Very, very old photographic film

[Nick Odell]

One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it - you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick

[Richard Donnelly]

Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

[Max Demian]

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think it was anything to do with her.

[Bob Eager]

I went to a place that just did developing, and explined the situation. They took care and it was fine.

The story of the year-late processing is odd. I had taken a colour film (this was years ago of course) and posted it in the box outside the delivery office late one evening on the way past. I didn't receive any prints and did the usual enquiries. Nothing.

Nearly a year later, the unprocessed film arrived in an envelope with a short explanation. The postbox had been raided that night for valuables, and the perps had been caught almost immediately. The film had been in the evidence store until after the trial, but I wasn't told!

[Cursitor Doom]

Can't help you on film that is *so* out of date, but you're right about the effects of old film. IME decades-old B&W film gives really grainy results that add a real classy feel to the images. I'm sure someone will say you can do that with with Photoshop or whatever using one of the filtering options, but I maintain it's inferior that way. In fact I was so impressed I went out and bought some already-expired B&W Kodak Tmax and popped it in the fridge about 8 years ago. In another four I'll bung a reel or two of it in a vintage Nikon F2 with a yellow filter and go take some stormy skies shots when the opportunity arises. I should say my only experience of this is with B&W film; no idea what happens to old colour film. Anyone know if B&W film shooting on vintage cameras is enjoying a comeback, like vinyl records have?

[Brian Gaff (Sofa 2)]

I suspect that it is now not viable. I'm assuming this is early celluloid in which case be very careful. I can remember many years ago now, a guy was in the local press who was clearing out a property and found some old cine film reels in the loft. He dropped on and it kind of blew up and nearly burned the house down. I guess its Nitrate or something in the material. Being a local paper, we never actually go the detail though. It would be interesting to find out when film with dodgy materials in it stopped being made and the decomposition modes of progressively younger film. Brian

[The Natural Philosopher]

It wasnt. I took two cameeas to sradinia some years ago - ahdne use either for at leats 8 years and notice that one had slide flim in it, It came back all green. Digitised it and color correcte it. No problem

[Brian Gaff (Sofa 2)]

Having said that, when I found an old roll of undeveloped film back in the

90s, made by Gratispool and apparently although a 127 roll, it was not on a transparent backing, I was advised by Boots that there was a little guy down the road who did vintage film, mumbling about c41 stock or something. I did get it developed. and although the pictures lacked contrast due to the film being old, it showed beach huts somewhere I'd say around the late 1960s perhaps. I gave them to a local Hysterical society. Brian

[Brian Gaff (Sofa 2)]

I don't know but I do recall my father buying up some out of date 8mm movie film, colour by afar and the results were, shall we say interesting. There seemed to be only two colours on it, red and green, Some blue was evident but not much. It was as if the blue sensitivity was low or the red green was high. Brian

[michael adams]

[nightjar]

It is not as straight forward as simply looking at the age. Eastman Kodak first sold photographic film using cellulose diacetate (aka safety film) as a base in 1912. Originally only in smaller formats, but by the

1940s, there is a fairly good chance that most photographic film would be acetate. However, the only way to be sure is to look for the marking 'Safety Film', which should be on the box.

Movie film is easier. Because cellulose diacetate did not meet the performance standards of the film industry, that continued to use cellulose nitrate (celluloid) until the introduction of cellulose triacetate in the early 1950s. OTOH, 16mm and 8mm home movie film has always used safety film. Eastman Kodak chose 16mm as a size specifically to prevent 35mm nitrate movie film being split for use in home movies.

Whether or not it is degraded will depend upon how well it has been stored. The big killers are heat and humidity. Under the right cool and dry conditions, acetate film can last up to 150 years, but 50 years is more likely if stored at room temperature and much less if it has been stored in the wrong conditions. If acetate film smells of vinegar, degradation has begun.

[Nick Odell]

1997 is really not too old in those terms.

Last year we discovered some exposed but unprocessed black & white film taken by my other half's late husband in 2002. In good hands (I didn't trust myself for something of such sentimental value and sent it to the lab I use for colour processing) we got some pictures which are more contrasty and grainy than normal but evoke the times very well. One of the prints is now framed on the mantelpiece.

Colour film is more likely to have unexpected colour casts due to age but scanning or printing in black and white usually eliminates these and results in classy-looking B&W pictures.

A basic rule of thumb is that unexposed film usually degrades in a known way and can be compensated for in the way you take the picture or process it afterwards. Exposed film undergoes chemical change at the time of exposure and that's why it is best to process it promptly regardless of the age of the film but as I said earlier, 1997 isn't that old.

BTW I use photohippo.co.uk

Nick

[Nick Odell]

Out-of date colour film is prone to colour casts though that sounds pretty extreme to me given that even the oldest 110 film can't be that old. As I said elsewhere, if the pictures matter to you, consider scanning or printing in B&W.

Nick

[Nick Odell]

B&W and colour too. "Lomography" is a "thing" and you can buy film that guarantees to give the "wrong" colour cast and special effects.

Nick

[Nick Odell]

Thanks, that's very useful. Needless to say I shall not interpret "Portable Lamp" as one of the paraffin variety :-)

Nick

[Nick Odell]

Aha! I hadn't noticed before, where the label is almost worn out on the corner are the words "Safety Base."

That's very useful further information too. Thanks!

Further investigation obviously needed here...

Nick

[newshound]

See also Colin's post below, which contains more relevant facts. Cine film is normally kept in aluminium cans which are just about air-tight, so (from the contents reacting slowly with the original air) the oxygen level inside may have been very low. That could give you conditions for self-combustion for nitrate film if they are opened or damaged. Your sheet film will presumably be in a cardboard box, with multiple wrappings of thick paper. I would predict that oxygen from the air will diffuse through all that fast enough not to give you any depletion.

[whisky-dave]

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?

[Max Demian]

Corporate responsibility should be part of good customer service. Even if she had said it was because the film was out of date it would have been something - though I don't remember whether she was aware of that.

[Martin Brown]

What type is it? I recall ageing FP3 being around post war in bulk. I think by then almost all of the manufacturers were making safety film from cellulose acetate. Useful timeline for Ilford product chronology:

If it is original celluloid as in cellulose nitrate then it should be kept in a cold dark explosives bunker well away from your property. The stuff gradually goes unstable with age and long term exposure to heat.

Old celluloid negatives of historically important news images have now mostly been scanned to archival quality but the originals are kept in small batches in carefully controlled conditions off site afterwards. Some of them show slightly alarming signs of deterioration.

It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

Glass plates are much more stable and pose no threat at all (apart from sharp edges and breaking if you drop them).

A museum might be interested in it as stock in an old photographic shop. Wet chemistry developing and printing has become a minority sport today.