old film lost cause?
January 23, 2006 12:22 AM Subscribe
I have 4 rolls of film form from honeymoon trip to vegas i have now been married 10 years would it be worth trying to get it devolved or are all pics lost
Yes, absolutely. As long as the film's been kept somewhere dry and room temperature or lower, you should get something very usable from them. As kindall says, the most likely defect is a color shift. If it's regular print film, a slight shift to magenta or yellow, most likely. Certainly possible to correct at printing.
If the film was kept somewhere warm or hot for some time (car glove box, say), much more likely to be more severely affected. Also, if still left in it's cassette, but kept somewhere in bright light for a long time (windowsill, perhaps), there's a slight chance of some fogging.
Some of the problems that might exist with your film are also correctable by adjusting the way it's developed. If I were you, I might consider finding a professional lab that understands such things and can perform a 'clip-test'. That's where a few frames worth is chopped of one end of one of the films and processed in a standard way, to reveal any adjustments that might be needed from the standard when processing the rest of the film. You'll pay a bit more for that sort of service, of course.
The expiry dates on film are extremely conservative and assume a worst-case scenario for how the film has been stored and handled. For most users, the slight color shift, if there even is one, from a little out-dated film is imperceptible. Over a longer time it can become apparent, but even then modern printing technology can work wonders.
posted by normy at 1:26 AM on January 23, 2006
If the film was kept somewhere warm or hot for some time (car glove box, say), much more likely to be more severely affected. Also, if still left in it's cassette, but kept somewhere in bright light for a long time (windowsill, perhaps), there's a slight chance of some fogging.
Some of the problems that might exist with your film are also correctable by adjusting the way it's developed. If I were you, I might consider finding a professional lab that understands such things and can perform a 'clip-test'. That's where a few frames worth is chopped of one end of one of the films and processed in a standard way, to reveal any adjustments that might be needed from the standard when processing the rest of the film. You'll pay a bit more for that sort of service, of course.
The expiry dates on film are extremely conservative and assume a worst-case scenario for how the film has been stored and handled. For most users, the slight color shift, if there even is one, from a little out-dated film is imperceptible. Over a longer time it can become apparent, but even then modern printing technology can work wonders.
posted by normy at 1:26 AM on January 23, 2006
This question comes up a lot, and I'm not sure why. You only get charged for pictures that come out, so there's never anything to lose.
Just be sure that you don't think you have any pictures on the roll that the developer will take upon themselves to "overexpose" so it doesn't offend them. I have had a picture of a friend of mine wearing a thong bikini overeposed from the waist down because "they don't develop pornographic pictures."
posted by Iamtherealme at 2:27 AM on January 23, 2006
Just be sure that you don't think you have any pictures on the roll that the developer will take upon themselves to "overexpose" so it doesn't offend them. I have had a picture of a friend of mine wearing a thong bikini overeposed from the waist down because "they don't develop pornographic pictures."
posted by Iamtherealme at 2:27 AM on January 23, 2006
I developed 7 year old photos and they came out fine.
And really, what an amazingly silly question. 10 years of marriage and you might let a few bucks stop you from possible new honeymoon pictures?
Wow.
posted by justgary at 2:56 AM on January 23, 2006
And really, what an amazingly silly question. 10 years of marriage and you might let a few bucks stop you from possible new honeymoon pictures?
Wow.
posted by justgary at 2:56 AM on January 23, 2006
Dude, justgary, calm down. starvinron probably just found the pics this weekend and wondered whether they were salvagable. Before dumping them on the local Try'N'Sav, it was prudent to ask here first -- who knows, maybe somebody could have replied / will reply "oh my god, don't dump them on the Try'N'Sav, take them to a Specialty Shop Type XYZ for Special Uber Processing."
starvinron, I hope you haven't tipped off your wife, that would make like the best gift EVAR.
posted by intermod at 5:18 AM on January 23, 2006
starvinron, I hope you haven't tipped off your wife, that would make like the best gift EVAR.
posted by intermod at 5:18 AM on January 23, 2006
Best answer: Depends on the storage condition. Generic level consumer film, at room temp, would have shifted colors -- typically, Kodak goes magenta, Fuji goes green, but there are exception.
Minor to moderate shifting can be fixed in printing. Severe shifting, however, can't -- the problem is the dye layers fail at different rates. Once you've lost enough dye, you've lost enough signal.
However, you can often get useful prints from these by using an internegative (actually, two, one would be a positive of the negative, then one to make a new negative) and printing on black and white paper.
The other way is restoration, which would involve correcting the colors as much as possible without signal loss, then hand coloring. Digital makes this much easier, but it's still labor intensive, read, expensive.
NOTE: Don't just hand these to the local one hour printer. They'll look up the film, punch that in, and the default correction curves will be loaded. You want a lab that will actually try and hand correct the first few frames to account for the damage (if any.)
Other issues -- grain will likely be increased, but this sometimes makes some cool effects. If the film was stored in a hot car, you've likely destroyed the emulsion, and you'll get nothing. If it was stored in an icebox, you'll likely find the film has suffered little, if at all -- photographers using obsolete processes, like dye transfer printing, store thier supplies in freezers, because that limits the damage time can do to the no-longer made films.
If you really don't care if you get anything, there's no harm in getting them developed at a one hour photo place. If you do care, find a professional lab in your area, bring it in and explain the issue to them. They'll either be able to take care of you, or tell you who in the area can.
posted by eriko at 5:45 AM on January 23, 2006
Minor to moderate shifting can be fixed in printing. Severe shifting, however, can't -- the problem is the dye layers fail at different rates. Once you've lost enough dye, you've lost enough signal.
However, you can often get useful prints from these by using an internegative (actually, two, one would be a positive of the negative, then one to make a new negative) and printing on black and white paper.
The other way is restoration, which would involve correcting the colors as much as possible without signal loss, then hand coloring. Digital makes this much easier, but it's still labor intensive, read, expensive.
NOTE: Don't just hand these to the local one hour printer. They'll look up the film, punch that in, and the default correction curves will be loaded. You want a lab that will actually try and hand correct the first few frames to account for the damage (if any.)
Other issues -- grain will likely be increased, but this sometimes makes some cool effects. If the film was stored in a hot car, you've likely destroyed the emulsion, and you'll get nothing. If it was stored in an icebox, you'll likely find the film has suffered little, if at all -- photographers using obsolete processes, like dye transfer printing, store thier supplies in freezers, because that limits the damage time can do to the no-longer made films.
If you really don't care if you get anything, there's no harm in getting them developed at a one hour photo place. If you do care, find a professional lab in your area, bring it in and explain the issue to them. They'll either be able to take care of you, or tell you who in the area can.
posted by eriko at 5:45 AM on January 23, 2006
Considering what is there it sure is worth a shot. I have developed film that is about five years old and while the colors were off somewhat the pictures were worth having. Storage does matter. My son left a single use camera in our car for several years (I guess it pays to look into the seat pockets now and then) and those pictures came out quite magenta.
posted by caddis at 8:34 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by caddis at 8:34 AM on January 23, 2006
intermod: justgary's surprise is justified, unless the marriage has really sucked so far or something. S/He's not calling ron a freak, just surprised at a seemingly obvious question ;-/
starvinron: They're priceless -- there's not an estimate of "worth trying" available. There are no other pictures like them in existence, ever. Go for it.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:01 AM on January 23, 2006
starvinron: They're priceless -- there's not an estimate of "worth trying" available. There are no other pictures like them in existence, ever. Go for it.
posted by vanoakenfold at 9:01 AM on January 23, 2006
My wife and I passed out ten one-time-use cameras at our wedding reception in the summer of 1993. None of the cameras was completely used, so we've been gradually taking photos on them over the past thirteen years. From time-to-time we take one in to be processed. The photos come out fine.
posted by jdroth at 9:25 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by jdroth at 9:25 AM on January 23, 2006
I would print one roll and see how they come out. If they are underexposed, I would ask the photo place for advice on developing the other rolls.
posted by xammerboy at 10:45 AM on January 23, 2006
posted by xammerboy at 10:45 AM on January 23, 2006
This is really good info. Do you guys know if the same holds true for disposable cameras? ( I know zilch about how/if their film differs from normal). I just found five disposable cameras from 5-6 years ago and was wondering whether it'd be worth it to take them in...
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 12:33 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 12:33 PM on January 23, 2006
Ack, Jdroth, didn't see that on preview. Sweet.
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 12:34 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by Dormant Gorilla at 12:34 PM on January 23, 2006
Do you guys know if the same holds true for disposable cameras?
The film used in disposable cameras is usually the cheapest of that brand's range. In Kodak's case, Max; from Fuji, Superia. Because they're the cheapest films, it may be that the dyes used are less stable than some better films, but that's just speculation on my part. Anyhow, it's the same as the cheap film you can also buy in 35mm cassettes at any discount drug-store. Fuji's cheapest film is better in all ways than Kodak's cheapest (they get much more similar when you spend a little more on either's better stuff).
posted by normy at 4:06 PM on January 23, 2006
The film used in disposable cameras is usually the cheapest of that brand's range. In Kodak's case, Max; from Fuji, Superia. Because they're the cheapest films, it may be that the dyes used are less stable than some better films, but that's just speculation on my part. Anyhow, it's the same as the cheap film you can also buy in 35mm cassettes at any discount drug-store. Fuji's cheapest film is better in all ways than Kodak's cheapest (they get much more similar when you spend a little more on either's better stuff).
posted by normy at 4:06 PM on January 23, 2006
Just curious, but how do you know when/where the film is from? I used to find old exposed film all over the place, but with no idea where or when from.
posted by misterbrandt at 6:15 PM on January 23, 2006
posted by misterbrandt at 6:15 PM on January 23, 2006
Response by poster: had them in a ziplock bag labeled thought they were lost when we move into new house. but fond them in closet in box while looking for somthing else.
thanx for all the replys
posted by starvinron at 9:02 PM on January 23, 2006
thanx for all the replys
posted by starvinron at 9:02 PM on January 23, 2006
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by kindall at 12:30 AM on January 23, 2006