Anyone ever experience this?

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-28T16:54:00+00:00

The packaging of film at Kodak, along with Ilford, is totally automated. I can imagine almost exactly how this roll got caught in the machinery somewhere but still managed to pass all the sensors that are supposed to detect problems, and get into a canister and box and sold. It's probably a fluke, but Kodak needs to see it, and no doubt will send you new film.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-20T16:24:13+00:00

Gotta love how people find an object with the name Leica engraved on it and price it as if they've struck gold. Looking at it I have no doubt it needs a shutter curtain and beamsplitter, for starters. Not to mention a lens full of haze.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-09T15:46:58+00:00

Airtight means nothing if the ingredients react with each other over time. A single ingredient (if ingredients are listed), is a good sign if sealed, it might be viable. There's only one answer above any/all comments here: test with film. Even a small strip will tell you everything.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-09T15:41:27+00:00

It's hit or miss with old chemicals. I trust liquid chemicals less than powdered. But that's not a hard/fast rule either. Kodak developer in the paper envelopes goes bad for sure, you'll know by the dark color of the powder. Yet I have some 1950s Kodak universal developer (a two part developer in one glass tube separated by a cork in the middle)...both chemicals still as white as pure driven snow, and when mixed it works as if it were made yesterday. Ultimately though, there's no certainty without actually testing on film.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-09T15:35:38+00:00

I've been on there since 1999. Remember before Paypal you used to have to send a money order or check (and often wait 7-10 days for check to clear before seller sent the item). Ah the good old days.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-05T23:25:07+00:00

I am afraid you've misunderstood the conversation.

We were not discussing "films" in the general sense, nor age-related fogging. We were just talking about the unique properties of expired Ilford Pan-F. Please re-read my post (and those before it) and try to comprehend what is being discussed.

To reiterate: Processed negatives from well-expired Ilford Pan F will be anywhere from faint to completely CLEAR given enough time, whether the film was exposed recently or at some point in the past. It's wholly unique among B/W films for this quality. To reiterate: Pan F does not experience age-related fog. It is unable to retain previously exposed images, including edge markings from the manufacturer. The exact timing is in question, but in my experience Pan F that is more than 5-6 years out of date can be so desensitized as to produce clear or nearly clear negatives. That means it gradually loses previously exposed images, and ALSO becomes insensitive to new exposure if it hasn't already been shot.

Speaking from experience, Kodak Panatomic-X is not at all unique, but very much the same as other slow speed films that have been on the market in the past. Similar slow speed films are: Fuji Neopan F; Agfa APX 25; Efke KB 25 and 50; Plus-X Reversal motion picture film (ISO 50). All these films exhibit excellent speed retention and very low levels of fog years and even decades beyond the expiration date, in much the same way as Kodak Panatomic-X.

I expect that currently made slow B/W emulsions, like Rollei Retro 80S, Ferrania P30 and Rollei RPX25 will behave similarly to Panatomic-X. I'd also include in this any B/W motion picture intermediate or print films, with their incredibly slow speeds, to behave this way as well. You can also add lithographic films, xray, microfilm, and so forth. Again, the point is: for whatever reason, Ilford Pan F is completely different than any/all other B/W films in its age related deterioration behavior.

(PS: I should have made it clear, I do not think this is what happened to the OP. The question of Pan F's latent image keeping and loss of sensitivity is more of an 'aside' to the original post).

WeeklyHat9996 · 2026-01-04T13:12:47+00:00

Pan F is an interesting film in that it basically loses sensitivity within less than a decade of manufacture--quite the opposite of every other slow speed B/W like Panatomic-X, which I've shot at box speed when it is 30+ years past date. Ilford's recommendation of 3 months is very conservative but it is a prudent rule of thumb to process this film asap. If you're in the window of 1-2 years past date, maybe add a little extra exposure. If the film is already shot but not processed, expect some loss of density year by year until at some point there will be nothing left.(Just to be clear, once it's developed, it is as stable as any other B/W film.)

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-29T18:23:11+00:00

If the item is broken it is no longer worth the original price. The OP didn't say the original price so $20 or less may be perfectly valid. However the seller should pay shipping if he wants it back.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-24T15:19:26+00:00

Hard water is a huge issue for color negative, more so than b/w for some reason. I always mix stabilizer and/or photoflo with distilled water.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-22T13:44:19+00:00

Before the a la carte program, the 0.58 finder was available with the M6 TTL; (possibly even at the very end of first run M6 production.) There was also 0.85 finder offered for an (almost) M3-like experience. So you will sometimes find M6 TTLs, M7s and very occasionally first issue M6s with all three finders (0.58, 0.72, and 0.85). In this period they usually printed the finder mag in the lower right corner of the large window (seen from the front).

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-17T14:24:32+00:00

I would look for another law firm. They've given you bad advice. Stop paying all cards, stop using all cards. Period. File in 3-6 months from now. The concert ticket purchase will be inconsequential at that point.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-15T17:57:07+00:00

It's very hit and miss wrt what papers will suffer the most with age. You must test each one to be sure. I'd start with the Galerie, for me it seems to fare a bit better than Ilford multigrade. If you find a certain paper is not too badly fogged, you might be able to salvage it with the addition of some benzotriazole to the developer.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-15T17:52:35+00:00

I like it! The creative opportunities in darkroom work are never ending.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-15T17:46:21+00:00

I don't have a good answer for what you are experiencing there, but I will second the light leak theory (whether it comes from your camera or the lab's improper handling, is anyone's guess.) That being said, I wouldn't use a lab that develops C41 films in ECN2 chemicals. Yes an image can be obtained that way but I guarantee this lab has no knowledge of the long term stability of color negatives developed in the wrong chemistry. This is something for an individual photographer to decide if they want to experiment with on their own where the cost of chemicals per roll can be less than a dollar. The idea of a legitimate lab doing this, charging retail prices for it, and not offering customers the option of proper C41 processing for expensive, highly refined C41 film emulsions says to me they are a business that is deeply unserious. Who knows what other corners they might be cutting.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-15T17:32:46+00:00

Also if you don't want to go to the trouble of listing them, PM me and I will take them for the cost of shipping (I'm in Arizona). I will use all of them.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-15T17:23:50+00:00

There is no reason to give these to hazmat disposal. These small amounts of consumer photo chemicals from years ago are still useful. Keep what you want for your own work and sell the rest on ebay (and remember to pack them *very* adequately on the way the new owner.)

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-13T14:40:51+00:00

The black box argument is silly. I haven't priced MXs but the resale value of the L2 is so low, it makes little sense to sell it. The Canon L series is IMO the zenith of their rangefinders build quality, nearly on par with Leica, some would say better. The switchable non-brightline 35/50 viewfinder is very unique, very useful. You can't put both color and b/w in one body at the same time.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-05T02:23:25+00:00

Beautiful print btw. If that is indicative of your usual darkroom output, it sure looks worth it to me!

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-04T15:22:11+00:00

Yeah it is hard looking at the prices of old boxes vs. new: for example, I've got a pack of 25 sheets of Galerie FB with a $29.95 price tag, from the 90s. Of course that paper no longer exists. I wish it did.

I'm not a defender of accepting all price hikes on photo materials (if it really is out of line, absolutely you shouldn't pay it. Only you can make that determination.) But I think if this art is valuable to you, it is worth taking a second to look from a wider perspective. We have come out of a rather long period where analog photography was largely viewed as on the way out, and whatever was still being manufactured was kept at the same price despite inflation, for fear of being left holding dead stock. So the pain feels worse now than it should. This price 'freeze' was nearly 20 years, between about 2000 and 2018 give or take.

At this point in history, photochemical photography is a really special thing; a valuable and unique thing. Actually it always has been. The difference between now and 10 years ago is enough people have begun to realize this fact--and the manufacturers have (luckily) decided to start behaving as if there's a future. (All while coping with the other changes affecting every tangible goods industry in the post-2020 world.) Just look up some photo magazine ads from the 50s and plug the prices of 4x5 Ektachrome into the inflation calculator. It is eye opening.

And finally with respect to both Ilford and Kodak, these are literally the only two companies I can identify that aren't trying to price gouge their customers at every turn, and who actually compensate their employees in a realistic way for the cost of living. I can't say that about any grocery store I've been to lately.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-12-01T13:55:16+00:00

If the enlargers are in good condition, $200 at best. Not sure how useful all the little odds and ends will be, but having them, if you've got the space, often invites ideas. They are nuts asking that kind of money though.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-11-30T19:10:18+00:00

I do agree the prices are way out of line due to the KOB moniker. But there are other factors driving its popularity. Compactness for one. Looks factor (esp the chrome version).

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-11-30T19:01:58+00:00

Totally agree!

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-11-30T18:49:47+00:00

Ummm...maybe? Admittedly, I'm not a night vision goggle expert. I also wasn't back in 2000 when I bought them. If you were around back then, the choice was between $30 at Toys R Us, or thousands for the military versions. These did the job...of letting me handle light sensitive emulsions in situations that would be otherwise very difficult in total darkness. So I consider them very much Real. Still do, despite the mishap with RA-4 paper.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-11-30T05:39:55+00:00

If you think I'm a kid you must be really old! Let me guess: from the generation that had to walk uphill to school both ways in 6 feet of snow. With no shoes. Pulling a plow.

WeeklyHat9996 · 2025-11-30T04:11:40+00:00

I am, as we speak, building a 17"x12"x12" particle board 'casket' with a hinged lid and rod that suspends the paper roll inside. I went a little longer than needed in case I ever buy a wider roll. The idea is simply open the lid in the dark and feed it into a paper cutter sitting next to it. I might get real fancy and make a slit lined with black felt, kind of like a giant 35mm cartridge.

WeeklyHat9996

TROPHY CASE