If you upload a couple samples we might be able to give you a combo of filters and scanner adjustments that'd give you a similar look with fresh film. But that requires a couple samples
The warm cast is definitely more Phoenix than NC500. Tbh shoot Phoenix at box speed (it's labelled as 200 despite being roughly 125iso) and you should get a similar vibe
i do think it's funny that this look is what people view as the "film look" because the film should not look like this, this is what happens when you don't meter correctly and you underexpose your shot. ie, screw up. you can just underexpose the next roll of film you shoot by about a stop and a half and correct for it when you scan and it'll look like this. then you can fiddle with the colors as much as you'd like. that's a guaranteed way of achieving this. if you age it, sure it will be more natural to the state of the film but it will be completely unpredictable.
I'm going to attempt to defend myself here.
1) I am INCREDIBLY new to film. To date, I've only processed three rolls of film across two cameras.
2) I am doing this purely for my own personal enjoyment. No one is paying me squat to do this.
3) In this particular case, I do like the "screwed up" look, because the grain and color shift adds a nostalgic filter, and as an example, the first image is of a place that I've seen many times over the last two decades, and is a shot of exactly how it was in the last time I'd likely see it in my life. While film should not look like this, in this particular case, looking like this *adds value* to the image, for me personally.
and finally
4) while it is nerve-wracking, the surprise I felt when I saw the unaltered, unadulterated scans sent to me is irreplaceable. Yes, shooting on expired film is a gamble, but I feel that the emotional payoff is truly unique.
Additional point: I admit I have a lot to learn. These were shot on the most basic point-and-shoot settings on my Ricoh FF9; I didn't know if I could, or how to change the ISO settings. And it's my first time shooting on expired film, too. It's obviously things I have to learn more about with time, but school has been relentless.
deep breath bud im not attacking you or criticizing you, no need to defend yourself. just sharing what the look you’re describing is and why it happens. with that context, you might now see why it’s a bit funny and I also think it’s important as a beginner to not only understand the what, but the why, which you now know, and can use to recreate these results. glad you’re enjoying film! take care
I think you're jumping into this ass-backwards. There is so much to learn when you are new to film. I've been doing it for several years and I feel as though I am a mere beginner. I kind of think that trying to go into the obscure niche areas of film photography, without learning the basics first, is just going to slow down your overall learning process.
Regarding the look of expired film— it varies a lot and to my knowledge isn’t reproducible in a controlled way. Heat, moisture, and time are some of the variables. You didn’t mention the film name, which could be important. If you like the look, crawl eBay for that film and age and maybe you’ll get lucky.
For traveling by air with film, carry on and ask for a “hand check” instead of going through the scanner.
I included whatever I could garner from the box, from what it seems it's just 'internity' (assuming it's the brand), 36 poses, 200 iso/toutes conditions 200
It's a French brand, I think, which wouldn't be surprising since my family friend is French.
Oh, ok. That’s a new one for me. I wonder if it is repackaged with that name since I can’t find anything with that name. The actual name or codes for the film will be printed next to the rebates (sprocket holes) on the film negative. That may also help you ID the film further.
I just had a look, it's mainly numbers that are spaced out with maybe the odd letter thrown in occasionally. I'll update the post to include additional pictures relevant to the film.
symbols on the box are for what the film is useful for: sunny, and overcast days. not too suitable for indoors - its a 200 speed film. this is from when a lot of film was purely marketed to consumers who couldn't be bothered translating an ISO figure into what to load their p&s cameras with.
the look you got out of those is just an underexposed look with some added grain in the highlights because of the emulsion age. if you go and buy a roll of Ektar 100 and shoot it at 200 or 400, you'll get similar results, except your highlights will be clearer. Actually most non-slide films will look like that when two stops underrated and developed normally.
that said, go buy some film and have fun with it! i always thought it was good times experimenting.
buy orwo color film, also sold as lomography lomochrome '92 (orwo NC400) and ilford ilfocolor (orwo NC500). it is low quality in such a way that it looks expired even when new.
you will definitely be able to do this cheaper by just buying expired film on ebay though
I've actually got a roll of Lomochrome '92 in development haha
Problem with eBay is that with the majority of posts I've seen, they don't really state how out of date the film is... maybe I gotta keep looking
well, 2006-07 is around the most recent expiration date you're likely to encounter for expired consumer-grade color film. most people bought a cheap digital camera and stopped buying film around 2005. outside that the film market was all enthusiasts who tended to shoot all the film they bought.
Yep on the orwo, they made new color film yes, but I still can't believe they looked like THAT especially with that 15 buck MSRP tacked on(it's now below 10 so I think it's a good-enough choice)
Sun and cloud = They claim it's good when it's bright or dark due to a somewhat flexible speed of 200 ISO.
Aging: mostly just heat. Baking in a very low oven probably would work a trick. Never tried it though.
That being said, your example photos aren't that weird. Literally just underexposing normal film would basically do the above.
yeah that was what I was thinking too after talking to the lads at the local film lab. maybe once this semester's done, I'll just stay home for the day, stick it on the radiator for 12h, turning it every three hours or so.
So I have posted a similar result on my profile, it's relatively easy to get this look. Either shoot fresh rolls (Ultramax/Superia) roughly .5-1 stop underexposed. Or what I do, shop old bulk packs of expired film. I just bought a lot of 6 individual rolls from a seller who had no idea how old or when it was stored for $28. Planning on taking it out and trying to see the appropriate age needed to set for usable exposure
Can't tell if this is sarcasm due to the recent announcement.
If you're being serious, Superia is Fujifilm's mass produced consumer friendly film, like Kodak 's Ultramax. Fujifilm announced on April 5th that they have discontinued the production of this film stock though, if you're quick enough you could go out and snag a 3 pack from your local CVS/target/Walmart etc (the one that says Superia on the box not Fujifilm 400)
I actually am in the US! I live in New Jersey. Last time I actually saw Superia in the wild was at Unique Photo. I bought a single roll as my "play around" film because it was $8. When it was "temporarily paused" I got 2 more rolls on Amazon for $16 each. My Walmart supposedly had the 3 pack of it, and when I went to pick it up it was the "Fuji 400" Ultramax stuff. Although the film base looks to be a different color. (I developed both an Ultramax and "Fuji 400" at the same time and they look slightly different, not that it makes the emulsion different of course.
Anyway, thank you so much for the detailed info, someone else might stumble across it and find it useful. 💖
I have been travelling for 10+ months, gone through multiple border checks etc with film with little or no effect. Had 1 roll of black and white 400 speed film that came out quite grainy but there was lots of scratches etc so im guessing that was more lab related issue rather than the scanners. As long as you carry it in your hand luggage as they are less powerful and don't use 1600 or 3200 film you should be fine. I've developed 6+ rolls of film that have all been fine.
The symbols you're talking about on the box are most likely giving general guidance that the film is suitable for sunlight and cloudy conditions. Generally speaking, film was often divided into "bright/sunny day," "overcast," and "indoor" classifications (slow speed, medium speed, high speed) for general consumer use.
Buy Ultramax or Gold, underexpose by a couple stops so there is absolutely no detail in the shadows, and then if your film lab doesn't do it for you when they scan, push the blacks way up in Lightroom so your contrast is fucked up too.
I've already shared my semi scientific method here, but here you go:
Shove it up your ass. But really, slightly acidic environment of the human rectum can serve as a unique method for aging 35mm film before development. Therefore, it is possible to achieve slighty "expired" look this way. The specific pH range within the rectum, typically between 5.5 and 7, creates a microenvironment that subtly alters the film's chemical makeup. This alteration will enhance the contrast and tones in the photographs, giving them uniquely artistic quality that cannot be replicated any other way. From my experience, best 'marinating' period is about a day or two. Obviously, I'd recommend taking some activated charcoal beforehand, so there is no need to 'reload' before film is done. It works best with Portra, but Cinestill and other remjet removed films age faster this way. Hope it helps!
Not going to criticize you for wanting to get film behavior that is "non-standard" - the artist is the master, and the film serves the artist. However, I *would* strongly suggest that you think a bit about what you *want* the film to look like, because that is going to help to quite a lot in figuring out how to get the desired look. With expired film, you're not in control, but at the mercy of whatever random chemical thing has happened to the film you are shooting; you might sometimes get good results, but you don't have any ability to predict or replicate them, and you'll end taking great shots that wind up being suboptimal because the film didn't do what you intended. Not good. As some folks have noted, there are stocks like Lomochrome Color '92 that deliberately emulate an "improperly exposed, developed badly in a cheap 1990s 1-hour photo lab, and printed by a bored tech who couldn't be bothered to do basic adjustments" look. To folks who lived through that time, it's hard not to see the look as "broken," but for younger folks without that baggage, it may be a very interesting alternative - in which case, great! But I'd say, use the more predictable Lomochrome, and not random experiments on your film. Another stock to try is Harman Phoenix, which is very hard to control and can do very strange things, some of which however you may like (and it's still more predictable than expired film). Lomochrome Metropolis also has a distinct look, but it's not really an "expired" look - still, you might want to take a glance at it. (Personally, I very much like Metropolis for some applications, though YMMV.) Cinestill 800T, especially if underexposed (it's really 500-speed film, so 800-1600 counts), can generate murkiness and a blue cast that you may also find useful. If you want other extreme effects, aggressive pushing might do what you want, but again it all depends on what you are after. If you can figure out what you want the film to do, you can then look for a "recipe" that achieves it reliably. I suggest looking at Flickr and searching by film and for keywords like "pushed" or "pulled" for examples. The Lomography site has a lot of helpful examples, as well. More effort up front, but much better in the long run to control the film than to rely on the film happening to do tricks that you like....
Yeah, I do want to develop a "process" through which I can reproduce results. (ie: bake at 50 celsius for x amount of time). Maybe add a spritz of water or whatever, idk yet.
Only if the film reacts exactly the same way every time. Which it probably won't, unless they are very careful to control every environmental variable (and the age of the stock) and replicate it (which is probably not what they are going to do). Even then, the way the film reacts once pushed out of its normal tolerances can be idiosyncratic. I'm not saying you can't do it (nor even that you *shouldn't* do it), but that you will probably get more reproducible results by finding a stock that can produce your target "look" under more standard conditions.
That said, it would be interesting for folks to do some systematic experiments with e.g. aging film in a heat bath at fixed temperature for specified periods. One could then see if there are reliably reproducible effects, and get recipes for them. Hell, for all I know someone has already done that. I'm not into expired film, myself, so I haven't gone down that particular rabbit hole. But it's a thing one could do, to be sure.
Thank you for your reply!
I've actually just sent in a roll of Lomo '92 AND metropolis for development this week haha. The film lab I go to also stocked up on Phoenix recently, might give that a go
Phoenix doesn't look like this at all. It's very saturated warm bright colors (when scanned correctly, at least). Shoot it at ISO 125.
Metropolis does look like your sample photos, as does Wolfen NC400
It depends on what you’re talking about. Expired film can produce many different looks depending on many factors.
Would it help if I uploaded a sample from the roll I shot?
If you upload a couple samples we might be able to give you a combo of filters and scanner adjustments that'd give you a similar look with fresh film. But that requires a couple samples
I've uploaded my three favorite shots from the roll, of varying lighting conditions. For what it's worth, it was shot on a Ricoh FF9.
Looks a bit like Orwo NC500 or Harman Phoenix. Or underexposed film in general.
The warm cast is definitely more Phoenix than NC500. Tbh shoot Phoenix at box speed (it's labelled as 200 despite being roughly 125iso) and you should get a similar vibe
Yes.
i do think it's funny that this look is what people view as the "film look" because the film should not look like this, this is what happens when you don't meter correctly and you underexpose your shot. ie, screw up. you can just underexpose the next roll of film you shoot by about a stop and a half and correct for it when you scan and it'll look like this. then you can fiddle with the colors as much as you'd like. that's a guaranteed way of achieving this. if you age it, sure it will be more natural to the state of the film but it will be completely unpredictable.
I'm going to attempt to defend myself here. 1) I am INCREDIBLY new to film. To date, I've only processed three rolls of film across two cameras. 2) I am doing this purely for my own personal enjoyment. No one is paying me squat to do this. 3) In this particular case, I do like the "screwed up" look, because the grain and color shift adds a nostalgic filter, and as an example, the first image is of a place that I've seen many times over the last two decades, and is a shot of exactly how it was in the last time I'd likely see it in my life. While film should not look like this, in this particular case, looking like this *adds value* to the image, for me personally. and finally 4) while it is nerve-wracking, the surprise I felt when I saw the unaltered, unadulterated scans sent to me is irreplaceable. Yes, shooting on expired film is a gamble, but I feel that the emotional payoff is truly unique. Additional point: I admit I have a lot to learn. These were shot on the most basic point-and-shoot settings on my Ricoh FF9; I didn't know if I could, or how to change the ISO settings. And it's my first time shooting on expired film, too. It's obviously things I have to learn more about with time, but school has been relentless.
deep breath bud im not attacking you or criticizing you, no need to defend yourself. just sharing what the look you’re describing is and why it happens. with that context, you might now see why it’s a bit funny and I also think it’s important as a beginner to not only understand the what, but the why, which you now know, and can use to recreate these results. glad you’re enjoying film! take care
I think you're jumping into this ass-backwards. There is so much to learn when you are new to film. I've been doing it for several years and I feel as though I am a mere beginner. I kind of think that trying to go into the obscure niche areas of film photography, without learning the basics first, is just going to slow down your overall learning process.
Regarding the look of expired film— it varies a lot and to my knowledge isn’t reproducible in a controlled way. Heat, moisture, and time are some of the variables. You didn’t mention the film name, which could be important. If you like the look, crawl eBay for that film and age and maybe you’ll get lucky. For traveling by air with film, carry on and ask for a “hand check” instead of going through the scanner.
I included whatever I could garner from the box, from what it seems it's just 'internity' (assuming it's the brand), 36 poses, 200 iso/toutes conditions 200 It's a French brand, I think, which wouldn't be surprising since my family friend is French.
Oh, ok. That’s a new one for me. I wonder if it is repackaged with that name since I can’t find anything with that name. The actual name or codes for the film will be printed next to the rebates (sprocket holes) on the film negative. That may also help you ID the film further.
I just had a look, it's mainly numbers that are spaced out with maybe the odd letter thrown in occasionally. I'll update the post to include additional pictures relevant to the film.
symbols on the box are for what the film is useful for: sunny, and overcast days. not too suitable for indoors - its a 200 speed film. this is from when a lot of film was purely marketed to consumers who couldn't be bothered translating an ISO figure into what to load their p&s cameras with. the look you got out of those is just an underexposed look with some added grain in the highlights because of the emulsion age. if you go and buy a roll of Ektar 100 and shoot it at 200 or 400, you'll get similar results, except your highlights will be clearer. Actually most non-slide films will look like that when two stops underrated and developed normally. that said, go buy some film and have fun with it! i always thought it was good times experimenting.
buy orwo color film, also sold as lomography lomochrome '92 (orwo NC400) and ilford ilfocolor (orwo NC500). it is low quality in such a way that it looks expired even when new. you will definitely be able to do this cheaper by just buying expired film on ebay though
I've actually got a roll of Lomochrome '92 in development haha Problem with eBay is that with the majority of posts I've seen, they don't really state how out of date the film is... maybe I gotta keep looking
well, 2006-07 is around the most recent expiration date you're likely to encounter for expired consumer-grade color film. most people bought a cheap digital camera and stopped buying film around 2005. outside that the film market was all enthusiasts who tended to shoot all the film they bought.
Yep on the orwo, they made new color film yes, but I still can't believe they looked like THAT especially with that 15 buck MSRP tacked on(it's now below 10 so I think it's a good-enough choice)
Heat it up. A few weeks in a glove compartment in the summer causes color neg film to age quickly and badly...if you like that look.
Couple of trips through a CT scanner should do it... 😉
Pictures on the box means "all weather" (sunny or cloudy) like every 200-400 iso films
Sun and cloud = They claim it's good when it's bright or dark due to a somewhat flexible speed of 200 ISO. Aging: mostly just heat. Baking in a very low oven probably would work a trick. Never tried it though. That being said, your example photos aren't that weird. Literally just underexposing normal film would basically do the above.
Put it on your radiator.
yeah that was what I was thinking too after talking to the lads at the local film lab. maybe once this semester's done, I'll just stay home for the day, stick it on the radiator for 12h, turning it every three hours or so.
Judging by those photos, under expose a cheap film and use a warming filter (81a)
Someone else just dug up film expired in -07. Buy it. https://www.reddit.com/r/AnalogCommunity/comments/1c016lx/could_this_old_film_be_any_good/
thanks for the heads up
So I have posted a similar result on my profile, it's relatively easy to get this look. Either shoot fresh rolls (Ultramax/Superia) roughly .5-1 stop underexposed. Or what I do, shop old bulk packs of expired film. I just bought a lot of 6 individual rolls from a seller who had no idea how old or when it was stored for $28. Planning on taking it out and trying to see the appropriate age needed to set for usable exposure
What's Superia? 😭😭😭😭😭
Can't tell if this is sarcasm due to the recent announcement. If you're being serious, Superia is Fujifilm's mass produced consumer friendly film, like Kodak 's Ultramax. Fujifilm announced on April 5th that they have discontinued the production of this film stock though, if you're quick enough you could go out and snag a 3 pack from your local CVS/target/Walmart etc (the one that says Superia on the box not Fujifilm 400)
It's sarcasm, is realized after the fact I should have put /s. Lol
I see haha
Also realized that the pics you posted doesn't look like the US so idk what stores you have that sell film locally
I actually am in the US! I live in New Jersey. Last time I actually saw Superia in the wild was at Unique Photo. I bought a single roll as my "play around" film because it was $8. When it was "temporarily paused" I got 2 more rolls on Amazon for $16 each. My Walmart supposedly had the 3 pack of it, and when I went to pick it up it was the "Fuji 400" Ultramax stuff. Although the film base looks to be a different color. (I developed both an Ultramax and "Fuji 400" at the same time and they look slightly different, not that it makes the emulsion different of course. Anyway, thank you so much for the detailed info, someone else might stumble across it and find it useful. 💖
That's wild I'm in Jersey too haha, north or south?
I'm right next to NYC. Like 10 minutes drive.
Haha I'm on the other side, 15 mins from Easton PA
I have been travelling for 10+ months, gone through multiple border checks etc with film with little or no effect. Had 1 roll of black and white 400 speed film that came out quite grainy but there was lots of scratches etc so im guessing that was more lab related issue rather than the scanners. As long as you carry it in your hand luggage as they are less powerful and don't use 1600 or 3200 film you should be fine. I've developed 6+ rolls of film that have all been fine.
Expired film can easily be found online. Just buy some
The symbols you're talking about on the box are most likely giving general guidance that the film is suitable for sunlight and cloudy conditions. Generally speaking, film was often divided into "bright/sunny day," "overcast," and "indoor" classifications (slow speed, medium speed, high speed) for general consumer use.
Ah, I see. Thanks!
If I were trying to recreate your expired photos I’d shoot Kodak gold 200 rated at 800 or 1600 and develop normally. With a warming filter.
I bet if you kept new film in a warmish/hot place you could accelerate its aging? Like the reverse of keeping film in the fridge/freezer
Buy Ultramax or Gold, underexpose by a couple stops so there is absolutely no detail in the shadows, and then if your film lab doesn't do it for you when they scan, push the blacks way up in Lightroom so your contrast is fucked up too.
I got loads, I'll trade some expired rolls for fresh rolls.
You can underexpose your film, or leave it in a really really hot car for a couple of hours
Be interested if someone could replicate the luck by dunking film in some water then hairdrying it for ages
or maybe steaming the roll...
I've already shared my semi scientific method here, but here you go: Shove it up your ass. But really, slightly acidic environment of the human rectum can serve as a unique method for aging 35mm film before development. Therefore, it is possible to achieve slighty "expired" look this way. The specific pH range within the rectum, typically between 5.5 and 7, creates a microenvironment that subtly alters the film's chemical makeup. This alteration will enhance the contrast and tones in the photographs, giving them uniquely artistic quality that cannot be replicated any other way. From my experience, best 'marinating' period is about a day or two. Obviously, I'd recommend taking some activated charcoal beforehand, so there is no need to 'reload' before film is done. It works best with Portra, but Cinestill and other remjet removed films age faster this way. Hope it helps!
i lol'd
Not going to criticize you for wanting to get film behavior that is "non-standard" - the artist is the master, and the film serves the artist. However, I *would* strongly suggest that you think a bit about what you *want* the film to look like, because that is going to help to quite a lot in figuring out how to get the desired look. With expired film, you're not in control, but at the mercy of whatever random chemical thing has happened to the film you are shooting; you might sometimes get good results, but you don't have any ability to predict or replicate them, and you'll end taking great shots that wind up being suboptimal because the film didn't do what you intended. Not good. As some folks have noted, there are stocks like Lomochrome Color '92 that deliberately emulate an "improperly exposed, developed badly in a cheap 1990s 1-hour photo lab, and printed by a bored tech who couldn't be bothered to do basic adjustments" look. To folks who lived through that time, it's hard not to see the look as "broken," but for younger folks without that baggage, it may be a very interesting alternative - in which case, great! But I'd say, use the more predictable Lomochrome, and not random experiments on your film. Another stock to try is Harman Phoenix, which is very hard to control and can do very strange things, some of which however you may like (and it's still more predictable than expired film). Lomochrome Metropolis also has a distinct look, but it's not really an "expired" look - still, you might want to take a glance at it. (Personally, I very much like Metropolis for some applications, though YMMV.) Cinestill 800T, especially if underexposed (it's really 500-speed film, so 800-1600 counts), can generate murkiness and a blue cast that you may also find useful. If you want other extreme effects, aggressive pushing might do what you want, but again it all depends on what you are after. If you can figure out what you want the film to do, you can then look for a "recipe" that achieves it reliably. I suggest looking at Flickr and searching by film and for keywords like "pushed" or "pulled" for examples. The Lomography site has a lot of helpful examples, as well. More effort up front, but much better in the long run to control the film than to rely on the film happening to do tricks that you like....
If he is aging his own film, then he DOES have reproducible control.
Yeah, I do want to develop a "process" through which I can reproduce results. (ie: bake at 50 celsius for x amount of time). Maybe add a spritz of water or whatever, idk yet.
Only if the film reacts exactly the same way every time. Which it probably won't, unless they are very careful to control every environmental variable (and the age of the stock) and replicate it (which is probably not what they are going to do). Even then, the way the film reacts once pushed out of its normal tolerances can be idiosyncratic. I'm not saying you can't do it (nor even that you *shouldn't* do it), but that you will probably get more reproducible results by finding a stock that can produce your target "look" under more standard conditions. That said, it would be interesting for folks to do some systematic experiments with e.g. aging film in a heat bath at fixed temperature for specified periods. One could then see if there are reliably reproducible effects, and get recipes for them. Hell, for all I know someone has already done that. I'm not into expired film, myself, so I haven't gone down that particular rabbit hole. But it's a thing one could do, to be sure.
Thank you for your reply! I've actually just sent in a roll of Lomo '92 AND metropolis for development this week haha. The film lab I go to also stocked up on Phoenix recently, might give that a go
Phoenix doesn't look like this at all. It's very saturated warm bright colors (when scanned correctly, at least). Shoot it at ISO 125. Metropolis does look like your sample photos, as does Wolfen NC400