Will my film be degraded?

[lifeinplastic]

Hi...

I am still new to super 8 filming. I went on a trip to Europe last year and I brought along 12 cartridges of Kodak color negative stock and shot my trip with my beaulieu.

I have plans of eventually transferring my film to an uncompressed hard drive and then editing with a computer.

For some reason, I delayed getting all of my film developed until recently- part procrastination, part forgetfulness, and part lack of money.

Anyways, it will have ultimately been over a year between when the film was exposed and when it was developed.

Is this going to change the quality of the film. I have kept the film in a cool, dark place for that entire time.

On the Kodak site it says that film should be developed as soon after exposure as possible.

If the film will be degraded from the development delay, what kind of problems could I expect to see from the film? Changes in saturation, contrast, fogging, etc?

I know it really doesn't matter with 35mm photos. You can develop the film any time after shooting and the results will be the same. I don't know why it would be that much different with super 8 film.

I look forward to your responses...

[MovieStuff]

It will most likely be fine but, really, what choice do you have? Would you not bother to process it if we said it would come out a bit faded? You can do a lot during the transfer and also in post so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Roger

[wado1942]

I second that remark. It's probably fine.

know it really doesn't matter with 35mm photos. You can develop the film any time after shooting and the results will be the same

There's a big difference between consumer grade film and professional grade. Pro film ages a lot more quickly and if you buy pro film, a lot of times it's kept in a refrigerator or freezer. I do this as practice anyway. I keep the film in the freezer till the day before I plan to use it. If I can't develop it right away, back into the freezer it goes. When I get the processed film back, again with the freezer.

[super8man]

I don't think that is quite the correct comparison between prop and consumer stocks...you are implying consumer stocks are better at retaining their image qualities. Not so.

The pro films are pro films BECAUSE they are kept in the fridge and the user can be assured that they will get EXACTLY the same color from each roll of film as it is used before (if given) any expiry date of the film AND if each roll is refrigerated like the last before use.

Consumer films offer no such assurance of color consistency between each roll of film.

That is the difference between pro films and consumer films, or more correctly, films purchased from a refrigerator and films purchased off the shelf.

The fact that we all store our purchased films in the fridge or freezer is simply to slow down the chemical breakdown of the film. This is a different thing than pro films delivering the SAME color qualities from roll to roll.

Cheers,
Mike

[MovieStuff]

It has been long time since I worked in photo retail but I believe that the Kodak engineer once told me that there is no difference in the manufacture of consumer color negative and pro color negative. The only difference is in how it is handled. It is understood that consumer negative will "age" during shipping and storage time, which can affect grain, contrast and latitude to some degree. Pro negative is the same physical film but is refrigerated immediately upon manufacture and is also grouped by emulsion numbers to facilitate easier color printing in the darkroom, since a change in emulsion number usually meant changing your filter pack in the enlarger. But with today's advances in color scanning and color correction, I'm not sure if there is really a viable difference between consumer and professional neg. Based on my experience, if you let unexposed pro neg sit on the shelf for a few months, it turns into consumer neg. If anything, I have found fresh pro neg to be more contrasty than fresh consumer neg without any appreciable difference in grain structure. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, paying more for pro neg is over-rated.

My two cents......

Roger

[wado1942]

Puting film in the freezer doesn't make it professional film. Even though pro and consumer film degrade at the same rate, pro grade film is manufactured with the intention that it will go directly to a retailer, sold and used within a matter of a few weeks. So pro film is at its ideal color/contrast when its manufactured. Consumer film on the other hand is made in such a way that it will be at its PEAK performance a couple of months after it's made. Consumer film also tends to be of higher lattitude than say a portrait film so even when it DOES degrade past its prime, it'll still yield satisfactory results. So basically, pro film will get fantastic results when used right away, consumer film will be OK but never great.

[edit] Now I'm talking about portrait films vs consumer, not normal shooting stock.

[super8man]

All of this sounds much better and more inline with the discussions I have with shooters at the local studio (not movie, but stills).

It was this quote I found to be incorrect and reacted to:

"Pro film ages a lot more quickly and if you buy pro film, a lot of times it's kept in a refrigerator or freezer."

Again, all film ages from inception, but the pro films offer assurance of continuity of expectations. As for correcting in post, no thanks. I like to handle as much of that up front on the film side, otherwise I would shoot digital and make it "look" like film in post!
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Cheers,
Mike

[MovieStuff]

Puting film in the freezer doesn't make it professional film.

It depends on when it was put in the freezer.

Even though pro and consumer film degrade at the same rate, pro grade film is manufactured with the intention that it will go directly to a retailer,...

Pro and consumer neg both go directly to the retailer. The difference is whether the film is kept frozen or not in transit and storage.

....sold and used within a matter of a few weeks.

Which rarely happens which is why they put it in a freezer, so that it will be factory fresh when the professional buys it 6 months later.

So pro film is at its ideal color/contrast when its manufactured.

So is consumer film but it is anticipated to age as it is stored and shipped.

Consumer film on the other hand is made in such a way that it will be at its PEAK performance a couple of months after it's made.

Film is not seasonal, like bananas, and consumer neg that's been on the retail shelf for a few months looks, meters and performs no different than consumer neg that's been on the retail shelf for a year. And, for that matter, pro neg that's been unrefrigerated on the shelf for a year looks no different than consumer neg that's been on the shelf for a year, as well. One does not age faster than the other. I know from experience because I've had to intermix both and the results will be the same if they've been out of refrigeration.

Consumer film also tends to be of higher lattitude than say a portrait film so even when it DOES degrade past its prime, it'll still yield satisfactory results.

Actually, what happens is that the older film gets, the more exposure it takes to create an image. That is why pro still neg directly from the factory was rated at ASA 160 (or was it 125?) while the consumer counterpart was rated at ASA 100. If you let pro neg sit out at room temperature for 6 months, you need to derate it to ASA 100 or you will get underexposure and fatter grain.

Also, the more any film ages, the lower the contrast it produces, which is why fresh pro film has historically higher contrast than consumer film. Let them both sit at room temp for 6 months and they'll meter and look the same.

So basically, pro film will get fantastic results when used right away, consumer film will be OK but never great.

Consumer film straight from the factory will look exactly the same as pro film and you would never see the difference. Our Kodak rep demonstrated that very thing to our staff 20+ years ago.

I'm speaking mainly about VPS that we used to shoot decades ago but, in my mind, there is zero reason to make the films differently since it takes the same amount of time, machinery and effort to make pro film as it does consumer film. Differences in performance seem to have more to do with how it was handled, not so much in how it was made, based on my past professional experience and conversations with a Kodak engineer long ago. I suppose modern film might be different but I don't see why Kodak would bother making two different color negs for 35mm stills.

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

It may be that the difference between "pro" and "consumer" film products is merely in the quality control standards, much like aviation materials. The stricter standards doesn't necessarily insure a superior product but rather the insurance that you will receive a product with qualified documentation as to its meeting the standards. That is why an aviation bolt cost many more times what the same bolt does without the documentation. The theory I have always heard is that with pro films you can be sure as to the exacting film speed without having to do tests with each batch to determine proper exposure. I have never noticed a difference in my limited abilities as a still photographer.


David M. Leugers

[MovieStuff]

....The theory I have always heard is that with pro films you can be sure as to the exacting film speed without having to do tests with each batch to determine proper exposure. I have never noticed a difference in my limited abilities as a still photographer.

And I think that most people would not, even with proficient skills. When everything was all chemical and emulsion based, matching emulsion numbers were pretty important because of the reasons I previous noted regarding filter packs and the like for darkroom printing apps. But scanning and Photoshop seems to be the great equalizer, for better or for worse. I talked to a friend of mine last week that works in the industrial sales department of a photography store in Houston and he says that hardly anyone asks for pro-paks of matched emulsion numbers these days. On the contrary, he said that shooters that still use film are so hard pressed to compete with digital origination that they tend to buy the consumer bulk paks of stanard neg, just to save as much money as possible. Even at that, they only buy film in the store if they happen to be there for another reason. Otherwise, they buy their film at Sam's Club or other places that sell it cheaper than the photography store can buy it for resell!!! 8O

Roger

[David M. Leugers]

The future for still films seem very murky indeed. Shoot it while you still can, and there are some very important reasons to do that. My son just had his computer crash due to the hard drive failed. Seems he had all his digital pictures loaded onto it without any backup on CD or other media... Film is foolproof in that respect as long as you don't accidently throw out the box with the negatives in it. 8)


David M. Leugers

[lifeinplastic]

All this talk about pro vs. consumer film seems to be out of the sphere of super 8mm film.

I've never heard of this distinction in grades of film with the super 8 format.

From everything that I have read, super 8 film is super 8 film. There is no pro or consumer grade- it is all the same.

Unless you are making this distinction between pro8mm stock (from Super8sound in Burbank) and Kodak stock.

I have never used pro8mm film, but from what I've heard that it is extremely hit-or-miss. I've read some users buying a large amount of the same stock at same time for a project and obtaining disparate results (variations in color, sharpness, tone, contrast, etc) from each cartridge.

[Angus]

From everything that I have read, super 8 film is super 8 film. There is no pro or consumer grade- it is all the same.
.

In recent years only Kodak has made super 8 film (apart from others who slit and perforate film intended for other uses).

These days super 8 is part of Kodak's professional entertainment imaging department and as such is all classified as professional products. Even the 64T which is the film mos amateurs will use has no expiry date on the box as it is now made and marketed by Kodak's pro arm.

In the past when there were more stocks on offer from Kodak, the colour reversal films had expiry dates on and were considered amateur stocks while the neg films were marketed by a different department and were pro films. I'm not 100% sure about the B&W films as I didn't start using them until 2000.

Further back when other companies offered super 8 film (Agfa, 3M, Gaf etc) they were considered amateur because the format was an amateur format.

To my mind apart from the refridgeration issue and the "guarantee" that a batch of pro films should all perform the same....the main difference between pro and amateur for me is that the pro films tend to offer a greater range of options with regard to colour saturation...eg with still film Kodak do VC and NC films and frankly I *hate* the "Gold" line of consumer print film because its colours look to me like a TV with the colour turned way up.....but Portra NC can look nice if you know how to use it. Whereas the print films for the general public are designed for snapshots and general use to be OK in most conditions.

But in all honesty if you're shooting print film you can't go wrong with Fuji Superia.....and having used the pro stuff I don't find it is much different - but it *is* guaranteed that you can mix & match rolls from the same batch and get the same results.

[Patrick]

"From everything that I have read, super 8 film is super 8 film. There is no pro or consumer grade- it is all the same."

Kodak have released Vision 200T and 500T negative films in the super 8 format and these would be regarded as 'professional films.' And another difference between consumer and professional films is that pro films often have a finer grain structure.

[wado1942]

Now wait a minute, there's VERY DEFINITELY a difference between pro grade portrait films and consumer films. I shot my wedding on a pro portrait film and I have NEVER seen anything like it in ANY consumer grade film. The narrower lattitude was perfect indoors and would have sucked outdoors, not to mention the color saturation is nothing like anything else I've seen. I'm sure the consumer market has some equivelants on the pro market but there's definitely pro films that are NOT on the consumer market. Also, I don't think this conversation is off topic at all because E64T is definitely a consumer film while V2-200T is definitely a pro film.