Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,682   Posts: 1,482,233   Online: 1110
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Just a further not that I just sent John the email that I would take the 8 boxes he has and to fill the rest in with J&C100 120 and he has already responded and said they would be shipped out tomorrow. This is by far the BEST customer service I have ever received anywhere.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  2. #12
    gandolfi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Denmark
    Shooter
    Large Format Pan
    Posts
    1,764
    Images
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Moore
    When buying new film, how long of an expiration date do you expect? I just received an order for a large quantity of film (500 sheets) and the expiration date is September of this year (just 4 months from now). This seems to be a little wonky to me as I have never received new film with an expiration date of less than a year.
    I wouldn't fear too much..

    but you didn't state whether it is B/W or color or slides..

    I think B/W keeps best..

    however; attached is an image I took a couple of years ago - I found a box of 4x5 slides, out dated by 10 years, and I have no idea how it was stored...
    (found it in my refrigerator (can't spell it..?) but it was something I got thrown at me from some one who didn't photograph any more...

    well - you can see for your self - I kind of like it - it is a little rough but...
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails anna-dias.jpg  

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    601
    Quote Originally Posted by pitchertaker
    Jeremy:

    I would think that most "fresh" film would have an expiration date of at least two years. At least that's been my experience.

    Pitchertaker
    A lot of this depends on the film manufacturer and how they date their films. There are manufaacturers who only give the film a 2 year expiration date when manufactured. Is it better to get a film with one year left that was produced a year ago or a film with 2 years left that was produced 3 years ago?

    The film Jeremy received with a 9/2005 date was produced in 2003. I have samples of Agfa 25 with a 2005 expiration date that were produced in 2000.

    Both of these films would work just fine.

  4. #14
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    At the time, I calculated the increase in life expectancy of film: Reducing storage temperature to -18 C (0 degrees F) would extend the projected life to something over ~ 100 years.
    This is surely correct in terms of thermal degradation, but doesn't take into account fogging due to background radiation. Experience has shown that faster films, and those with the least reciprocity failure, seem to fog nearly as rapidly in frozen storage as they would at room temperature. I wouldn't worry too much about Plus-X or Panatomic-X; in the freezer, they should easily outlast me. T-Max 100, with its very flat reciprocity failure curve, is another story; it might well become unusable due to fog 10-15 years after expiration even in deep freeze storage (the stuff hasn't been around long enough to see much of this yet). The same may be true of Acros 100, which some sources claim has even less reciprocity failure than TMX. And very fast films like TMZ-P3200 or Delta 3200 also tend to fog rapidly even in the freezer.

    Moral of the story: stock up on Plus-X and Tri-X, but buy the Delta 3200 as you use it...
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  5. #15
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    Experience has shown that faster films, and those with the least reciprocity failure, seem to fog nearly as rapidly in frozen storage as they would at room temperature.
    A reminder of a hot subject ten or so years ago. There was a lot of discussion about the effects of gamma radiation on film. Gamma rays penetrate substances much more than either Alpha or Beta.

    What I remember, though, was strictly theoretical.... Most revolved around the idea that a refrigerator or freezer offered *vey* little protection against gamma radiation - nor does anything else, human beings, lead, stones, titanium, the Earth ... nothing attenuates gamma much - at all - and the sun, and the stars produce a lot of gamma.

    One would think that there must be a lot of data produced in Nuclear Testing ... as I understand it, there is a enormous amount of Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation released from a nuclear explosion, but I have never seen anything definitive about the effect of gamma radiation on photographic film. Maybe they don't WANT us to know.

    You cite "from experience." Do you know of any sources of concrete, finite information I might refer to?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  6. #16
    George Papantoniou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Athens
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    981
    Images
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Ed Sukach
    A reminder of a hot subject ten or so years ago. There was a lot of discussion about the effects of gamma radiation on film. Gamma rays penetrate substances much more than either Alpha or Beta.

    What I remember, though, was strictly theoretical.... Most revolved around the idea that a refrigerator or freezer offered *vey* little protection against gamma radiation - nor does anything else, human beings, lead, stones, titanium, the Earth ... nothing attenuates gamma much - at all - and the sun, and the stars produce a lot of gamma.

    One would think that there must be a lot of data produced in Nuclear Testing ... as I understand it, there is a enormous amount of Alpha, Beta and Gamma radiation released from a nuclear explosion, but I have never seen anything definitive about the effect of gamma radiation on photographic film. Maybe they don't WANT us to know.

    You cite "from experience." Do you know of any sources of concrete, finite information I might refer to?
    I thought that Gamma was stopped by concrete walls... That's why I stock my film in a freezer that lies under a 60cm (2ft) concrete ceiling in the garage... should I get worried ??? :-(

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Thanks for sharing Jeremy..just proves there is still good customer service out there...and Thanks John, for what I see as very good customer service.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  8. #18
    Donald Qualls's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, USA (transplanted from Seattle)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,845
    Ed, I think you're thinking of neutrinos, when you say the Earth itself doesn't provide much attenuation. Fortunately, they don't interact with film any more than with the whole mass of the Earth (takes something like 30 light year thickness of lead to reliably absorb a neutrino). Gamma rays are nicely stopped by simple mass shielding of any sort -- X number of grams mass per square centimeter works the same whether it's lead, concrete, rock dust, water, or even air (just takes a lot of air to do the job -- fortunately, we've got effectively several tens of miles of it above our heads).

    Cosmic radiation is the culprit I've seen implicated in this "cold fogging" -- it's very high energy particle radiation, in its purest form (mostly protons at relativistic velocity), but when it interacts with matter, it produces showers of secondary radiation consisting of a witch's brew of particles and photons from visible and UV through X-ray and far into gamma. That's what fogs the film in the freezer. And the original particles are of high enough energy that any practical shield simply makes it worse -- shielding astronauts on long interplanetary voyages promises to be a much larger problem than ensuring a multi-year supply of oxygen.

    Oh, and that concrete basement ceiling? It's most likely slightly radioactive (above background) in and of itself, because the gravel used as aggregate probably includes a significant fraction of granite, which in turn carries trace amounts of uranium and thorium. The alpha radiation that stuff mostly produces isn't a huge problem for film, however (the film packaging will stop alpha, which is helium nuclei); even beta is nicely attenuated by the steel shell of a freezer, unless there's a lot of it or its at unusually high energy. Also note that in some parts of the world, basements tend to collect radon gas, which can get inside the freezer and fog the film with its decay radiation without respect to the freezer's metal shell.

    As for "concrete" information about long term fogging of film in cold storage, as far as I know it's all hypothesizing to explain anecdotal evidence, but the hypotheses are based on pretty well proven properties of film and radiation -- the radiation exposes a halide grain the same way a visible light photon would, and just as with visible light, it takes more than one photon to produce a developable latent "image" speck (in this case, not carrying image information, just noise in the form of overall fog). If the film's reciprocity treshold (which is reduced when it's cold, to make matters a little worse) isn't met, that single photon exposure is eventually "forgotten". If the threshold is met, that exposed halide grain becomes part of the film's fog level. Since the faster films require fewer photons (larger grains collect photons more efficiently and combine exposure over a larger area), and those with less reciprocity failure "forget" the sub-threshold exposures less quickly, those are the films that cold fog the worst. Royal-X, Delta 3200, 2475 Recording, etc.? Likely not to last ten years, even in a freezer. Panatomic X? Probably still be okay when your grandkids use up the last of the 100 bulk rolls you bought up before it was killed, providing they can keep it frozen...

    Relative to T-Max 100 and Acros, the data isn't in yet, because those films haven't been around long enough, but with their very low level of reciprocity failure (Acros needs only 1.5 stops at 1000 seconds, T-Max about 3 stops at the same time) they're likely to fog badly after many years, even in deep freeze.
    Photography has always fascinated me -- as a child, simply for the magic of capturing an image onto glossy paper with a little box, but as an adult because of the unique juxtaposition of science and art -- the physics of optics, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry of film and developer, alongside the art in seeing, composing, exposing, processing and printing.

  9. #19
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    So, Donald, you are saying that keeping 900 sheets of Efke PL100 in the freezer while I use them over the next couple of years is no problem at all....
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  10. #20
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Donald Qualls
    Ed, I think you're thinking of neutrinos, when you say the Earth itself doesn't provide much attenuation....

    ... they're likely to fog badly after many years, even in deep freeze.
    Could be that I am think of neutrinos. That misses the point, though.

    I am the product of many moons of statistical work, and a few years of Metrology Lab and work in Optics and Optical tooling. The net result at present, is a disdain of "anecdotal" (read: Well, this guy told me that...), and "It is common (and unsubtantiated!!) knowledge that ..."

    Sorry to be so cynical, but I'm really searching for something more than conjecture. I've searched for information of "Background radiation (n.b. background)as it affects photographic film", in every way I can think of, and I've come away empty.

    I don't mean this as sarcasm, but I hope you have noticed that at times there is a WIDE gap between theory and practice - not that the theory is flawed, but that we cannot envision every factor that can possibly affect any given outcome.

    Will high energy radiation affect "fast" film more than "slow"? I'll assume, probably safely: Certainly, without question. - But how severely is either affected in the first place?
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin