Your packaged food comes with an expiration date. So do your batteries, your medicines and your camera film. Depending on a film’s storage, you have a chance of getting acceptable photographs for up to a few years past the date printed on the film’s box or wrapper. That’s why most photographers put their film in a refrigerator or in a freezer; cold temperatures actually extend the film’s shelf life. Although expired color film, with its myriad combination of developing formats, may produce unnatural consequences for shooting and producing final prints, black and white film may survive and be useful for years after its expiration date.
You can get a few years, yes. But what about surviving for a few decades?
That’s right, Chuck said decades.
You know it’s time for another experiment. You just know it.

On the right is a roll of Super-XX 120 high speed panchromatic film. ASA is 100. Expiration date on this bad boy – May 1959. That’s right – this stuff is older than the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim baseball team.
The box contains notes that this roll of Super-XX was spooled for Supreme Photo Supply Co. of New York City, and was, according to he package, “spooled from large rolls of Govt. excess stock.” Great. I’ve got a roll of government surplus film.
Granted, there are some films out there for which proper developing is impossible – Kodachrome, for one. But before I actually USE this films in my camera, I have to speak to someone who knows more about vintage films than me.
That person is Charles Lang, an expert at Kodak’s main headquarters in Rochester.
I described to Mr. Lang the films that were part of the project.
“Well, you’ll definitely need to use a developer like HC110, Dilution B, which is handy for developing old film, that developer is a low fogging product.”
“Thanks, Mr. Lang. Now if I want to use this film to photograph something – ”
“Wait – you what to do what? The film hasn’t been exposed? And you want to take pictures with it?”
“Yep. I want to use this film – which is unexposed and is nearly half a century past its expiration date – and put it in my cameras and shoot with it.”
After we both had a moment of amazement, Mr. Lang gave me some advice. “Any film material will be exposed to ambient radiation over the course of many years, so the fog on them will be high. The paper backing on roll film is not designed to be light tight for 50 years, so you’re going to see greater fogging on the edges of the finished picture. But if you’re going to use this film, shoot it at half speed. I’d like to see the results when they’re done.”
I thanked him for the advice, and promised to keep in touch regarding my progress with the film.
And now, the experiment parameters:
The 120 roll was shot with my Rolleiflex Automat MX TLR camera. On April 2, during a road trip to photograph a PBL playoff game in Rochester, I took the old-film-packed Rolleiflex with me.
Before each shot, I composed and photographed the same scene by using a roll of 50 ISO efke black and white film in my Nikon F100 camera. No filters or post-processing, other than the scanning of the film itself, was attempted. What you see is what I exposed. This was actually suggested to me by Kim, the owner of Stuyvesant Photo – that I show what the photographed subject would look like with contemporary film, and then shoot the same scene with the vintage film.
Now it’s off to the developer. Two days after the film was exposed, the roll of vintage 120 film was dropped off at McGreevy Pro Lab in downtown Albany. Bright and early Monday morning. Joey at McGreevy took the film in. It isn’t a Monday morning unless Chuck Miller is dropping SOMETHING off at McGreevy.
And here are the best pictures from the “best if used before 1959” Super-XX Kodak government surplus black and white film. I had twelve exposures, these were the ones that stood out. The pictures on the left were shot with 35mm 50 ISO black and white efke film in my Nikon F100; the photos on the right were shot with the 50+ year old Super-XX 120 film in my Rollei.
I think this works. If I’m being technical, this does fall under the category of “black and white, non-traditional” photography. You can see the dark edges on each of the Super-XX photos; that’s the fogging caused by the film being unused for more than 50 years.
So what do you think of this little experiment?








The pictures on the older film actually look like they were taken 50 years ago and have been slowly fading away ever since. I have hundreds of family photos, some dating back to the early 1900s, makes me wonder what they looked like when they were new.
LikeLike
I’m surprised they came out at all. How did you come across government surplus film from the 50’s?
LikeLike
Jason – it’s amazing what you can find on eBay these days. The guy was selling a roll of film and it wasn’t until I got the package that I discovered that the film was branded as government surplus.
LikeLike
No, it’s not perfect, but to be able to record images 50 years later is a testament to the stability of film.
I have real concerns about the permanence of digital images. One can make a beautiful print with a 100 year old negative that came out of a shoebox in the attic — but what will become of all the digital files we’re creating today?
Yes, if the files are continually refreshed to the most usable recording media it won’t be a problem. But I have a nagging feeling that many family memories will be lost because they can’t be retrieved from outdated media.
The same may be said for photos that are not printed well. Time may destroy them much more rapidly than those on emulsion based paper.
We already lose many interesting images and unplanned moments because of technology. The technology I’m talking about is caled the “delete button.”
LikeLike
Amazing experiment, Chuck. The old film made much cooler photos. Incredible that such ancient film could still create decent pictures.
But you didn’t answer the question that your loyal readers have been asking: where on earth did you find 50-year old government-surplus film?
LikeLike
Dave – it’s amazing what you can find these days on eBay. $10 winning bid and the roll was in my mailbox in a couple of days.
LikeLike
The darkening at the edges is not what one would expect from “more fogging” in reality if the darkened edges are related to fog at all it is because the middle has more fogging than the edges.
Let me explain before jumping all over me about how screwy I am.
This is negative film and fog will ADD density if the fog was more on the edges then it would show up as lighter on the edges due to the increased density NOT darker in the reversed positive image. It is interesting and would love to hear the explanation of the effect and why the fogging more in the center assuming that the difference in density is related to fog.
RB
LikeLike
I was very interested to see your photographs here, as I to have come into possession of an out of date film. In my case it is a roll of Kodak Plus-X 35mm and was given to me by a friend who’d been doing a house clearance for a relative. Expiry out does yours by a few years…May 1946! It was still wax sealed in its small tin container and to be honest looks in mint condition. I’m still unsure how and when to use it and where I would go to get it developed. If you could give me any advice on this I would very grateful.
LikeLike
Bella –
You should check with your local photo center. You should be able to shoot with vintage Plus-X if you so chose. Or just put it on the shelf and let it be a decorative item, considering it’s still mint in package.
LikeLike
Great post, found this and had to publish it on Twitter. Good job. Funny how there is something more “alive” about old and “dead” film results.
LikeLike
Love this post Chuck. I recently got my hands on some 50+ year old Ilford and Kodak 620 roll film from my local antique centre, about 10 rolls of the stuff (in unopened original packaging, yowsa!) this has given me the confidence to shoot and process it!
LikeLike
I love the results you got. Neat experiment that paid off artistically. (On a side note, nice to meet you in person last night. Stay in touch – Alan)
LikeLike
“The darkening at the edges is not what one would expect from “more fogging” in reality if the darkened edges are related to fog at all it is because the middle has more fogging than the edges.”
I thought something similar and then wondered why overexpose the film (shoot at a lower ASA — assuming that’s what “half speed” meant). Anyway nice results and I really like the comparison with fresh film.
“It is interesting and would love to hear the explanation of the effect and why the fogging more in the center assuming that the difference in density is related to fog.”
Uneven emulsion density?
Anyway, I read a few comments saying that this result looks so much like a vintage print that has deteriorated. I don’t think so. Gelatin silver prints are extremely stable, and assuming you didn’t leave them laying out in the sun for months they won’t degrade like this. Other processes like platinum/palladium even more so. Maybe people are thinking of the way low-quality early consumer color prints faded, or the heavily vignetted, soft-focus photos of longer ago which were more stylistic choices. No, if these were taken when the film was fresh, printed well, and kept with a minimum of care, they’d still look awfully close to the images on the left today.
LikeLike
I love the pics shot on the older film… fuzzy, soft pictures… the pictures look the same age as the film they were shot on.
LikeLike
Wow super interesting. I’ve had a load of 120 and 620 in my freezer for at least 35 years! Why you ask? Because prior to retiiring I was a detective wth GGPD and we used to do survaillance work. Perhaps I should….if you will excuse the pun….give it a shot. Ralph
Love your work……
LikeLike
Yeah, I’m totally confused by the dark edges. It can’t be fogging, as explained above by RB. I’m not going to call the author a liar or anything, but there are definitely other forces at work here. Is there any phenomenon through which the edges of the film become less sensitive to light without being sensitized through all your traditional “fogging” mechanisms?
LikeLike
In comment 7 RB posed the question of why the edges of the positive prints are darker.
The answer, I think is not a gradient in fogging across the width of the film – we can see that the center of the image also has significant fogging as expressed by greatly reduced contrast and dynamic range. The edges of the images, I’m guessing are also the edges of the strip of film in the 120 roll (is that correct in the Rolleiflex, the film moves vertically as you roll it, not from side-to-side?), and are darker because the negative was lighter (clearer) there, implying reduced sensitivity (lower ASA or ISO, if you will). So I’m guessing that the film near the edges of the roll was closer and more exposed to the surrounding air, and even if it was in an aluminum foil wrapper, and after 50 years probably oxidized more than the better-protected film towards the center of the strip, hence reducing its effective light-sensitivity.
I wonder if there was a differential in the degree of this effect from the first exposures on the roll, which were closer to the outside for the first 50 years, as compared with the last few exposures, that were better protected near the core of the roll?
BTW, if you shot at half-speed as recommended, you probably had to over-develop to compensate and rebuild contrast and density, which doesn’t do anything great for fog damage. Can you tell us what developer and timing McGreevy used?
-avi
LikeLike
It is a shame this film was wasted taking pictures of Hamilton College. It would have been more interesting to see some notable local landmarks.
LikeLike
OOPs, blew it about the half-speed – got it backwards! You overexposed, so they could REDUCE the processing time, but that will have the effect of reducing overall contrast – which matches what we see …
-avi
LikeLike
That’s the best thought I’ve heard all day Avi, I’ve been dealing all day with trying to figure out how the edge vignetting occurred.
LikeLike
this completely made my day. thanks a bunch.
LikeLike
Personalmente, aprovecharía cualquier tipo de película, por muy caducada que esté, para experimentar con ella. Ha sido una muy buena experiencia a imitar. El resultado es precioso. Muchas gracias por esta feliz ocurrencia.
LikeLike
I’ve done this with 1989 film in about 1999.
Pretty pale and grainy, gave a nice painting effect.
I’ve been meaning to put it up on DeviantArt.
LikeLike
I like the results!
LikeLike
Giving me inspiration to search out old film. Wow, how can you not want to go shoot film after reading this??? Try doing that with digital and not playing in photoshop with actions?
LikeLike