My current inventory of film that has been in the freezer.

[GaryFlorida]

I'm preparing for a trip where I'm bringing the Medium format(s) and today did an inventory, as to maybe order a bit extra.
106 rolls (equivalent as there are 5 of 220). 72 of color and 36 of B&W. Fun fact, I had a shipping box from my last photo order, 28x20x16cm, that I used to check the volume for luggage. All the film fits and fills that box, which is an interesting coincidence. The total weight is ~3.10kg

About frozen film, a lot of that is expired 2022, some Provia expired 2020 and I just saved it during the pandemic. The rest is 2023-24 expired because it was bought in the timeframe before the last significant price increases last year. I bought to freeze and in general (all film is ISO100-400) it should be well performing moderately past this period.

Good luck on your trip.

 

[Romanko]

I would use Superia first. It should be perfectly fine if stored in the fridge. Not sure about Prestige but it is probably still good. No concerns about B&W film at all, it will be as new.
For critical shots increase exposure by one stop (in case the fog increased). Bracketing is also a good idea. Develop as usual and enjoy your film!

 

[lamerko]

As long as you keep them in the freezer - all your movies are new. Don't worry

 

[koraks]

As long as you keep them in the freezer - all your movies are new

400 and faster deteriorate in the freezer just as well. They remain fast films, stored cold or not. This means they're just better at capturing background radiation, and a freezer does very little about that.

 

[lamerko]

400 and faster deteriorate in the freezer just as well. They remain fast films, stored cold or not. This means they're just better at capturing background radiation, and a freezer does very little about that.

I can't confirm it. A very recent example - UNPERFORATED Foma 400, which I found at home a month ago. It has been sitting at room temperature for 3-4 years, before that it seems to have been refrigerated. Expiration date March 2009 (15 years past expiration) - no noticeable base fog and film speed has not dropped at all.

 

[koraks]

and film speed has not dropped at all.

You mean, it didn't slow even further down since it left the factory at a snail's pace?
Sorry, couldn't resist... (*)
I'm glad to hear your positive experience with this specific film. My experience with fast film has been different; pretty much all of it turned to unusable mush after a decade.

(*) To clarify, I've often expressed myself critically about Foma 400 and my opinion remains largely the same on its various issues. However, I've also come to appreciate it a little more recently; my niece has been shooting quite a bit of this (living in a metropole and raising a toddler doesn't do much good for one's budget, so it's pretty much all she can afford) and I have to say it does interesting things to caucasian skin tones. I can see its applicability especially in that area.

 

[lamerko]

I'm glad to hear your positive experience with this specific film. My experience with fast film has been different; pretty much all of it turned to unusable mush after a decade.

That's weird. I have quite a few expired films. They age differently - it's not just their sensitivity, but also the manufacturer, model...
Overall, I'm very happy with Kodak. Ilford are also very well. On the other hand - Fortepan, Foma, Svema - they are terrible. My surprise at this Foma 400 was really great.
In this case, the movies are not too old. It is also known how they were stored. If they are not damaged by moisture, I believe they will be very good, including those with EI 400.
Let's not forget that films cut from over 10 year old frozen master rolls are being sold as new - if one didn't know the source one wouldn't notice.

 

[koraks]

IDK, we may be looking for different things. In my experience, the difference is very clear; 200-400 films tend to build a stop or more of fog per year, and the toe of the curve gets eaten at the same rate with grain going up and color shifting around on the color film. Sure, I've gotten acceptable prints and scans from 20-year old Superia 200 - although 15 year old HP5+, not so much; it's just very limited in its applicability. But if you scan, twist some curves and are OK with grain going up, then I suppose you could call it alright.

I fully admit I'm just getting more critical as time goes by. A few years ago I was OK with what I describe above, today I find myself buying a bulk roll of HP5+ because after having tried just about everything below its price point I found disappointing in one way or another (and you better believe I'm as price sensitive as the next guy!) I have increasing difficulty dealing with the realization when looking at a freshly processed negative "hmmm, I could have also shot this on fresh HP5+ (etc.)" Maybe it also has to do with the emphasis of my hobby shifting towards printing, and it's just frustrating to print from poor negatives. I've bumped my head onto that stone many times over; I guess I'm finally starting to learn. Well, to an extent...

The vast majority of my expired film (and I had lots of it!) I've given away a year or two ago. I never regretted it. The remaining stock I'm hesitant to use because of the disappointment that comes with the territory. At the same time, I'm also hesitant to let go of it. Fresh material doesn't put me into this catch-22!

Let nothing about this stop you from enjoying whatever you shoot, of course. I know and acknowledge the excitement of uncovering some old material only to find it still works (of sorts). There's an appeal to that in and of itself. And I also acknowledge that most of us are budget-constrained, some of us more so than others, and that it hurts in a way to discard something.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You mean, it didn't slow even further down since it left the factory at a snail's pace?
Sorry, couldn't resist... (*)
I'm glad to hear your positive experience with this specific film. My experience with fast film has been different; pretty much all of it turned to unusable mush after a decade.

(*) To clarify, I've often expressed myself critically about Foma 400 and my opinion remains largely the same on its various issues. However, I've also come to appreciate it a little more recently; my niece has been shooting quite a bit of this (living in a metropole and raising a toddler doesn't do much good for one's budget, so it's pretty much all she can afford) and I have to say it does interesting things to caucasian skin tones. I can see its applicability especially in that area.

What about color negative and color positive film?

 

[loccdor]

I'm preparing for a trip where I'm bringing the Medium format(s) and today did an inventory, as to maybe order a bit extra.
106 rolls (equivalent as there are 5 of 220). 72 of color and 36 of B&W

Wow, I thought I was extreme bringing 30 rolls on a 3-week trip! You'd get some sarcastic comments for sure if you tried to hand-check that through American security.

 

[koraks]

What about color negative and color positive film?

In my experience, fast color film is problematic to keep around for long after it has expired.

 

[Prest_400]

Wow, I thought I was extreme bringing 30 rolls on a 3-week trip! You'd get some sarcastic comments for sure if you tried to hand-check that through American security.

Thanks for the good travel wishes. It seems abstract to do the "medium format expedition" after so long. There is a certain hilarity in seeing the volume of it in a box, but the Texas Leicas can eat through film quickly so better having as much. I will prepare this weekend by removing it out of the packaging (still in wrapper for humidity) and try to cram it into the large backpack.
Actually found a couple BW rolls in the fridge and one HP5 exp 2023 that I have travelled around (some Xray exposures). Might as well carry the cameras loaded and if they are CT scanned, so that is, if not I have a couple more rolls.

ilms tend to build a stop or more of fog per year, and the toe of the curve gets eaten at the same rate with grain going up and color shifting around on the color film. Sure, I've gotten acceptable prints and scans from 20-year old Superia 200 - although 15 year old HP5+, not so much; it's just very limited in its applicability. But if you scan, twist some curves and are OK with grain going up, then I suppose you could call it alright.

That much? Interesting. I have kept at most Portra 400 for 3 years after expiration (2020), and doing hybrid color and scans I did notice some grames tended to appear more underexposed than they should (fog?) and then a bit of granularity. The latter of which is rather anecdotical as it is 6x9.

Another point is the crazy amounts I see people on local classifieds and auction sites for old expired film. And sometimes I wonder how people are still getting decent results out of old 800, 1600 (Superias, Neopan) and 3200 film. Myself don't seek any of these expired.

 

[koraks]

I have kept at most Portra 400 [...] 6x9.

Portra 400 (also 160) in 120 I have had particularly disappointing experiences with since the backing paper on the outside of the roll easily prints through onto the film, making the first 2 frames unusable. It's hit & miss, but I've happened it a little too often to use it confidently once out of date.

 

[loccdor]

Thanks for the good travel wishes. It seems abstract to do the "medium format expedition" after so long. There is a certain hilarity in seeing the volume of it in a box, but the Texas Leicas can eat through film quickly so better having as much. I will prepare this weekend by removing it out of the packaging (still in wrapper for humidity) and try to cram it into the large backpack.
Actually found a couple BW rolls in the fridge and one HP5 exp 2023 that I have travelled around (some Xray exposures). Might as well carry the cameras loaded and if they are CT scanned, so that is, if not I have a couple more rolls.

Another point is the crazy amounts I see people on local classifieds and auction sites for old expired film. And sometimes I wonder how people are still getting decent results out of old 800, 1600 (Superias, Neopan) and 3200 film. Myself don't seek any of these expired.

Good luck on the trip! All medium format on my last one was 220, and that saved me space, reloading time, and bringing a 120 insert, but I understand that can be limiting depending on your aims. I was on the go most of the time so 120 would have slowed me down and bored my travel companion. 30 shots on a 645, almost like shooting 35mm!

I don't think people are generally getting good results on most of the expired film you see for sale, the main market is people new to film photography that want to try things and don't realize or care what kind of a hit their images will take. I buy expired film in batches and rarely ever in 120 because of the backing paper issue. After a while you get a sense for which films expire the best - Koraks is right that Portra is one of the worst in that regard. I never buy expired Portra anymore.

 

[Prest_400]

Portra 400 (also 160) in 120 I have had particularly disappointing experiences with since the backing paper on the outside of the roll easily prints through onto the film, making the first 2 frames unusable. It's hit & miss, but I've happened it a little too often to use it confidently once out of date.

I would extend that to all non-refrigerated 120, and specially past expiration. The ink transfer thankfully has not happened to me in the 2020 frozen batches, but some sort of mottling has exhibited to various degrees. Very slightly on the frozen portra, and quite a bit on some expired Foma and Delta.
Addenedum to the crazy prices paid for old film, I chuckle when seeing 2016-20 exp 120 Kodak which was the period with problematic backing paper... and people paying over 50€ a propack when it did not cost that when new.

 

[koraks]

I would extend that to all non-refrigerated 120, and specially past expiration.

The experience with Portra 400 (and 160) I referred to is only with refrigerated (not frozen) film. Maybe frozen film fares better; IDK.

 

[Prest_400]

New post as I posted the draft late and did not pick your reply:

Good luck on the trip! All medium format on my last one was 220, and that saved me space, reloading time, and bringing a 120 insert, but I understand that can be limiting depending on your aims. I was on the go most of the time so 120 would have slowed me down and bored my travel companion. 30 shots on a 645, almost like shooting 35mm!

I don't think people are generally getting good results on most of the expired film you see for sale, the main market is people new to film photography that want to try things and don't realize or care what kind of a hit their images will take. I buy expired film in batches and rarely ever in 120 because of the backing paper issue. After a while you get a sense for which films expire the best - Koraks is right that Portra is one of the worst in that regard. I never buy expired Portra anymore.

I wish for 220 for these situations, an advantage is that it does not have the backing paper so no mottling or transfer. And as of 220, I see some pro photographers finishing off their stocks which are now... 6 year old expired at least! Guess that they look good because it is offset at the scanning editing stage. I am carrying 5 rolls 220 160NS which I bought 2016, expired 2018 for this very purpose. I enjoy film photography but foresee that it will be a chore reloading often.

Portra I buy on sales and then freeze to use within the couple years after the date at most. Frozen has worked well for me and color film. B&W I have just kept refrigerated since the last year.

 

[WD4AON]

Thanks Nicholas. I wish they would bring back 126 Cartridge film. It was square frames with a wierd sprocket spacing pattern. I had a Kodak 126 camera with a Schneider lens that I have since sold because I couldnt get film for it. I would have really liked to try that camera. I think it was a Kodak 500, iirc. I still have my dads childhood camera as well, Kodak Instamatic 404, would be fun to shoot it and add the negatives to my dads ancient negative that I still have.

FPP has some 126 solutions. Others have solved the problems by reloading slit film.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

The first Portra I have ever bought was bought here, expired 2003, and I shot it back in October. Had been frozen since purchase according to the seller and I believe it.

Both were shot at 160ISO, even though the film was 22 years past expiration.

 

[Romanko]

The first Portra I have ever bought was bought here, expired 2003

For 22 years expired film the results look pretty good. Are these "straight" scans or have you corrected them? Do the negatives have normal density or would they benefit from extra exposure? Portra has enough latitude for a couple of stops extra exposure (much more actually if you are daring).

What film format is this?

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

It's 6x4.5cm, and they are as the lab scanned them. I haven't done any editing, and the negatives look normal to me.

 

[koraks]

The scans look kind of color-wonky to me with significant crossover and an overall bias towards yellow, but this is similar to what I see in a lot Portra scans online and what people appear to experience as "normal" for Portra. There's in particular a significant red/cyan crossover, but the other channels have gone off into the woods as well. Some of this may be due to the film being expired, but some of it is likely due to the auto-color balancing that was done in the scanning process. It's impossible to determine which factor accounts for which part of the deviation.

As always, what counts if is you're happy with the end result; if so, don't worry about it and live happily ever after.

 

[brbo]

I can't notice any obvious crossover and if this was a blind test I'd say this is Portra 160NC. The red channel is on the stronger side so the scans do look warmer than some would expect.

 

[koraks]

I can't notice any obvious crossover

Red shadows, cyan highlights. Present in both images. I find it hard to miss, really.

 

[MattKing]

Red shadows, cyan highlights. Present in both images. I find it hard to miss, really.

Same here, although the cyan highlights are more obvious.