Protecting Unexposed Film from Cosmic Radiation?

iblink asks: "Last year Fujifilm stopped producing a color slide E-6 sheet film called Velvia 50. It has unique color characteristics that I love so I decided to purchase the remaining stocks in Europe. I now have hundreds of boxes that need to be stored for up to thirty years. A number of film experts assured me that freezing the Velvia would stabilize the dyes for long term use. However, they all mentioned that cosmic radiation would eventually fog the film, and they offered little help in finding a relatively inexpensive barrier. I found various ideas on proton cosmic radiation barriers — a big bucket of water, lead, certain plastics — but nothing convincing or sufficiently detailed (which plastic? How thick?). The film is currently in a freezer, unprotected. Any ideas?"

Four Astronauts

[vjmurphy]

I prefer using a fantastic group of four astronauts to block cosmic radiation. It seems to work well.

LOTS of foil

[Bayoudegradeable]

Why not make a huge tin foil hat to sit over all your boxes? Jokes aside, I wish you luck. When Agfa APX 120 was no longer made I too dreamed of stocking up, but costs sorta got in the way. I hope you find an easy, long-lasting solution.

What does tha manufacturer say?

[mjpaci]

Were any of the film experts from FujiFilm? They may have some guidance for you. As them how they store film stocks.

--Mike

Re:

[alta]

being in the business of selling their film, not storing it for 30 years, they might not know ;)

Re:

[lawpoop]

I don't think they store them; not for the lengths of time that cosmic radiation would be an issue.

Film is a perishable good. They manufacture it and ship it. It's not worth putting in a lead warehouse to defend it from cosmic radiation.

Re:

[mjpaci]

OK.

Out on a limb here...contact the Smithsonian? How much of this film did you buy and how much space does it take up? I am curious.

There are people out there who store this type of stuff routinely just in case it's needed by some process/function/etc.

dark hole

[The_Mr_Flibble]

You could use a very deep cave or mine, however this then presents other radioactive issues.

Re:

[VitaminB52]

however this then presents other radioactive issues

... like radioactive radon seeping from the ground. The amount of radon depends on your geographical location.

So you not only need protection against cosmic radiation, but also against terrestrial radiation. You could use a ventilation system to minimise the radon problem, but this will cost you a lot of money if you want to store the film for 30 years.

Also make sure your construction material isn't too radioactive; materials like wood, cement, stones

Re:

[DerekLyons]

Bring a Geiger counter with you when selecting your construction material.

That's a waste of time and money - because the material can have an activity level an order of magnitude below the counters detection threshold, and still have enough activity to be threatening to the film on the timescale of years. It's the accumulated (chronic) damage that matters here, not the acute damage.

Re:

[Gromius]

you joke but thats pretty much what you do when you want to minimise cosmic ray interference [fnal.gov]. To be honest your second best bet due to the natural radioactivity you mention is the stick it in a tunnel under a moutain [cresst.de].

Seriously its actually really surprising how many cosmic rays are hitting you right now. They are also extremely penetrating, often being muons (by the time they reach us). Basically its already got through 120km of atmosphere which although isnt that dense, it sure is thick so you're goin

What you need is mass

[Stuart Ward]

Have you a unused mine shaft nearby, pop the fridge down there and that will help. The deeper the better.

Re:

[elrous0]

You do that and you'll probably end up with just as much radiation from Radon, uranium, etc.

Premature

[Phanatic1a]

Fujifilm recently said they were bringing Velvia 50 back [robgalbraith.com]:

Valhalla, NY, November 14, 2006 - FUJIFILM U.S.A., Inc. is pleased to announce plans to re-introduce an ISO 50 Fujichrome Velvia professional film, tentatively named Velvia II. Fujichrome Velvia (RVP 50) was the first high color saturation, high contrast transparency E-6 compatible film when it was introduced in 1990 and was a favorite among photographers. Its discontinuation was announced last year due to difficulties in procuring some of the raw materials used to produce the emulsion.

"Since we announced the discontinuation of Velvia 50, we have been inundated with requests from photographers worldwide to continue production," said Christian Fridholm, Director of Marketing, Picture Taking, Imaging Division, Fujifilm USA. "They had used Velvia for many years and consider it unmatched in terms of quality and character. One of Fujifilm's main priorities is to nurture the culture of photography, so we took those requests very seriously."

As a result, Fujifilm research and development teams have developed substitute raw materials and new manufacturing technologies that enable the company to restart production. The new film is expected to be available in late spring 2007. The characteristics of the new emulsion will mirror that of the previous product.

I note that it's now past late spring 2007.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

AHAHAHAHAH! You're my hero.

I won't be the same

[BenEnglishAtHome]

If they bring it back with "substitute raw materials and new manufacturing technologies ," it won't be the same thing. Emulsions and our attachments to them are delicate things. Any change, however subtle, will kill the effect. The new film may be just fine. It may be sort of like the old film. But it won't be the same.

Think "New Coke." It was supposed to be the same, wasn't it? In fact, some bottlers changed formulas and put New Coke in remaining stocks of old cans. The first time I tried one of th

Re:

[impossiblerobot]

New Coke wasn't supposed to be the same. New Coke was supposed to be Pepsi.

Re:

[jim_redwagon]

i apologize, caffeine did not kick in and while attempting to moderate Insightful or Helpful (was trying to decide) fingers decided to mark this way. ahhh, ok, this will be for naught as posting will remove that mistake. thanks!

Re:

[s4m7]

New Coke didn't fool me.

New Coke was a distraction so you wouldn't notice that Coke Classic changed from cane sugar to corn sweetner. Do you still drink Coke?

Re:I won't be the same

[198348726583297634]

Sadly that is part of the family of urban legends surrounding the New Coke fiasco. It is not true. Coke actually switched from cane sugar to HFCS several months before the introduction of New Coke. (You can still get Coke made with cane sugar in the U.S. if you get the glass-bottled kind imported from Mexico.) But in general, no one noticed or cared. New Coke came later and was an entirely different fiasco.

Snopes, as per usual, has good info on this subject.

Thanks,

Re:

[dpilot]

My daughter went to Europe last summer on a school-affiliated trip.

She discovered that she likes European soda, but doesn't like the US stuff.

Long Live Big Corn!!

Re:

[Short Circuit]

The human senses are far more sensitive than people realize. New Coke didn't fool me.

Just curious, did you notice the switch from sugar to high-fructose corn syrup across their entire product line?

Re:I won't be the same

[BenEnglishAtHome]

The change in sweetener is a more subtle thing than trying to pass off New Coke in the old Coke cans. No, I didn't notice the change. How long ago was it?

OTOH, ask those Dr. Pepper fans who live near and dote on the output of the one Dr. Pepper bottler in the U.S. who still uses cane sugar. They'll tell you they can easily tell the difference.

Re:

[SlamMan]

Heck yeah we do. I had a case of the real stuff sent to me for Christmas last year (relative lives near the bottling plant), and the difference is incredible.

Re:

[SighKoPath]

Off original topic, but on the topic at hand...

Where is this plant? I would like to see if I can get some.

Re:

[porcupine8]

A quick google of dr pepper cane sugar revealed: Dublin, TX [dublindrpepper.com] - and they sell it online.

Re:

[SuiteSisterMary]

What would that show up as on the ingredient list? Looking at a bottle of Canadian Dr Pepper, the 2nd ingreedient is "Sugar/Glucose-Fructose", and no corn syrup is listed anywhere.

Re:I won't be the same

[ravenshrike]

This is because you don't grow nearly as much corn up in canada, and subsequently you didn't have a corn lobby to lobby for tarriffs on outside sugar. Fucking corn lobby.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

AFAIK, Canada, Europe, Latin America, and everywhere else in the world tends to use cane sugar in their soft drinks. It's only in the U.S., where farmers are inexplicably Hell-bent on growing corn or nothing, that soft drink companies use corn syrup instead.

Re:

[curunir]

It's only in the U.S., where farmers are inexplicably Hell-bent on growing corn or nothing...

The reason farmers grow corn isn't inexplicable, it's because the U.S. government inexplicably pays them money to do so. Even that is explainable considering the impact of ADM's lobbying power.

It sounds kind of funny to say, but in order to get drinks that taste good, we have to fix the whole "campaign finance" hole in our democratic process.

that looks like corn syrup to me

[r00t]

You have different label law than we do.

Cane sugar is sucrose.

Corn sugar is naturally glucose, but there is a chemical process that can turn half of the glucose into fructose.

I'm surprised you're not getting sucrose up in Canada. WTF?

Re:

[Fallingcow]

Google gave me this [calorie-count.com].

Check the lowest post on the page.

Also this one [notmartha.org], mostly for the comments.

Looks like it's saying that it could have either. Probably in case HFCS is cheaper in a given month than sugar, so they can switch back and forth as necessary, or because some of their plants use cans from one source but may have different sweeteners.

The only difference I noticed in sugar-sweetened Dr. Pepper is that the aftertaste is much sweeter, rather than just flattening out to a blah, vaguely smoky flavor. N

Re:

[Anti_Climax]

Wal-Mart has been selling 12-packs of 16oz cans of cane sugar Dr. Pepper. It's listed as being canned in Texas but not in Dublin. Apparently it's a limited release, mentioned in the Wikipedia entry for Dr. Pepper [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[PayPaI]

Dublin, TX. [dublindrpepper.com] You can buy the stuff online too.

Re:

[SydShamino]

In additional to the Dublin Dr. Pepper already mentioned, most grocery stores here in Austin sell Mexican Coke (heh) and Sprite, and others on occasion. It has real sugar instead of corn syrup as well.

Re:

[Kiaser Zohsay]

There are more than one, but it is a short list [wikipedia.org].

But West Jefferson, NC [glassbottlesoda.org] is still on the list.

Re:

[mollymoo]

If they bring it back with "substitute raw materials and new manufacturing technologies ," it won't be the same thing. Emulsions and our attachments to them are delicate things. Any change, however subtle, will kill the effect. The new film may be just fine. It may be sort of like the old film. But it won't be the same.

If the emulsion has been stored (even under the best conditions) for 30 years it's not very likely to be the same thing either, is it?

Re:Premature

[Dan East]

The press release fails the mention that Fujifilm felt there was an ample stock of film across Europe, but suddenly hundreds of boxes - enough to last a photographer for at least 30 years - disappeared from stores and warehouses. Fujuifilm was then inundated with requests from photographers, prompting them to resume production.

6 months into the future...
FUJIFILM U.S.A., Inc. is sad to announce that they are ceasing production of Velvia II after massive stocks of surplus first-generation Velvia film - enough to supply a photographer for 30 years - inundated the market. The film's sensitivity to cosmic radiation severely limits its shelf life, forcing Fujifilm to stop production so existing stores could be consumed before radiation damage occurs.

Dan East

Re:

[Nuffsaid]

Its discontinuation was announced last year due to difficulties in procuring some of the raw materials used to produce the emulsion.

The sensibilities in the world are evolving all the time. In 2007, the public image of your company can be negatively affected when everybody gets to know about your acquisition of huge amounts of thirld world babies' retinas.

Fujifilm are forever...

[joto]

I think that I should warn you that everything eventually decays. Nothing lasts forever. And film, just like fruit, is best served fresh. If you really want to continue using Velvia in, say 600 years, I would recommend that you try to come up with some way of getting it fresh in the future. Just because Fuji stopped producing it, shouldn't mean that they won't be able to produce a small batch of it (at ridiculous high prices) if you make a special order. A different option, is to simply ask for the "recipe" (possibly by signing an NDA or similar contract), and get an independent laboratory to produce it when you need it. The last (and the only sane) option, is to try to find something else that fits your need. Such as analysing sample pictures, and coming up with a photoshop color filter that does the same thing.

Re:

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Nothing lasts forever.

You've never had my wife's cooking

Re:

[spacefight]

Next her.

Re:

[cmowire]

You'd like to think that.

Sadly, the layers of patents, trade secrets, and other such fun bits make it that the only two companies able to make a film of the level of quality of Velvia 50 are Kodak and Fuji. If you want the silver film grains to be the correct shape, you need to accurately control the growth of silver halide crystals and that means custom, proprietary mixing machines.

Also, Fuji does not make every last bit of the film. Many of the chemicals and components involved have many uses besides ma

Meh..

[evel aka matt]

Forget about Velvia 50 & just move onto Velvia 100F like the rest of us have. 50 has little to no (most people would say the latter) advantage over 100f.

Re:

[cei]

Having shot both side by side (4x5), I'd disagree.

Velvia 100 not 100F

[jpatters]

Velvia 100F is crap. Velvia 100 (not 100F) is the way to go if you want the Velvia look, and you should expose it at ISO 80. I prefer Provia though.

Re:

[PsndCsrV]

Ugh, holy crap. Don't shoot Velvia 100F and expect it to look like Velvia 50. It doesn't. Shoot Velvia 100 (notice the missing F). It's pretty darn close to Velvia 50 (close enough that I was willing to switch, saving myself from the need to stockpile).

Other strategies

[Toffins]

Trying to shield your film stock against high-energy cosmic rays is an impossible task unless you consider storing it somewhere deep underground. And putting up shielding materials to protect your film may in fact make the fogging worse because very high energy cosmic rays hit the shielding material creating secondary radiation [wikipedia.org] that will fog your film even more quickly.

If you are concerned about being able to use Velvia film in the long term, it might be easier and cheaper to get together with other like-minded folk and find a cheap contracting manufacturer somewhere like China or India who can copy the Velvia manufacturing process (if they bother follow licensing protocols...) to provide a supply of fresh film.

Kodak says...

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Obviously, there's a problem, know-nothing slashdot smartmouths be damned. Here's what Kodak says: [kodak.com]

Ambient-Background Radiation

(effects on raw stock)

Ambient gamma radiation is composed of two sources: a low-energy component which arises from the decay of radionuclides and a high-energy component which is the product of the interaction of cosmic rays with the earths upper atmosphere. The radionuclides responsible for the low-energy photons exist in soil and rock and are carried into earth-derived building materials, such as concrete. Upon exposure to ambient-background radiation, photographic negative materials can exhibit an increase in minimum density, a loss in contrast and speed in the dark areas, and an increase in granularity. The changes in film performance are determined by several factors, such as the film speed and length of time exposed to the radiation before the film is processed. A film with an exposure index of 500 can exhibit about three times the change in performance as a film with an index of 125. While this effect on film raw stock is not immediate, it is one reason why we suggest exposing and processing film as soon as possible after purchase. We recommend a period of no more than six months from the time of film purchase before processing, provided it has been kept under specified conditions. Extended periods beyond six months may affect faster speed films as noted above, even if kept frozen. The only way to determine the specific effect of ambient-background radiation is with actual testing or measurements and placing a detector in the locations where the film was stored. The most obvious clue is the observance of increased granularity, especially in the light areas of the scene.

Re:

[cei]

So the long and short of it is that ISO 50 film will see significantly less degradation than ISO 400 film stored along side it, but both are going to decay to some extent no matter what. Meanwhile, that brick of 3200 that's been sitting in my fridge for a few years is toast. :)

To iblink

[BenEnglishAtHome]

I only posted to try and shut up the folks who were belittling the question. Eventually, I found real progress toward an answer here. [slashdot.org] I hope those folks can help you.

Don't bother

[PhysicsPhil]

The cosmic radiation in question has enough energy to travel across the galaxy, blast through several kilometres of atmosphere, penetrate your building's roof and walls and then punch through the box holding your film before actually interacting with the film. Seems unlikely that you'll be able to do much more to keep the film fresh.

Re:Don't bother

[cosinezero]

So does light, but I can stop that with the sheer force of my hands.

So does light ...?

[pbhj]

[Visible] light shines through your walls and roof?

I think you might need to insulate a little more.

Re:

[kalirion]

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic. Otherwise, if it was as bad as you make it sound, we'd all be terminally ill with radiation poisoning (or mutants with superpowers.) We get the leftovers, and it shouldn't take a nuclear bunker to shield against them.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Nope. A nuclear bunker won't do it. You need one of these: http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/images/mine.GIF [queensu.ca].

The box will give some protection, the metal of the freezer some, a lead box some, a 2km deep mine some... how much do you want? All radiation cannot be shielded because your shielding material will invariably be radioactive. Although, you can cut down that effect a bit by purchasing very expensive ancient lead from Roman shipwrecks. You'll be competing with a couple of observatories though.

Re:

[afidel]

I know that the scientists who were doing deep underground cosmic ray detection found an interesting way to shield their equipment from all but the most high energy of particles, they bought WWII battleship hulls. The steel in those hulls is very thick and contains much less radiation than anything made today thanks to all the nuclear tests and coal burning we have done since the end of WWII. I would guess that putting something in a mine shielded by such old steel would be effective since they reported neu

Ceramics

[Waffle Iron]

I've heard that if you stack a bunch of red Fiestaware dinner plates, and then store your film sandwiched in layers between them, then cosmic radiation won't be an issue at all.

Re:

[Tumbleweed]

No no no, the way to do it is to make a box formed from Twinkies. Those things'll stop anything. As an added benefit, you'll still have a tasty snack around in thirty years.

Re:

[Muad'Dave]

The OP is exactly right - stacking the film between orange Fiestaware dishes will render the cosmic ray problem moot. As you say, the radiation from the dinnerware will blast the film in no time, though.

I used to have a chunk of orange Fiestaware - it was significantly radioactive wrt background.

A trivial detail...

[mridoni]

Did you also happen to buy and store a 30-years-worth supply of chemicals (and a processing machine) for E-6?

Re:

[allanc]

Fuji discontinued Velvia 50. They didn't discontinue any of their other E6-process films. Neither did Kodak.

E6 will be around a while yet.

The place to go

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Like lots of photo buffs, the first thing I thought of was the Rochester Institute. And that led me to an answer.

I'm not going to put directly on Slashdot the name and phone number of a real person. However, if you visit the Image Permanence Institute [imageperma...titute.org] web site and poke around, you'll find a name and phone number you can call to get in touch with an expert on these subjects who will either know the answer or know where to find it.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"I'm not going to put directly on Slashdot the name and phone number of a real person."

Ah yes, the best way to hide personal information from Slashdot. Put it in an article!

Graded Z shielding

[mollymoo]

You may want to investigate "Graded-Z shielding". The name comes from the fact that it uses layers of shielding with decreasing atomic numbers. You might first have a layer of lead, then a layer of tin, then one of copper. The lead stops the cosmic rays (protons, electrons, light atomic nuclei), but generates X-rays in the process. These X-rays might also fog your film. The X-rays produced as the lead absorbs the cosmic rays have a characteristic energy (88keV) which is not well absorbed by the lead itself - that's where the tin comes in. Again, the tin stopping the X-rays from the lead generates X-rays with a lower characteristic energy (29keV, which is in medical X-ray energy territory), which it doesn't absorb too well. The copper absorbs the X-rays from the tin and again emits X-rays with a yet lower characteristic energy. I don't know if the 9keV X-rays produced by the copper are a problem for Velvia. If they are, you'll need a yet lighter layer; a glance at the periodic table shows aluminium is a likely candidate.

I have no idea about the sensitivity of Velvia to cosmic rays or X-rays, so can't suggest thickness of the materials. My wild-ass-guess is somewhere in the 10s of mm. 30 years is a hell of a long time though. There are companies which specialise in shielding of this type (search for 'radiation shielding', 'graded-z shielding' and the like), they may be able to provide advice and sell you enclosures.

IBM study on background radiation

[ericferris]

I found no study on the effect of cosmic radiations on film, but there are many about their effect on electronic components. I am going to assume that a radiation hit that is detrimental to components is detrimental to film.

IBM did a study, long ago, on the effect of background radiation and cosmic rays on electronic component reliability. They found that high-altitude places such as Denver, Co. were getting an order of magnitude more Single Event Upsets (that is, one solar/cosmic ionizing particle tricklin

How about...

[alta]

Q: My film is being destroyed by cosmic death rays, what can I do about it?
A: Digital camera, Raid 5, good backups.

Q: But only velvet#50 has the unique qualities I'm looking for. I can't reproduce that with digital.
A: Photoshop CS7, Filters -> Artistic -> Velvitize.

Q: But I have to have REAL velvet#50 for all these Elvis and Bengal tiger prints I'm doing. I can't print on velvet with an inkjet!
A: I heard fujifilm has a good film that does this, see if they still make it.

Re:

[mollymoo]

CCDs are affected by cosmic rays as well.

Indeed they are, but you usually have quite a lot less than 30 years exposure time, so it's not quite such a big deal. For long CCD exposures (minutes to hours in astronomy), you can guarantee you'll see some cosmic ray effects. However, taking multiple exposures and combining them digitally is pretty much standard these days, so removing cosmic ray effects (which, unlike the astronomical objects, won't be consistent in all the individual exposures) is fairly triv

My long-term film storage experience

[Toffins]

About 20 years ago I had a small surplus stock of Kodak E6 professional transparency film left over at the end of a project. The storage recommendations from Kodak were to store E6 cold and dry, so I bagged and sealed the films and put them in low-humidity cold storage. As an experiment I left the films there. The films developed ok at 8 years age with excellent quality, and again at 15 years age, but by then slight fogging was visible. Maybe the fogging was due to cosmic rays, or perhaps the photochemicals

Protection from Cosmic Rays?

[Lookin4Trouble]

I would think Priority 1 would be to protect it from environmental hazards - humidity, flooding, etc - With hundreds of boxes of the stuff, I would imagine you'd need a "vault" not unlike the buried '57 Belvedere recently unearthed in Tulsa, OK - http://www.buriedcar.com/ [buriedcar.com] , but hopefully without the whole "3 feet of water" syndrome, leaving the already rust-prone vehicle completely worthless to anyone but a museum of oddities. Best of luck to you, keeping anything hermetically sealed off but still accessib

Re:

[temojen]

Nanaimo Amateur Radio Association [nisa.com]???

The best material to protect your film!

[cyrax256]

I find my tin hat very useful to protect my brain from cosmic radiations! I don't see why you couldn't use it for your film.

This too will pass

[OzPeter]

Keep film fresh for 30 years seems to be a tough nut to crack, but the question I ask is: what sort of camera/lens do you expect to be shooting in 30 years?

Electronics die. And there are very few cameras produced today that do not have any electronics in them.

So rather than considering just the film issue, you have to consider the overall package for the next 30 years, and that includes:

1/ Film storage
2/ Camera oeration and maintenace
3/ Developement chemicals

If anyone of these 3 fails you in the future, th

Re:

[temojen]

Electronics die. And there are very few cameras produced today that do not have any electronics in them.

Almost every 4x5 camera on the market does not have any electronics. As for the longevity of the camera... My Busch Pressman Model D is about 50 years old, and working fine.

This question was about 4x5 sheet film, not APS or 35mm.

Re:

[OzPeter]

OK .. so I skipped over the sheet film, and I'll concede that there are many old cameras without electronics, (I own 50 year old working cameras as well) and a 4x5 has less moving parts than a 35mm or a MF camera, but you still have to look at the overal system. Does your Pressman still have another 30 years of continuous use in it? If this takes regular maintenance who will perform it? Are you stocking up on spares at the moment to cover future repairs? Etc .

I am not trying to dis the use of such cameras

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

I've got a 35mm SLR that must be easing up to the 30 year old mark... yup, 28 years old. It still works fine. The only electronics are the light meter (which still works fine).

Re:

[GeckoX]

Um, dude, you're obviously talking to a photographer here. Photographers generally prize their cameras above just about all else. There are a LOT of cameras out there with ZERO digital parts, and that won't change any time soon. I'm not even really a photographer, but I do have a nikon that is already about 30 years old and takes WAY better pictures than any digital I have owned. I guarantee you I'll still have it in 30 more years, and will still be using it.

Note that everything that exists wasn't necessari

Re:

[OzPeter]

yes yes yes .. I have working cameras from the 50's too. And while you will still have a working Nikon in 30 years time, will all the other systems needed to support it still exist? That was the point I was making, as if you only focus on once aspect then you will be wasting your time and money - ie one 50 year old car from Ohio.

BTW by electronic I did not mean digital (or digital cameras)- all early film cameras with electronics were analogue not digital.

And as for my "short lifetime" I have been around

Re:

[GeckoX]

People recreate films and emulsions etc that were in use well over 50 years ago already.
As long as information is still available on these things, it will remain possible to do so yes.

Especially if there's actually a market, which there most certainly is currently and will be for the foreseeable future.

Here's an example for you: Gun collectors. There are HUGE numbers of people with VERY old guns that make their own ammo as it is not available anymore. People still make bread the traditional way even with th

Re:

[Zcar]

Note that he's talking about sheet film, not 35mm. He's presumably using 4x5" sheets with a field or view camera which generally don't have any electronics in them.

We're talking about something like this [bhphotovideo.com] or this [bhphotovideo.com].

Re:

[OzPeter]

yeah I know I screwed up by missing the sheet film aspect. And yes I know all about MF and LF systems and electronicless they are.

But from a systems point of view, what is common place now will not be common place in 30 years time, so you need to consider the total cost of ownership for the next 30 years .. not just the film storage costs. I don't think that the poster is considering

Re:

[OzPeter]

(oops hit submit at the wrong place)

I don't think that the poster is considering the overall cost, but is instead only focussing on one small area

Re:

[Xybre]

Gotta comment on this. I have a camera from 1960 with a light sensor (Mamiya/Sekor 500TL). There are still fans of this very camera who have it working to this day (I don't know if mine works, it needs cleaning and a new battery). And we're going on almost 50 years of use here. So I consider it possible to continue to use the same kind of film for extended periods of time. I'm not sure about development chemicals, thats beyond my scope of knowledge at this right now. You do make a point, but it's probably n

Re:

[OzPeter]

Point in case .. your own camera may or not be working You know it will need maintenance to ensure that it is working. This is a cost that has to be factored in before you spend $$$$ in saving up the worlds supply of you favourite film.

And yes I also own 50 year old cameras (Finetta's from the 50's). Some of them work, some don't. They don't even need or have batteries, but I have decided that it is not worth my $$ to resurect the cameras that are non functional.

Re:

[Hognoxious]

Bah! In my day we used to make our own film out of boiled pigs' feet and potato starch. Yeah, it was ISO 3, but anything worth photographing doesn't move much anyway. Now get off my lawn!

sensitivity

[TheSHAD0W]

ISO 50 film is not very sensitive, and I suspect that over 30 years even cosmic ray exposure won't cause much fogging.

Digital is not an option

[jlazzaro74]

The original poster is asking about sheet film, not 35mm film, so we should assume they are using at least a 4"x5" camera for high-end work, not taking snapshots of aunt Millie's poodle.

Switching to digital is *not* an option for most people in his situation. Digital SLRs, while I love them and use them every day, suck in comparison to medium or large format. In oversimplified terms, to prevent moire patterns from showing up they need to "blur" the image and re-sharpen it in software, and you can never ac

Re:

[OzPeter]

While I am not going to disagree with you on anything you say, I will point out that digital cameras are digital electronics based technology, and given the growth of computers in the last 30 years it makes an interesting thought excercise to extrapolate cameras technology over the next 30 years. By then I would think that all of your pro-film arguments are moot (which wil sadden me as I prefer to shoot film for all of the reasons you put forward)

Now all we need in this thread is some pro-foveon zealots t

you yourself gave the answers

[r00t]

1. the $7,000 16MP Canon 1DSMkII

2. digital backs for medium format cameras in the 22-35MP range

Cost? Compared to buying and storing pricy film for 30 years, I think the answer is obvious.

In 5 years we'll have disposible 16MP cameras and the pro cameras will be 100MP.

Re:

[jmtpi]

1. the $7,000 16MP Canon 1DSMkII

2. digital backs for medium format cameras in the 22-35MP range

Cost? Compared to buying and storing pricy film for 30 years, I think the answer is obvious.

In 5 years we'll have disposible 16MP cameras and the pro cameras will be 100MP.

The number of pixels is (nearly) irrelevant to image quality. What matters is the physical size
sensor, and unfortunately Moore's law doesn't help you there. Squeezing more and more pixels
into the same size sensor eventually reaches a point where

It's going to fog. Deal with it.

[cmowire]

You forget that the dyes, gelatin, etc. all contain some percentage of radionucleides. So cosmic ray shielding (assuming that you don't end up with a radioactive cosmic ray shield) will help somewhat, but is only going to forestal the inevitable.

On the bright side, at least you get some number of years before it goes bad.

The part that I'm really pissed off about is that Koadk Ektachrome IR has been discontinued and there's nothing remotely like it... unlike with Velvia where Velvia 100 non-F is actually a

Faraday Cage?

[djasbestos]

If you built a Faraday cage [wikipedia.org] around your fridge, that might work. IANA physicist, so I'd ask one before spending a boat load on copper mesh. But THEY use it to protect radio telescopes from EM interference from their computers...

You'd just need to make sure the mesh holes are super tiny, because, as you know, cosmic radiation has an EXTREMELY short wavelength. Then again, if you ground the fridge, it might work on its own...just make sure you've got some kind of conductive sheath over the gaskets on the

Lead

[Zaurus]

Lead. I mean, it protects Superman from kryptonite, doesn't it?

Shielding can make things worse

[CBM]

It's counterintuitive, but shielding can actually make more radiation. The problem is that when a high energy cosmic ray strikes a nucleus, it can make a whole bunch of secondary particles which still have a lot of energy. Then those particles interact again, and so on, producing a "shower" of particles that can interact with your film. Sensitive neutrino experiments go far under the earth's surface to avoid cosmic rays, and even there they get a fair number of (low interacting) muons. I helped test a l

Mass

[LWATCDR]

Mass a lot of Mass.
But then you are just as likely to have radio active isotopes in that shielding mass that may or may not cause a problem.
The really big question is if this just a myth or not. Yes radiation will fog film but is this film that sensitive and is your 30 year time frame long enough to make a difference?
My best suggestion and it really is off the top of my head is put your freezer in a well ventilated basement. You could put some lead and polyethylene sheets around it just to be sure and best

They are wrong

[John Hasler]

> However, they all mentioned that cosmic radiation would eventually fog the film...

No. Background radiation will eventually fog the film.

Wrong Question

[3vi1]

I think you're asking the wrong question: You should be trying to identify what it is about the color characteristics of this film you like and paying someone to develop a photoshop/gimp filter that does it with digital images.

I'd be surprised if you will even want to use this film in 30 years, when every phone in the world will be taking 3D holographic video that can be played back directly into your brain.

*sigh* Yes... I know it will be used mostly for porn.

Re:Faraday cage

[VitaminB52]

A Faraday cage won't stop particle radiation, nor will it protect against short wavelength radiation like gamma rays (unless you build a Faraday cage from massive lead plates, without any holes in it).
It also won't protect you against radioactive radon gas seeping out off the ground.

Re:

[bobetov]

A Faraday cage won't stop particle radiation, nor will it protect against short wavelength radiation like gamma rays (unless you build a Faraday cage from massive lead plates, without any holes in it). It also won't protect you against radioactive radon gas seeping out off the ground.

I've also heard rumors that Faraday cages won't stop panda attacks, syphilis, or Jack Thompson.

Makes you wonder what they're good for.

Re:

[bohlke]

Cosmic Radiation is very very very very short wavelength.... light for example is just nanometers order. Cosmic radiation is even shorter. Gamma Rays are as far (or close, it depends which side you are ;-) as 10e-16 meters (pico meters or less).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radia tion#Electromagnetic_spectrum [wikipedia.org]

Another Idea

[bohlke]

this just came to my mind:

you can try to protect with some kind of magnetic shield, to maybe trap these evil particles in some kind of "magnetic swirl" or like that....

hummm, but fast spining particles will radiate any way....
and probably you will need a lot of power (i mean $$$$) to produce a strong enought "force field"

well, just a few ideas.