Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,008   Posts: 1,524,577   Online: 1013
      
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 39 of 39
  1. #31
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I freeze everything. Even paper. Chest freezers are cheap and cost peanuts in yearly costs, guys.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #32
    calceman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Oslo
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    88
    Images
    23
    B&W film neither stored in fridge or freezer, just room temperature. In SF at Calumet, they have their B&W film at room temperature and told me it did not matter. Of course I have enough film for a year of shooting. Also, my fridge and freezer are small, so more room for beers...

  3. #33

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    192
    Is there a danger of structural damage to either the base or emulsion from freezing/thawing cycles. (or long term freezing for that matter) My refridgerator is a basic model which needs periodic defrosting.

  4. #34
    Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    South Bend, IN, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,840
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by C A Sugg View Post
    Is there a danger of structural damage to either the base or emulsion from freezing/thawing cycles. (or long term freezing for that matter) My refridgerator is a basic model which needs periodic defrosting.
    I should probably wait for Photo-Engineer to answer this, but my conjecture would be that unopened film doesn't have enough water in it for ice crystals to form and do damage by repeated freezing and thawing.
    Charles Hohenstein

  5. #35
    davidst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    38
    The fridge/freezer thing is overstated I feel for monochrome film.

    Have often used film 100 iso, TMax and FP4 which is more than ten years out of date just kept in house temps, and in dry cupboard. Have also used 30 year old TriX 400 iso, that was stored in a bedside table; it was fine.

    I suppose colour film may shift its chroma.

    Printing paper (old darkroom stuff) does not last...it fogs quickly with age, from my experience.

    But after a lot of the hype lets remember black cameras sitting in the sun, cine and still.

    Besides my fridge is full of food and drink!

  6. #36
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I really think people's anecdotal evidence of "I used this decade old film and it worked fine" is just not good enough. It's been shown scientifically that reducing the temperatures of the storage environment increases the lifetime of the film (yes it can't get cosmic rays, not much can). For the people here who have a lot of film, most have freezers for them. If you don't, a chest freezer costs around 200-300$ new, and 30$/year in energy costs. If you have the space for it, why not locate it all in one place where it's taken care of?

    I tend to notice that a lot of people don't put weight on the importance of preservation and maintenance - which is probably one of the reasons so many negatives and film in general, from past generations, is now unusable or extremely hard to print.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  7. #37
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,021
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    I tend to notice that a lot of people don't put weight on the importance of preservation and maintenance - which is probably one of the reasons so many negatives and film in general, from past generations, is now unusable or extremely hard to print.

    My ex-mother-in-law would throw out the negative before looking at the prints. I would talk to her and tell her that she should save the negatives.

    Years later her husband died and she was crying that all she had left for a very worn and torn wallet photograph that she wanted reprinted and now she could not reprint the photograph.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  8. #38
    davidst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    38
    Empirical evidence, I'd say, not anecdotal. That is based on my experimentation, of those particular aged films.

  9. #39
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by davidst View Post
    Empirical evidence, I'd say, not anecdotal. That is based on my experimentation, of those particular aged films.
    You're right, my apologies. :-)
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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