Buy paper, too.

Film, I've got enough for a while, but paper - storage issues!

It has come to this - even my favorite art director, a long-time veteran of
the industry who preferred MF transparencies forever has begun asking for
digital output in order to meet budget constraints. Those constraints come
from the top-down, from executives who see the prints their grandchildren
are making from their prosumer DSLRs and to hell with quality. One of my
favorite and most productive commercial public-relations and PJ
photographers is certain to retire now because moving to digital properl
would mean a commitment to seven extra years to scale his income properly.
He's better off retiring right now. (When you are sixty, seven years is a
large percentage of your remaining lifetime.)

Stock up on paper and film and be happy.

jjs wrote:

Film, I've got enough for a while, but paper - storage issues!

It has come to this - even my favorite art director, a long-time veteran of
the industry who preferred MF transparencies forever has begun asking for
digital output in order to meet budget constraints. Those constraints come
from the top-down, from executives who see the prints their grandchildren
are making from their prosumer DSLRs and to hell with quality. One of my
favorite and most productive commercial public-relations and PJ
photographers is certain to retire now because moving to digital properl
would mean a commitment to seven extra years to scale his income properly.
He's better off retiring right now. (When you are sixty, seven years is a
large percentage of your remaining lifetime.)

Stock up on paper and film and be happy.


The problem with all this stock up talk and advice is
film and paper will fog after so much time. Even in a
freezer. If it didn't I could have bought a lifetime
supply of Pan-X when they discontinued it in favor of
TM and be printing it on my old seagull from the 1980s
(which is quite fogged, usable with benzo but fogged.)
So is my old TM in the freezer fogged.

So, there's a reason we buy fresh films and papers. Now
if anyone knows where I can get a lead-lined freezer
unit cheap...

jjs wrote:

Film, I've got enough for a while, but paper - storage issues!

It has come to this - even my favorite art director, a long-time veteran of
the industry who preferred MF transparencies forever has begun asking for
digital output in order to meet budget constraints. Those constraints come
from the top-down, from executives who see the prints their grandchildren
are making from their prosumer DSLRs and to hell with quality. One of my
favorite and most productive commercial public-relations and PJ
photographers is certain to retire now because moving to digital properl
would mean a commitment to seven extra years to scale his income properly.
He's better off retiring right now. (When you are sixty, seven years is a
large percentage of your remaining lifetime.)

Stock up on paper and film and be happy.


The problem with all this stock up talk and advice is
film and paper will fog after so much time. Even in a
freezer. If it didn't I could have bought a lifetime
supply of Pan-X when they discontinued it in favor of
TM and be printing it on my old seagull from the 1980s
(which is quite fogged, usable with benzo but fogged.)
So is my old TM in the freezer fogged.

So, there's a reason we buy fresh films and papers. Now
if anyone knows where I can get a lead-lined freezer
unit cheap...

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


jjs wrote:
[...]
Stock up on paper and film and be happy.

The problem with all this stock up talk and advice is
film and paper will fog after so much time. Even in a
freezer. [...]
So, there's a reason we buy fresh films and papers. Now
if anyone knows where I can get a lead-lined freezer
unit cheap...

I can't recall if it was you who mentioned that earlier under a similar
thread that cosmic radiation is responsible for fogging, but I checked with
an allegedly reputable scientist (an astronomer) and he said "If the film is
fogged within several years in a deep-freeze, it is not from cosmic
radiation."

Perhaps it was not you who made the assertion. I do find it hard to believe
that ordinary radiation can fog film within only ten years. Do we have any
credible sources? And are we sure that the deep-freeze itself might not be
responsible?

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance here.

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


jjs wrote:
[...]
Stock up on paper and film and be happy.

The problem with all this stock up talk and advice is
film and paper will fog after so much time. Even in a
freezer. [...]
So, there's a reason we buy fresh films and papers. Now
if anyone knows where I can get a lead-lined freezer
unit cheap...

I can't recall if it was you who mentioned that earlier under a similar
thread that cosmic radiation is responsible for fogging, but I checked with
an allegedly reputable scientist (an astronomer) and he said "If the film is
fogged within several years in a deep-freeze, it is not from cosmic
radiation."

Perhaps it was not you who made the assertion. I do find it hard to believe
that ordinary radiation can fog film within only ten years. Do we have any
credible sources? And are we sure that the deep-freeze itself might not be
responsible?

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance here.

Well, the fact is fogging occurs. My old TM 100, which
has been in the freezer for 10 years, develops to a
higher D-max than I originally tested it for. My old
paper is fogged and it's well known paper will fog over
time. USe of Benzotriazole (restrainer) can help with this
but it's easier just to buy new.

I don't know/remember the physics involved. Some of it
I think has to do with (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
the stability of the silver halildes. If I remember, photolysis
(latent image formation) can occur even in the absence of
light and this causes some fogging in silver halilde materials.
Chemical fogging, if I remember, is simply going to happen
over time. It may be that cosmic radiation can trigger this.

I could get out my Theory of the Photographic Process 4th
edition by James but maybe Richard or someone more versed in
photo chemistry can respond to this. It's been a long night
in the darkroom already :-)

Perhaps it was not you who made the assertion. I do find it hard to
believe
that ordinary radiation can fog film within only ten years. Do we have
any
credible sources? And are we sure that the deep-freeze itself might not
be
responsible?

I think it is indeed more chemical than cosmic rays.

Also, remember that a deep freeze is not absolute zero. There's plenty of
heat in your freezer - just not as much as in your car trunk

If film fogging follows Arrhenius' Law, we'd expect that if you drop the
temperature 30 C (by taking it from room temperature to well below
freezing), film would last about 8 times as long as normal.

That seems to be consistent with what people are observing. Paper is good
for maybe 3 years in room air or maybe 24 years in the deep freeze...

This is assuming a deep freeze, not just a refrigerator.


I'm referring to the rough rule of thumb,
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/se...ion-rate.shtml
not the actual Arrhenius' Law with specific constants filled in.

Perhaps it was not you who made the assertion. I do find it hard to
believe
that ordinary radiation can fog film within only ten years. Do we have
any
credible sources? And are we sure that the deep-freeze itself might not
be
responsible?

I think it is indeed more chemical than cosmic rays.

Also, remember that a deep freeze is not absolute zero. There's plenty of
heat in your freezer - just not as much as in your car trunk

If film fogging follows Arrhenius' Law, we'd expect that if you drop the
temperature 30 C (by taking it from room temperature to well below
freezing), film would last about 8 times as long as normal.

That seems to be consistent with what people are observing. Paper is good
for maybe 3 years in room air or maybe 24 years in the deep freeze...

This is assuming a deep freeze, not just a refrigerator.


I'm referring to the rough rule of thumb,
http://antoine.frostburg.edu/chem/se...ion-rate.shtml
not the actual Arrhenius' Law with specific constants filled in.

Tom Phillips wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...


jjs wrote:
[...]
Stock up on paper and film and be happy.

The problem with all this stock up talk and advice is
film and paper will fog after so much time. Even in a
freezer. [...]
So, there's a reason we buy fresh films and papers. Now
if anyone knows where I can get a lead-lined freezer
unit cheap...

I can't recall if it was you who mentioned that earlier under a similar
thread that cosmic radiation is responsible for fogging, but I checked with
an allegedly reputable scientist (an astronomer) and he said "If the film is
fogged within several years in a deep-freeze, it is not from cosmic
radiation."

Perhaps it was not you who made the assertion. I do find it hard to believe
that ordinary radiation can fog film within only ten years. Do we have any
credible sources? And are we sure that the deep-freeze itself might not be
responsible?

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance here.

Well, the fact is fogging occurs. My old TM 100, which
has been in the freezer for 10 years, develops to a
higher D-max than I originally tested it for. My old
paper is fogged and it's well known paper will fog over
time. USe of Benzotriazole (restrainer) can help with this
but it's easier just to buy new.

I don't know/remember the physics involved. Some of it
I think has to do with (someone correct me if I'm wrong)
the stability of the silver halildes. If I remember, photolysis
(latent image formation) can occur even in the absence of
light and this causes some fogging in silver halilde materials.
Chemical fogging, if I remember, is simply going to happen
over time. It may be that cosmic radiation can trigger this.

I could get out my Theory of the Photographic Process 4th
edition by James but maybe Richard or someone more versed in
photo chemistry can respond to this. It's been a long night
in the darkroom already :-)

Well what the hay. James states that fog not associated
with image exposure can occur due to a number of reasons,
including cosmic radiation. Chemicals (including from the film
packaging), or stray radiation can cause fog. It notes the
exposure is recorded as tracks formed from slow electrons
generated in the emulsion from high energy photons. These
tracks can be responsible for 50% of the fog in fast films
and can limit the shelf life of films.

I would think temperature might slow this down a bit but
probably would have to be a lot colder than the average
household freezer.

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

Well what the hay. James states that fog not associated
with image exposure can occur due to a number of reasons,
including cosmic radiation. Chemicals (including from the film
packaging), or stray radiation can cause fog. It notes the
exposure is recorded as tracks formed from slow electrons
generated in the emulsion from high energy photons. These
tracks can be responsible for 50% of the fog in fast films
and can limit the shelf life of films.

I call James on that and will look for a second authority.

Donald Qualls wrote:

jjs wrote:

"Tom Phillips" wrote in message
...

jjs wrote:
Stock up on paper and film and be happy.

The problem with all this stock up talk and advice is
film and paper will fog after so much time. Even in a
freezer. [...]
So, there's a reason we buy fresh films and papers. Now
if anyone knows where I can get a lead-lined freezer
unit cheap...

I can't recall if it was you who mentioned that earlier under a similar
thread that cosmic radiation is responsible for fogging, but I checked with
an allegedly reputable scientist (an astronomer) and he said "If the film is
fogged within several years in a deep-freeze, it is not from cosmic
radiation."

Perhaps it was not you who made the assertion. I do find it hard to believe
that ordinary radiation can fog film within only ten years. Do we have any
credible sources? And are we sure that the deep-freeze itself might not be
responsible?

Thanks for putting up with my ignorance here.

That was me; I was repeating what I've been told by film experts like
Rowland Mowrey as to the source of the fogging. Fogging of fast film,
even at deep freeze (zero degrees F) temperatures is a well known
phenomenon; while an ISO 25 film will last 20-30 years (perhaps even
longer) in deep freeze, Tri-X is only good for 5-10 years after
expiration without showing significant fog, and the old Royal-X and 2475
Recording Film would fog in 2-3 years after expiration; the same seems
true of the modern super speed films, Neopan 1600, TMZ P3200, and Delta
3200.

One has to wonder if the T-grain emulsions are more or
less susceptable, given my TM that fogged was 100 speed...

Radiation of various sorts surely will fog film -- don't believe me, ask
your dentist to X-ray a roll of your film and see what it looks like
when you develop it. The question is dose. Film never forgets a photon
(well, not soon, anyway; I've seen latent images developed after 50
years or more).

A silver halide molecule will "forget" a single photon,
but if more than one or two photolyisis (fog) will begin.

And cosmic radiation is characterized by particle
showers; a single cosmic ray doesn't interact with film as a single
relativistic particle, but as a shower of secondaries including alpha
and beta, X-rays and gamma, all produced by collisions and scattering
events (some as secondaries to the secondaries -- cosmic rays
occasionally have energies akin to the kinetic energy of a cannon shell,
tied up in a single subatomic particle), and all of which can expose a
silver halide grain. It's the secondaries that fog film, even though
(as a shorthand) we say it's due to cosmic rays.


snip...

-- but how many of us have access to a
disused neutrino detector in which to store our film??

must be some around somewhere...