic region or further south. Just a reminder: certain types of game in the Bavarian Forest are still inedible today due to caesium contamination. Regards, Wolfgang

MiJa

Hi Wolfgang, Haha, very good, but as I quite rightly wrote: ‘...I just accepted it as it was...’. I don’t need to know how X-rays or any other kind of radiation get into my fridge, or how on earth they’re supposed to benefit from acceleration voltages (when the door is always firmly shut!); it’s enough for me to know that I shouldn’t store film that has been exposed, but rather develop it straight away. Best regards, Michael

Bonderer

[size=4]Hello[/size] [size=4]I stored the films normally, in a dry, dark place, but never in the fridge. [/size] [size=4]I suspect a chemical reaction, for whatever reason. When the film is rolled up, the emulsion side is actually in contact with the printed outer side of the protective paper where the numbers and markings are printed. I can rule out a light leak; the films were in their original packaging until they went into the camera and were placed in ADOX roll film canisters after exposure. The entire print on the protective paper ran the full length of the film. It’s actually pointless to speculate on what the cause is. The only important thing is that others don’t end up in the same situation as me – namely, spending a whole day traipsing about trying to take good photos, only to have to bin them after development because the protective paper’s print was visible all over the negative.[/size] [size=4]Regards [/size]

TiMo

[size=4]Actually, it’s a bit pointless to dwell on what the cause is. The only important thing is that others don’t end up in the same situation as me – spending a whole day traipsing about trying to take good photos, only to have to bin them all after the film was developed because the protective paper’s imprint was visible all over the negatives.[/size]

To prevent the same thing happening to others, it would be important to find out the cause.

MirkoBoeddecker

To prevent the same thing from happening to others, it would be important to find out the cause.

I agree. I think the idea of X-rays from the chanterelles is brilliant, but I don’t really believe in it. Can we rule out the possibility that the film was loosely wound, and is the effect really just as strong in image 1 as it is in image 12? Best regards, Mirko