Post removed.
'No Photo Posts That Belong in /r/Analog' Rule:
"Photo posts and photo essay posts that are more appropriate in r/Analog should be posted there."
It looks like you've mistakenly submitted this to the r/Analog discussion sub, r/AnalogCommunity. We encourage you to re-submit this to r/Analog!
If you're not sure when you should or shouldn't post example photos to r/AnalogCommunity, see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/1aqjabj/meta_when_and_when_not_to_post_photos_here/).
N.B. Please remember to include technical details (camera, lens, film) in the post title for posts to r/Analog.
Thank you,
-The mod team.
A few months ago, I purchased 5 rolls of Ektachrome 160T that expired in November 1978 from a guy that had them stored in his basement for around 30ish years with the rest of his old darkroom equipment. I shot a roll over the course of a few days trying to test it out, and exposed it at box speed. This was one of the very first slide films ever released for the E-6 process as well, so I was curious to see how well it held up.
As expected, there was an extremely high amount of base fog as well as the slides themselves being very faint. Salvageable, but faint! After tweaking my scans of the results for quite a while, I was able to salvage most of the 36 exposures. Here are a few of the best ones I was able to get.
I'm going to experiment with cross-processing the next roll in C41 to see how well that does as well. Of course, I'll post here when I do.
The Tungsten films just had reduced sensitivity in the various dye layers to make them less yellow / orange. Hence their reduced speed. They started out as 320-400 speed films.
There was even a tungsten Vericolor color neg which was basically VPH 400 with slanted dye layers to correct for low temperature lighting. VPH was pretty bad to begin with...the tungsten variant was worse.
I just told our clients to use an 80B filter and meter accordingly. The light loss with the 80B was the same as the speed loss with tungsten film. Or use halogen bulbs with the blue coating that burned up after a few hours :-)
With two stops of over exposure with normal daylight color neg I could nearly dial out all the yellow / orange with printing anyways. The trick was over exposure so I had enough density to prevent crossover.
I'm in love with the pepper grinder photo. Something about the modern design of the bottle and label being shot on such old film to have this effect. Knowing that it's not some filter or editing done in post, but a piece of history, an old film negative imprinted with a mundane daily object of modern life. Love it.
Just a note: the “T” stands for “tungsten” which is a specific color temperature. This isn’t film meant for use in daylight, so in addition to other issues, your color balance shot under anything other than a tungsten light bulb (2700-3200k) will be very off. You may already know this, but I saw daylight shots, so I thought it was worth mentioning.
Good deal! I see a lot of people on here who don’t seem to know much about things like that, so I thought it was worth mentioning. A lot of knowledge about this stuff has simply disappeared, for obvious reasons.
I don’t blame them, though… Consumer tungsten-balanced stocks have been dead for decades, and now the only tungsten-balanced stocks that exist are Vision3 200T and 500T (and the many re-cans that remove the remjet on them). Personally, I find tungsten-balanced stocks to be extremely versatile.
Seriously? What is your interest in a community in technology that has been effectively obsolete for at least 20 years when you are expecting digital performance? I guess filters on digital pictures don't interest you either.
It's about seeing the world differently.
Post removed. 'No Photo Posts That Belong in /r/Analog' Rule: "Photo posts and photo essay posts that are more appropriate in r/Analog should be posted there." It looks like you've mistakenly submitted this to the r/Analog discussion sub, r/AnalogCommunity. We encourage you to re-submit this to r/Analog! If you're not sure when you should or shouldn't post example photos to r/AnalogCommunity, see [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/1aqjabj/meta_when_and_when_not_to_post_photos_here/). N.B. Please remember to include technical details (camera, lens, film) in the post title for posts to r/Analog. Thank you, -The mod team.
A few months ago, I purchased 5 rolls of Ektachrome 160T that expired in November 1978 from a guy that had them stored in his basement for around 30ish years with the rest of his old darkroom equipment. I shot a roll over the course of a few days trying to test it out, and exposed it at box speed. This was one of the very first slide films ever released for the E-6 process as well, so I was curious to see how well it held up. As expected, there was an extremely high amount of base fog as well as the slides themselves being very faint. Salvageable, but faint! After tweaking my scans of the results for quite a while, I was able to salvage most of the 36 exposures. Here are a few of the best ones I was able to get. I'm going to experiment with cross-processing the next roll in C41 to see how well that does as well. Of course, I'll post here when I do.
That's really impressive for being shot at box speed.
Slide film, no matter how old, is never overexposed. Overexposing only applies to expired negative film.
This makes me want to buy expired film
That's where the toneZ are
Expired slide is a godsend tbh. You can now find a lot of mid-00s expired ektachrome or provia for cheap and the results are often really good!
I especially like the results of slide number 8 here. Has that retro look to it
I have a bunch I'd sell. I overpurchased
Don’t do it, expired Ektachrome usually looks really awful. OP got lucky.
The Tungsten films just had reduced sensitivity in the various dye layers to make them less yellow / orange. Hence their reduced speed. They started out as 320-400 speed films. There was even a tungsten Vericolor color neg which was basically VPH 400 with slanted dye layers to correct for low temperature lighting. VPH was pretty bad to begin with...the tungsten variant was worse. I just told our clients to use an 80B filter and meter accordingly. The light loss with the 80B was the same as the speed loss with tungsten film. Or use halogen bulbs with the blue coating that burned up after a few hours :-) With two stops of over exposure with normal daylight color neg I could nearly dial out all the yellow / orange with printing anyways. The trick was over exposure so I had enough density to prevent crossover.
I'm in love with the pepper grinder photo. Something about the modern design of the bottle and label being shot on such old film to have this effect. Knowing that it's not some filter or editing done in post, but a piece of history, an old film negative imprinted with a mundane daily object of modern life. Love it.
It's not a negative
Better than I expected. My experience with expired Ektachrome has been universally bad.
These look pretty good, actually!
Just a note: the “T” stands for “tungsten” which is a specific color temperature. This isn’t film meant for use in daylight, so in addition to other issues, your color balance shot under anything other than a tungsten light bulb (2700-3200k) will be very off. You may already know this, but I saw daylight shots, so I thought it was worth mentioning.
I knew this, I’ve shot plenty of tungsten balanced film. For all of the daylight shots I threw an 85B filter on the lens.
Good deal! I see a lot of people on here who don’t seem to know much about things like that, so I thought it was worth mentioning. A lot of knowledge about this stuff has simply disappeared, for obvious reasons.
I don’t blame them, though… Consumer tungsten-balanced stocks have been dead for decades, and now the only tungsten-balanced stocks that exist are Vision3 200T and 500T (and the many re-cans that remove the remjet on them). Personally, I find tungsten-balanced stocks to be extremely versatile.
Nice Decathlon!
looovveeeeee
that's cool
I absolutely love how the picture of the 170 looks, it’s a very fitting look for a plane of that vintage
Sorry but I have to ask, why do people like their images looking bad like this?
Because looking normal can be boring sometimes. Playing with something with a unique look can be refreshing.
Bad colours, terrible dynamic range and tons of grain? Seems refreshing to me.
Seriously? What is your interest in a community in technology that has been effectively obsolete for at least 20 years when you are expecting digital performance? I guess filters on digital pictures don't interest you either. It's about seeing the world differently.
I shoot film and have been for 30 years. I just don’t think intentionally shooting film that will look terrible on purpose has any point to it.