Expired Tri-X

[SunnySixteen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have come across multiple rolls of Tri-X dated 2004. Stored in a elementary school closet, not climate controlled. Would I be wasting my time shooting this or is it worth experimenting?

[gvaliquette]

Expose and process one to find out.  The condition depends so much on what happened in the last 13+ years to tell any other way.  It certainly will turn out to be different and it might even turn out to be "interesting", 

 

Guy

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Denys]

What have you got to lose? A little time and a small amount of chemicals? Have fun!

[SunnySixteen]

Thanks all, I'll shoot a roll and follow up with my results.

Edited August 13, 2017 by SunnySixteen

[leitna]

 i had the same proplem recently ... different films, most of them expired 2007 ... i came to the conclusion, it's not worth to invest time and money 

[Stealth3kpl]

I'd shoot a roll at a range of exposures and see what happens. If nothing satisfactory, put on eBay. You'll be amazed at how much you'll get for them. Then buy fresh stock.

Pete

[Martin B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shot similarly expired Tri-X film without having any issues. Rough rule of thumb with expired film is to overexpose one stop for every 10 years past its expiration date, especially for higher sensitivity films. This rule has worked quite well for me with several other expired B&W films which I was still using. I just recommend to use a developer suitable for low grain development like Xtol. 

[fotomas]

Bought a package of 100 TRI-X in 1993. Expiration date was 06/1995. Took me until 2007 to use the last one. The films was mostly stored at -18°C in the fridge. In the end the film looked clearly more foggy than in the beginning, but was usable. Sensitivity dropped may be one ASA step.
Had another experience with some Fuji Neopan 1600 expired in 1992-6. Also in the fridge for years. Rather foggy an maybe 200 or 400 ASA sensitivity left only. But I had another roll of it that was stored at normal room temperature for years. It was only minor more foggy then the film in the fridge. Leads me to the conclusion, the higher the ISO the sooner the film will pass away, regardless if cooled or not.

[Martin B]

Bought a package of 100 TRI-X in 1993. Expiration date was 06/1995. Took me until 2007 to use the last one. The films was mostly stored at -18°C in the fridge. In the end the film looked clearly more foggy than in the beginning, but was usable. Sensitivity dropped may be one ASA step.

Had another experience with some Fuji Neopan 1600 expired in 1992-6. Also in the fridge for years. Rather foggy an maybe 200 or 400 ASA sensitivity left only. But I had another roll of it that was stored at normal room temperature for years. It was only minor more foggy then the film in the fridge. Leads me to the conclusion, the higher the ISO the sooner the film will pass away, regardless if cooled or not.

 

Thanks for sharing this experience - I just shot with Kodak TMax P3200 film which expired in 07/1991, but which was stored in a fridge most of the time what I was told. I gave it a try, did some night shooting with it last week with my M3 at ISO 800 and developed with Xtol. Results turned out way better than with brand new Ilford Delata 3200 film! Love the tonal range this old film still achieved in my shots.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by Martin B

[Ko.Fe.]

Just rate it @200. I regularly see FSU users still using made in USSR bw films and results are fine.

 

I believe it is honorable act to use old film instead of trashing it. 

[fotomas]

Thanks for sharing this experience - I just shot with Kodak TMax P3200 film which expired in 07/1991, but which was stored in a fridge most of the time what I was told. I gave it a try, did some night shooting with it last week with my M3 at ISO 800 and developed with Xtol. Results turned out way better than with brand new Ilford Delata 3200 film! Love the tonal range this old film still achieved in my shots.

Thanks for the results. Looks excellent. 1991 must be one of the first rolls of TMZ freshly when it came out. Sometimes got the the impression that the first rolls of film for the introduction are much more fine grained as the later one's. Especially this TMax stuff. We received some test packages from Kodak, when it was released. Fine stuff. Later I got a bit disappointed.

Here an example from a Kodak TMax 3200 expired in 12/2005. Freshly bought and keeped in the fridge until use in 10/2016. Exposed at 1600 ASA and developed with Kodak D96. This is quite grainy stuff...

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by fotomas

[Martin B]

Thanks for the results. Looks excellent. 1991 must be one of the first rolls of TMZ freshly when it came out. Sometimes got the the impression that the first rolls of film for the introduction are much more fine grained as the later one's. Especially this TMax stuff. We received some test packages from Kodak, when it was released. Fine stuff. Later I got a bit disappointed.

Here an example from a Kodak TMax 3200 expired in 12/2005. Freshly bought and keeped in the fridge until use in 10/2016. Exposed at 1600 ASA and developed with Kodak D96. This is quite grainy stuff...

 

 

 

Wow, yes, this is quite a difference! Your photo fits to some I have seen online with quite a bit of grain. I must have done something well to suppress this grain formation - from experience I know that Xtol can be a miracle developer in this regard. I sometimes use Rodinal first to bring microcontrast out in faster films like FP4+ and then to a second development step with Xtol to lower the grain due to the high amount of sulfites in Xtol. For higher ISO film, I tend to go just with Xtol. 

I wasn't aware that 1991 was the introduction time of the TMax P3200 film - but you might be right, I maybe can consider myself lucky to got hold on one of the first batches. I still have 5 more of them to shoot with (now in my fridge).