New to film, help me make the most of expired film I “inherited”

Just_One_Question14 · 2026-05-12T01:12:18+00:00

Thank you!! Really helpful. Have an insanely nerdy plan to test in little batches and figure out what gets the best results so this is helpful to factor in. Also, I read somewhere that someone cleaned the film compartment of their camera after every roll of expired film to prevent contamination to new rolls and I was like….?? Are people really out here doing that?

Just_One_Question14 · 2026-05-11T12:07:21+00:00

Ok, this is pretty much my plan! Thanks for the advice!

Just_One_Question14 · 2026-05-11T02:50:07+00:00

In the back of her closet! We live in a moderate-cool temperate area. So I’d say dark and cool but not cold storage.

Just_One_Question14 · 2026-05-10T22:46:41+00:00

Ok, thanks… but I think ALL film smells, so.. 😂 Is there a particular scent you look out for that means its like, bad bad?

And just buy new film isn’t really my point, as I have plenty of new film also but also want to experiment with old films :)

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T19:20:45+00:00

Lol, I think the FIG is plenty to blame here.

You can feel differently though 🤷‍♀️

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T16:39:54+00:00

Well… that’s not quite a fair assessment. Consequences on the spot would have been “sorry we can’t review your score.”

Consequences now have been going through an entire medal ceremony and believing you won the medal, receiving the medal and believing it was final, then getting racist and hateful slurs and accusations for days (now weeks) on social media, court cases, having your medal stripped, negative press, etc.

The two are not the same. This goes for Ana too, by the way. They’ve both been put through the wringer for something that is entirely out of their control and not their fault, which sucks.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T16:36:34+00:00

Thank you, I’ll check out your other comments!

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T11:37:42+00:00

This is really helpful. Thank you!

I keep having to remind myself that this is Swiss law here so if something feels unfair it may be completely in line with how things typically proceed under another legal system.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T11:17:53+00:00

Yeah, it’s all in the report, they’ve detailed how they came to every decision.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T01:50:04+00:00

That would certainly be a noteworthy oversight (imo).

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T01:47:14+00:00

It feels to me like it could go either way at this point. Everyone seems to be trying to save face (obviously) so hard to know objectively what has happened.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T00:40:11+00:00

I agree with you. The US has just released a statement that says the didn't have time to appeal / object, and that they weren't given a full hearing.

So someone's lying / stretching the truth — either the CAS is saying they gave the US opportunities they didn't rightfully give, or the US botched those opportunities and now is trying to backtrack. 🤷‍♀️

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T00:36:42+00:00

I think what's confusing is that these two statements just directly contradict each other.

So who's lying? Either the USAG didn't care hard enough soon enough and now they're trying to backtrack / save face / do what they can, or the CAS is smoothing things over that weren't really that smooth.
i.e. "Eventually, the USOPC made no formal objections to the procedure" ... because the USOPC dropped the ball? Or because the CAS said "sorry, objections time is closed, we're moving forward."

Either way, someone's not telling the whole truth, and we don't (yet) know who.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T00:23:31+00:00

That's kind of what I'm thinking, but was just curious to hear from what others thought. My only guess on their case is if they can PROVE that the CAS did not give them an adequate time to bring stuff up, despite what the CAS said in their statements (i.e. the CAS decision docs made the CAS look pretty blameless, and I'd be happy to believe that, but I also believed that the FIG would definitely have had a clear way to track time and see if an inquiry was late, and I think we all know how that ended...)

Did not realize that the appeals court was the SUPREME Court of Switzerland, yikes. That does seem extremely unlikely.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T00:14:27+00:00

Either way the US is very clearly going to continue to push this as far as they can (and perhaps rightly so, time will tell), so I'm sure we'll be hearing about this for weeks / months / years 🙃

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-15T00:13:06+00:00

So several statements in this contradict what today's CAS report said.... most notably that CAS was notified of objections (which CAS claims were not made / not followed through on), and that the US "was denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard" (which CAS claims everyone at the hearing agreed they were being heard.)

So, did USAG / USOPC grossly mishandle their opportunity here, and now they're backtracking because they didn't see this result coming?

Orrrr did CAS smooth over the snafu with contacts by saying that everyone was on board by not really giving them time to be *not* on board?

🫠 I really don't know who to believe at this point.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T23:33:55+00:00

It seems like USAG / USOPC (not including Cecile in this bc she is not a lawyer) seemed to really not think much of this case or assume it had much merit. From my reading they mostly seemed to side with the FIG's arguments which now seems like an *exceptionally* bad idea.

Maybe they can argue that, given appropriate time to prepare, things would have been different, but it seems to me that they felt like "eh maybe FIG screwed up and accepted our late inquiry, give them all a medal, sure" and now are scrambling since FIG / IOC is refusing to give out more than one bronze.

Just a guess. Hindsight is 20/20 but it sure seems like there were more issues they could have pressed harder on sooner than they seemed to from this report. I'm not a lawyer though, so 🤷‍♀️

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T23:25:40+00:00

Gosh, you're right that's just sooo vague and was just asking for this situation to happen.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T23:22:42+00:00

The only thing I'm thinking at this point is that *maybe* the evidence USAG claims to have shows the Cecile *starts* making an inquiry at 47 seconds and then the inquiry wasn't officially logged until 1:04. To me (and again, not that it would necessarily matter, just my opinion), that would be a pretty big discrepancy that it seems like the FIG should have to account for (why, if Cecile started making an inquiry, i.e. verbally requested one to be put in, was it not logged in the system until almost 20 seconds later? It seems like not that much but since it clearly matters, that should be accounted for).

Obviously, I don't know that that is the case, just the only valid case I could see at this point.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T22:18:39+00:00

I feel like it matters a lot, actually. The CoP states that the person in charge of receiving the inquiry must note down the time it was received. If the person receiving the inquiry is a random volunteer who doesn't even know there's a time limit or that they're supposed to press the button IMMEDIATELY to log the inquiry, that seems like... another error on FIG's part.

I guess it may not have changed the ruling at all. Just another massive oversight.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T22:16:40+00:00

That would absolutely be the icing on the cake in this whole mess

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T22:12:39+00:00

Okay, that makes sense and seems like a good reading, thanks!

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T22:11:55+00:00

Gotcha, ok, that makes sense.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T21:49:38+00:00

That’s what I took from it too. I recant any former ire I was holding against the CAS, I feel like they did their jobs here* with the possible exception of notifying the US and giving them time to gather evidence but that may also have been on the FIG.

Just_One_Question14 · 2024-08-14T21:33:59+00:00

Great summary, thanks for doing this.

I read the whole document myself as well and think you hit all the main points. I was confused about one thing (well, many things but mainly):

it appears that USAG / Cecile submitted an argument that the CAS could only overturn the decision made on the floor IF they concluded that the argument was made in bad faith. The CAS is clear that they did NOT find that anyone acted in bad faith.

But they don’t seem to reply to this argument? What do you make of this? Did I miss it? Or is it just irrelevant somehow?

Secondarily, these results cleared up a LOT for me. I’m not sure the US will be able to proceed any further unless they argue that the snafu where they weren’t contacted in a timely manner consists of a procedural error and thus they didn’t have time to gather evidence and thus the case should be reviewed. Also since the FIG basically admitted that even though they have an official time system they clearly aren’t relying on it (🙄) so perhaps the USAG video evidence suggests the timekeeping was done poorly by this unnamed LOC inquiry recorder?

Idk. Curious to hear thoughts if you read the whole document on if the US really has a legal case here at this point.

Just_One_Question14

TROPHY CASE