One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick

Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 23:34:30 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an
old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed
away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the
film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if
there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the
pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to
develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

I went to a place that just did developing, and explined the situation.
They took care and it was fine.

The story of the year-late processing is odd. I had taken a colour film
(this was years ago of course) and posted it in the box outside the
delivery office late one evening on the way past. I didn't receive any
prints and did the usual enquiries. Nothing.

Nearly a year later, the unprocessed film arrived in an envelope with a
short explanation. The postbox had been raided that night for valuables,
and the perps had been caught almost immediately. The film had been in
the evidence store until after the trial, but I wasn't told!



--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 01/12/2019 23:34, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an
old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed
away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back thatÂ* the
film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if
there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the
pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to
develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

It wasnt. I took two cameeas to sradinia some years ago - ahdne use
either for at leats 8 years and notice that one had slide flim in it, It
came back all green. Digitised it and color correcte it. No problem


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

Having said that, when I found an old roll of undeveloped film back in the
90s, made by Gratispool and apparently although a 127 roll, it was not on a
transparent backing, I was advised by Boots that there was a little guy down
the road who did vintage film, mumbling about c41 stock or something. I did
get it developed. and although the pictures lacked contrast due to the film
being old, it showed beach huts somewhere I'd say around the late 1960s
perhaps.
I gave them to a local Hysterical society.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an
old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away
in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had
only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway
that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took
were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film to
develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in the
store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think it was
anything to do with her.

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 23:34:30 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

Out-of date colour film is prone to colour casts though that sounds
pretty extreme to me given that even the oldest 110 film can't be that
old. As I said elsewhere, if the pictures matter to you, consider
scanning or printing in B&W.

Nick

On Sunday, 1 December 2019 23:34:33 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?


--
Max Demian

On 03/12/2019 10:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 1 December 2019 23:34:33 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?

Corporate responsibility should be part of good customer service. Even
if she had said it was because the film was out of date it would have
been something - though I don't remember whether she was aware of that.

--
Max Demian

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...

The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?

Corporate responsibility should be part of good customer service.

Only if the employee in question is suitably compensated which I very much
doubt applies in this case.

Not everybody in life is fortunate enough to work for companies which
provide exemplary service to all their customers at all times, with cost
being no object. The reason the assistant was unable to explain what
had happened or thus apologise was because she was a lowly paid
untrained store assistant - as a matter of a company policy, as a
result of which doubtless higher management got larger bonuses.

Its the higher management who decided to hire lowly paid untrained
assistants who should be doing the apologising, if anyone should.

Even
if she had said it was because the film was out of date it would
have been something - though I don't remember whether she was aware
of that.

Why should she have been ? If you want to deal with highly trained
staff then you go to a specialist shop and pay the appropriate
price. Although obviously in this case there's always a chance
they might adopt an even less welcome, condescending air.
"With respect, of course your prints are unsatisfactory Sir, as the
film was out of date - didn't you realise this Sir ?
Here let me show you". Said in as loud a voice as possible for
the benefit of any other customer in the shop and his mates
out the back.

There's just no pleasing some people is there ?


michael adams

....

On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 11:05:04 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2019 10:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 1 December 2019 23:34:33 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?

Corporate responsibility should be part of good customer service. Even
if she had said it was because the film was out of date it would have
been something - though I don't remember whether she was aware of that.

Did she ask you whether it was kept at the correct temperature both before exposing and after exposing ?
Did you keep it in a warm place perhaps in a car, or on a window ledge or somewhere else. You do know that both exposed and non-exposed film should be kept cool preferable in a fridge.

Corporate responsibility ends when you don't follow manufactures guides.


--
Max Demian

On 03/12/2019 11:04, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2019 10:48, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 1 December 2019 23:34:33 UTC, Max DemianÂ* wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:57, Richard Donnelly wrote:
Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have
an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had
passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back
thatÂ* the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some
where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see
what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a
state to develope.

I (rather foolishly) gave Boots a slightly out of date 110 colour film
to develop a few years ago and the prints came back purple. The girl in
the store refused even to apologise for the defect as she didn't think
it was anything to do with her.

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?

Corporate responsibility should be part of good customer service. Even

You submitted material for processing that had time expired. Colour
processing is rather tetchy about that sort of thing. Its not her fault.

if she had said it was because the film was out of date it would have
been something - though I don't remember whether she was aware of that.

She's a sales droid in Boots for heavens sake!

If you wanted it processed to work despite being dodgy you needed to
take it to the sort of specialist laboratory that knows how to work
around such ageing faults. TBH I can't think of any photo labs that
wouldn't just laugh at you using 110 film. Minimum size was 35mm with
6cm or half plate being the norm for most commercial photographic work.

If you still have those negatives digitising them and colour correcting
will probably get them back to something like right.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tuesday, 3 December 2019 11:05:04 UTC, Max Demian wrote:
On 03/12/2019 10:48, whisky-dave wrote:

Why should it have anything to do with her. ?

Corporate responsibility should be part of good customer service.

Has the film been stored correctly as in the temerature range (under 15C) some people especially non photogrphers using a cheap cameras might have stored the camera and film on the back shelf of a car in sunlight for a few hours or in any warm envioment, both before exposing and after wxposing, this can easily result in a colour cast or other damage such as contrast.
Film should always be kept in a cool dark place bith before and after exposure if possible.

Did she buy it from one of the local chemist or tobaconists that have it on show in the shop window brightly lit and kept warm for weeks on end until it was sold ?
I used to keep mine in a metal filling cabinet under the stairs which never went much about 16C even in summer, if I had my way I'd have kept my film stock in the fridge, but my mum thought the fridge was meant to store things like food and drink NOT film :-(

I did store some IR film in the freezer for a couple of months.


Even
if she had said it was because the film was out of date it would have
been something - though I don't remember whether she was aware of that.

--
Max Demian

On Sun, 1 Dec 2019 13:57:42 -0800 (PST), Richard Donnelly
wrote:

Hi Nick, sorry to hijack your thread, but I seem to remember I have an old Kodak camera which came in to my possession after he had passed away in 1997. In the camera I noticed a little while back that the film had only been half used. May decide to take it some where (if there is anyway that develops old 110 film) just to see what the pictures he took were....That is if they will still be in a state to develope.

1997 is really not too old in those terms.

Last year we discovered some exposed but unprocessed black & white
film taken by my other half's late husband in 2002. In good hands (I
didn't trust myself for something of such sentimental value and sent
it to the lab I use for colour processing) we got some pictures which
are more contrasty and grainy than normal but evoke the times very
well. One of the prints is now framed on the mantelpiece.

Colour film is more likely to have unexpected colour casts due to age
but scanning or printing in black and white usually eliminates these
and results in classy-looking B&W pictures.

A basic rule of thumb is that unexposed film usually degrades in a
known way and can be compensated for in the way you take the picture
or process it afterwards. Exposed film undergoes chemical change at
the time of exposure and that's why it is best to process it promptly
regardless of the age of the film but as I said earlier, 1997 isn't
that old.

BTW I use photohippo.co.uk

Nick

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 21:36:56 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it - you
can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the oldest
I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've had with it
have been pretty good.

Can't help you on film that is *so* out of date, but you're right about
the effects of old film. IME decades-old B&W film gives really grainy
results that add a real classy feel to the images. I'm sure someone will
say you can do that with with Photoshop or whatever using one of the
filtering options, but I maintain it's inferior that way. In fact I was
so impressed I went out and bought some already-expired B&W Kodak Tmax
and popped it in the fridge about 8 years ago. In another four I'll bung
a reel or two of it in a vintage Nikon F2 with a yellow filter and go
take some stormy skies shots when the opportunity arises. I should say my
only experience of this is with B&W film; no idea what happens to old
colour film.
Anyone know if B&W film shooting on vintage cameras is enjoying a
comeback, like vinyl records have?




--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

I don't know but I do recall my father buying up some out of date 8mm movie
film, colour by afar and the results were, shall we say interesting.
There seemed to be only two colours on it, red and green, Some blue was
evident but not much. It was as if the blue sensitivity was low or the red
green was high.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Cursitor Doom" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 21:36:56 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it - you
can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the oldest
I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've had with it
have been pretty good.

Can't help you on film that is *so* out of date, but you're right about
the effects of old film. IME decades-old B&W film gives really grainy
results that add a real classy feel to the images. I'm sure someone will
say you can do that with with Photoshop or whatever using one of the
filtering options, but I maintain it's inferior that way. In fact I was
so impressed I went out and bought some already-expired B&W Kodak Tmax
and popped it in the fridge about 8 years ago. In another four I'll bung
a reel or two of it in a vintage Nikon F2 with a yellow filter and go
take some stormy skies shots when the opportunity arises. I should say my
only experience of this is with B&W film; no idea what happens to old
colour film.
Anyone know if B&W film shooting on vintage cameras is enjoying a
comeback, like vinyl records have?




--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 00:45:40 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Dec 2019 21:36:56 +0000, Nick Odell wrote:

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it - you
can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the oldest
I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've had with it
have been pretty good.

Can't help you on film that is *so* out of date, but you're right about
the effects of old film. IME decades-old B&W film gives really grainy
results that add a real classy feel to the images. I'm sure someone will
say you can do that with with Photoshop or whatever using one of the
filtering options, but I maintain it's inferior that way. In fact I was
so impressed I went out and bought some already-expired B&W Kodak Tmax
and popped it in the fridge about 8 years ago. In another four I'll bung
a reel or two of it in a vintage Nikon F2 with a yellow filter and go
take some stormy skies shots when the opportunity arises. I should say my
only experience of this is with B&W film; no idea what happens to old
colour film.
Anyone know if B&W film shooting on vintage cameras is enjoying a
comeback, like vinyl records have?

B&W and colour too. "Lomography" is a "thing" and you can buy film
that guarantees to give the "wrong" colour cast and special effects.

Nick

I suspect that it is now not viable. I'm assuming this is early celluloid in
which case be very careful. I can remember many years ago now, a guy was in
the local press who was clearing out a property and found some old cine
film reels in the loft. He dropped on and it kind of blew up and nearly
burned the house down. I guess its Nitrate or something in the material.
Being a local paper, we never actually go the detail though.
It would be interesting to find out when film with dodgy materials in it
stopped being made and the decomposition modes of progressively younger
film.
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"Nick Odell" wrote in message
...
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick

On 02/12/2019 08:26, Brian Gaff (Sofa 2) wrote:
I suspect that it is now not viable. I'm assuming this is early celluloid in
which case be very careful. I can remember many years ago now, a guy was in
the local press who was clearing out a property and found some old cine
film reels in the loft. He dropped on and it kind of blew up and nearly
burned the house down. I guess its Nitrate or something in the material.
Being a local paper, we never actually go the detail though.
It would be interesting to find out when film with dodgy materials in it
stopped being made and the decomposition modes of progressively younger
film.
Brian


See also Colin's post below, which contains more relevant facts. Cine
film is normally kept in aluminium cans which are just about air-tight,
so (from the contents reacting slowly with the original air) the oxygen
level inside may have been very low. That could give you conditions for
self-combustion for nitrate film if they are opened or damaged. Your
sheet film will presumably be in a cardboard box, with multiple
wrappings of thick paper. I would predict that oxygen from the air will
diffuse through all that fast enough not to give you any depletion.

"Nick Odell" wrote in message
...
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick

According to

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg469.pdf

quote

Cellulose nitrate was used for 35 mm photographic roll film and
photographic sheets up to about 1940, but it continued to be used
for popular (amateur) formats and aerial photography up to about
1950

/quote

So that cellulose nitrate, about which there are all these
problems was only in use until around 1950. So there is no
real basis for comparison based on experience when using
out of date post 50's film stock which is polymer or acetate
based,

quote

it can start to decompose and become unstable at temperatures
as low as 38 °C, giving off large quantities of poisonous gases,
which could cause an explosion. Warmth and humidity (moisture)
accelerate this decomposition;

/quote

So that if its ever been subject to high temperatures
or humidity at any time during the past 70 years then
it may have started to decompose. While at a guess unless
it was stored under optimal low temperature conditions
throughout, it will probably have started to deteriorate.

quote

How can I tell if my cellulose nitrate film has degraded?
Visual evidence and smell can be used to identify cellulose
nitrate film or negatives that are degrading

/quote

" and smell."

So that possibly without actually opening the box it should
be possible to make a pinhole in the box, in a suitably darkened
environment and have a sniff at a distance, bearing in mind that
any fumes may be toxic.

And given that cellulose nitrate and possibly any gases thus released
are highly flammable this would probably be best attempted out of doors
on a cold night using a torch or portable lamp etc. as a source of
illumination.


michael adams

....

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:18:05 -0000, "michael adams"
mjadams25@ukonline wrote:


"Nick Odell" wrote in message
.. .
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick

According to

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg469.pdf

quote

Cellulose nitrate was used for 35 mm photographic roll film and
photographic sheets up to about 1940, but it continued to be used
for popular (amateur) formats and aerial photography up to about
1950

/quote

So that cellulose nitrate, about which there are all these
problems was only in use until around 1950. So there is no
real basis for comparison based on experience when using
out of date post 50's film stock which is polymer or acetate
based,

quote

it can start to decompose and become unstable at temperatures
as low as 38 °C, giving off large quantities of poisonous gases,
which could cause an explosion. Warmth and humidity (moisture)
accelerate this decomposition;

/quote

So that if its ever been subject to high temperatures
or humidity at any time during the past 70 years then
it may have started to decompose. While at a guess unless
it was stored under optimal low temperature conditions
throughout, it will probably have started to deteriorate.

quote

How can I tell if my cellulose nitrate film has degraded?
Visual evidence and smell can be used to identify cellulose
nitrate film or negatives that are degrading

/quote

" and smell."

So that possibly without actually opening the box it should
be possible to make a pinhole in the box, in a suitably darkened
environment and have a sniff at a distance, bearing in mind that
any fumes may be toxic.

And given that cellulose nitrate and possibly any gases thus released
are highly flammable this would probably be best attempted out of doors
on a cold night using a torch or portable lamp etc. as a source of
illumination.


michael adams

Thanks, that's very useful. Needless to say I shall not interpret
"Portable Lamp" as one of the paraffin variety :-)

Nick

On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick


It is not as straight forward as simply looking at the age. Eastman
Kodak first sold photographic film using cellulose diacetate (aka safety
film) as a base in 1912. Originally only in smaller formats, but by the
1940s, there is a fairly good chance that most photographic film would
be acetate. However, the only way to be sure is to look for the marking
'Safety Film', which should be on the box.

Movie film is easier. Because cellulose diacetate did not meet the
performance standards of the film industry, that continued to use
cellulose nitrate (celluloid) until the introduction of cellulose
triacetate in the early 1950s. OTOH, 16mm and 8mm home movie film has
always used safety film. Eastman Kodak chose 16mm as a size specifically
to prevent 35mm nitrate movie film being split for use in home movies.

Whether or not it is degraded will depend upon how well it has been
stored. The big killers are heat and humidity. Under the right cool and
dry conditions, acetate film can last up to 150 years, but 50 years is
more likely if stored at room temperature and much less if it has been
stored in the wrong conditions. If acetate film smells of vinegar,
degradation has begun.

--
Colin Bignell

On Mon, 2 Dec 2019 09:40:28 +0000, nightjar wrote:

On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

Thanks,

Nick


It is not as straight forward as simply looking at the age. Eastman
Kodak first sold photographic film using cellulose diacetate (aka safety
film) as a base in 1912. Originally only in smaller formats, but by the
1940s, there is a fairly good chance that most photographic film would
be acetate. However, the only way to be sure is to look for the marking
'Safety Film', which should be on the box.

Movie film is easier. Because cellulose diacetate did not meet the
performance standards of the film industry, that continued to use
cellulose nitrate (celluloid) until the introduction of cellulose
triacetate in the early 1950s. OTOH, 16mm and 8mm home movie film has
always used safety film. Eastman Kodak chose 16mm as a size specifically
to prevent 35mm nitrate movie film being split for use in home movies.

Whether or not it is degraded will depend upon how well it has been
stored. The big killers are heat and humidity. Under the right cool and
dry conditions, acetate film can last up to 150 years, but 50 years is
more likely if stored at room temperature and much less if it has been
stored in the wrong conditions. If acetate film smells of vinegar,
degradation has begun.

Aha! I hadn't noticed before, where the label is almost worn out on
the corner are the words "Safety Base."

That's very useful further information too. Thanks!

Further investigation obviously needed here...

Nick

On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

What type is it? I recall ageing FP3 being around post war in bulk. I
think by then almost all of the manufacturers were making safety film
from cellulose acetate. Useful timeline for Ilford product chronology:

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Il...hronology.html

I can't help comparing this to owning an unopened bottle of wine of a
bygone vintage: once it's opened, it's opened and all the mystique is
gone. It might have turned out to be a nice bottle of wine but it
might have been better never to know.

I'm asking uk.d-i-y for some scientific advice. Should I presume that
the base is celluloid, in which case what are the odds that the box
only contains a sticky gloop or crumbled powder? I've heard of ancient
movie film stock spontaneously combusting: is there any danger of that
and are there any specific precautions I should take?

If it is original celluloid as in cellulose nitrate then it should be
kept in a cold dark explosives bunker well away from your property. The
stuff gradually goes unstable with age and long term exposure to heat.

Old celluloid negatives of historically important news images have now
mostly been scanned to archival quality but the originals are kept in
small batches in carefully controlled conditions off site afterwards.
Some of them show slightly alarming signs of deterioration.

It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked
by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

Glass plates are much more stable and pose no threat at all (apart from
sharp edges and breaking if you drop them).

If the odds are that the film is viable then I'll probably use it -
you can get some interesting effects from out-of-date film though the
oldest I've used so far only goes back to 1980 and the results I've
had with it have been pretty good. If the chances are pretty hopeless
I'll probably try and preserve the mystique and keep the box and its
secrets intact.

A museum might be interested in it as stock in an old photographic shop.
Wet chemistry developing and printing has become a minority sport today.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 03/12/19 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:


If it is original celluloid as in cellulose nitrate then it should be
kept in a cold dark explosives bunker well away from your property. The
stuff gradually goes unstable with age and long term exposure to heat.

Old celluloid negatives of historically important news images have now
mostly been scanned to archival quality but the originals are kept in
small batches in carefully controlled conditions off site afterwards.
Some of them show slightly alarming signs of deterioration.

It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked
by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

Perfect timing...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-50641205

--

Jeff

"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
...
On 03/12/19 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:


If it is original celluloid as in cellulose nitrate then it should be
kept in a cold dark explosives bunker well away from your property. The
stuff gradually goes unstable with age and long term exposure to heat.

Old celluloid negatives of historically important news images have now
mostly been scanned to archival quality but the originals are kept in
small batches in carefully controlled conditions off site afterwards.
Some of them show slightly alarming signs of deterioration.

It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked
by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

Perfect timing...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-50641205


At one time around 1870 it was thought a good idea to make billiard balls out of
nitro-cellulose, branded as celluloid, what with an expanding market for billiard tables
and a looming shortage elephants. And while they didn't exactly go up in flames they
sometimes generated mild explosions and made a loud crack on contact. From most
sources it seems they remained in use at least until after the invention of Bakelite in
1907.

michael adams

....

On 03/12/2019 11:21, Jeff Layman wrote:
On 03/12/19 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:
On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:


If it is original celluloid as in cellulose nitrate then it should be
kept in a cold dark explosives bunker well away from your property. The
stuff gradually goes unstable with age and long term exposure to heat.

Old celluloid negatives of historically important news images have now
mostly been scanned to archival quality but the originals are kept in
small batches in carefully controlled conditions off site afterwards.
Some of them show slightly alarming signs of deterioration.

It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked
by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

Perfect timing...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-50641205

Ouch - what a shame to lose so much archive material in one go.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 11:07:01 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 01/12/2019 21:36, Nick Odell wrote:
One of the items in a job lot of out-of-date film turned out to be an
unopened box of Ilford sheet film which must have been manufactured
between 1942 and 1945. It's the oldest unexposed film I've ever come
across.

What type is it? I recall ageing FP3 being around post war in bulk. I
think by then almost all of the manufacturers were making safety film
from cellulose acetate. Useful timeline for Ilford product chronology:

http://www.photomemorabilia.co.uk/Il...hronology.html


Yes, FP3.

The route that I researched followed another link which said the film
was introduced in 1942 and the reason I suggested it was no younger
than 1945 was because of a logo change on the Ilford boxes in that
year.

A museum might be interested in it as stock in an old photographic shop.
Wet chemistry developing and printing has become a minority sport today.

That thought had crossed my mind too. I may enquire further in
Bradford at whatever the current name is for the National Media
Museum. But I knew I'd find the expertise I was looking for in good
old uk.d-i-y!


Thanks,

Nick

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Glass plates are much more stable and pose no threat at all (apart from
sharp edges and breaking if you drop them).

Handy tip: if you scan any glass negatives on a flat-bed scanner, always put
a sheet of (disposable) transparent plastic between the neg and the scanner
glass. I got a nasty scratch on my scanner glass when I forgot to do that.
And be *very* careful of the emulsion which has a tendency to flake off. My
mum was loaned some glass negatives which date from the early 1900s
(probably before WWI) and one of them was very dodgy: I decided to
photograph that one with a camera, looking at a plain white background,
because I didn't trust it on the scanner.

On 03/12/2019 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:


It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked
by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

My late father trained people to blow up tank traps etc. for D-Day. He
had some lovely anecdotes about gun-cotton. (He never did say where he
learned the trade).

On Tue, 03 Dec 2019 16:15:37 +0000, newshound wrote:

On 03/12/2019 11:07, Martin Brown wrote:


It generally just burns incredibly quickly unless confined or provoked
by impact when it may detonate. Basically it is sheets of gun cotton.

My late father trained people to blow up tank traps etc. for D-Day. He
had some lovely anecdotes about gun-cotton. (He never did say where he
learned the trade).

GC was one of my more outstandingly successful forays into the world of
explosives making way back when I was 13 or 14 and obsessed, along with
other boys my age, with such things. It certainly did burn fast:
WOOOOOFFF!! - and gone. Easy to see why it was manufactured in vast
quantities as a propellant for munitions 100+ years ago. Happy times.



--
Leave first - THEN negotiate!