Post New Message | Read Current Messages | FAQ
An archived message
Posted by mikeb on June 01, 2002 at 05:15:01:
In Reply to: film expiration posted by JB on May 31, 2002 at 19:20:48:
>> Does the expiration date on 35mm camera film matter? How would it affect the photographs? How old is too old? Thanks. ~JB
Editor's Note: Let me count the ways, fogged film, lower contrast, color past its prime....
Posted by JohnS on June 01, 2002 at 02:17:56:
It will probably be OK. Try a roll on something not too important. Depends on if it has been in a favorable environment without excessive heat or humidity.
Oh Boy,
Youse Guys ....film.... is the cheapest and most important item
you use in this whole process, pennies a frame ! But nobody wants
to buy it ! A grand for a camera ? No problem, Gimme one of those
long shiny lenses, $600 ? here's the money, $120 for a bag to
carry it, Yep throw in one of those, Three bucks for a roll of
film ? Got anything cheaper ? See the logic ? Regards Mikeb
Posted by John Ayres on June 01, 2002 at 08:01:48:
Good point Mikeb! The perfect comment!
Posted by Francis Roy on June 01, 2002 at 22:04:24:
Goes along with Passport pictures. I can remember more than once customers would come in for a picture for their passport and complain about $8.50 for it. And this after spending (in a few cases) Thousands of Dollars for their trip.
Posted by JohnS on June 02, 2002 at 02:45:26:
Just thought I might follow up on the thread. I would much rather take my chances with an EXPIRED film of almost any brand than to buy a NEW roll of Kodak 400 Max or Kodak 400 Supra, for photos I cared about.
I don't believe buying a roll of in date film from a retailer guarantees much, as it could have been abused (not by any retailer on this board, I am sure). You have to consider the film. Remember the first Kodak Gold Max 800? I still have some of that if anyone wants to see how bad film can really be. It is outdated now, because I couldn't even bring myself to waste it. Thanks B&H!
I am not anti-Kodak, and understand that film is subjective, but I've taken enough photos to know that Kodak needs to improve their +200 ISO print films. My two cents :).
Posted by John Ayres on June 02, 2002 at 15:40:51:
I've noticed that about Kodak film also. I have a list of every film made with reviews and comments about each. I wish I had the URL from whence it came. I noticed that Kodak's high speed films didn't score as high as others as far as grain and sharpness was concerned. In fact Konica Centuria 400 did better than a lot of slower films in respect to grain and sharpness, but average on contrast.
Editor's Note: See also film comparison chart.
Select From Our Indexes
