film speed

[Alfred D.]

[...] I've got quite a few K25 / Kodachrome II slides from the early '60s, and they are fantastic. My favourite film, although Velvia is a close second. Of course Velvia probably won't look as good in 50 years as K64 will.

CAVEAT:

Nothing will look good in 50 years if you don't store it under carefully controlled climatic circumstances. Especially the relative humidity and temperature! And sealed from ambient chemical trace fumes (which are always in the air around us).

Without special care film will dry out, go brittle, and finally turn – literally – to dust.

Storage and Care of
KODAK Photographic Materials (PDF)

 

[ovjamaica]

Alfred, no offense, I'm new here, but are you always so literal and argumentative? I've seen a few threads already where you do nothing but argue. No offense, and hopefully this isn't seen as some personal attack. I just wondered if that's just how you are and I should simply accept it.

 

[asfixiate]

From what I see he prefers to be informative than sugar coating things. I like his style...cowboy thing going for him(Big Lebowski reference)

Whenever you get frustrated just look at my avatar...Coolest pug in the universe.

 

[Helen B]

Yes, the comment about film turning to dust is a little extreme, especially when you have seen many many negatives and transparencies that have survived a few decades in the proverbial shoebox in the basement.

Just a small point, but neither Leopold Godowsky Jr nor Leopold Mannes were titled 'Dr', and they were both musicians, not physicists. Here's a picture of them, taken on Kodachrome in 1940.

35 mm Kodachrome Type A, 1/10 s at f/4. Leopold Mannes (at the piano) took the picture with a long cable release.

Best,
Helen

 

[Alfred D.]

Correct, asfixiate, you hit the nail on the head: I "prefer to be informative [and precise, rather] than sugar coating things".

Yes, the comment about film turning to dust is a little extreme, especially when you have seen many many negatives and transparencies that have survived a few decades in the proverbial shoebox in the basement.

My "comment about film turning to dust" is not at all extreme, "especially when you have seen many many MORE negatives and transparencies that" did not survive "a few decades in the proverbial shoebox in the basement".
Lost for all eternity.

Kodak doesn't publish a paper like "Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials (PDF)" for nothing...
So, if you were right, Helen, Kodak would also be "extreme".

 

[ovjamaica]

From what I see he prefers to be informative than sugar coating things.

Whenever you get frustrated just look at my avatar...Coolest pug in the universe.

Thanks for the save asfixiate. I'm just trying to learn the forum dynamics. It's like being the new kid at school. You observe things about people, try to find where you fit in, etc. So far this has been a very welcoming place.

 

[asfixiate]

This forum a lot of time seems like people have 5 second tempers but once you spend a month or two here you get used to it. In my line of work I have to repeat myself so it doesn't bother me as much as it bothers others. Life's to short to sweat small stuff.

WOW I said a month or two like 4 times. Edited.

 

[Helen B]

My "comment about film turning to dust" is not at all extreme, "especially when you have seen many many MORE negatives and transparencies that" did not survive "a few decades in the proverbial shoebox in the basement".
Lost for all eternity.

Kodak doesn't publish a paper like "Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials (PDF)" for nothing...
So, if you were right, Helen, Kodak would also be "extreme".

Er, no. You have misquoted me and tried to infer a meaning to my words that is not there. I wrote 'a little extreme', which is nothing like 'extreme', and I think that there is a difference between the very good advice that Kodak offer and saying that "Without special care film will dry out, go brittle, and finally turn – literally – to dust." particularly in the context of this thread. I'll stick to my opinion that that statement is 'a little extreme'. We can differ on that, can't we?

Best,
Helen

Afterthought: Had you written "Without special care film may dry out, go brittle, and finally turn – literally – to dust." I would have had no comment. One only has to show that some film stored without special care has survived to be able to disprove the statement "Without special care film will dry out, go brittle, and finally turn – literally – to dust."

 

[Alfred D.]

Without special care film will dry out, go brittle, and finally turn – literally – to dust, Helen! The stuff you saw that was still good simply hadn't had enough time passed yet to go bad. But it will physically disintegrate, eventually.
If you think it's OK to chance it, Helen, fine, that's your choice.
Kodak and I don't agree with that, though.

 

[Helen B]

...
If you think it's OK to chance it, Helen, fine, that's your choice.
Kodak and I don't agree with that, though.

I haven't said that I think that it should be left to chance. I have referred to "the very good advice that Kodak offer". My interpretation of that is that I agree with Kodak. You are putting a spin on my words that is not there, perhaps because you wish to argue.

As an aside, no acetate-based film, however processed and stored, can be given an ISO life rating of over 100 years. Only polyester-based film can be given the ISO 500-year life rating.

I happen to store most of my remaining negatives and slides in a humidity controlled, acid-free environment, and have done so since the late seventies.

Best,
Helen

 

[JIP]

O.k. so back to the discussion. I think any talk of what kind of film to use is hard to finish without the OP telling us what kind of gear you will be using. Necesarry film speed can vary quite widely from a cheap point and shoot to an SLR with a fast or even slow lens.

 

[Joves]

I too liked the Fuji when I used to shoot film. When I was going in and, outdoors alot, I used the 400. It worked well in both settings in my experience.