Topic: Wish me luck...

[Skorj]

August 1981!

[Francois]

Wow!
You're gonna need to overexpose the heck out of this one to avoid the dreaded brown tone.

[Indofunk]

400 speed from 1981? Depending on how it was stored, I'd shoot that at 50 and hope for the best I have a bag of suspiciously-stored Kodak Gold from the turn of the century, and I have to shoot it at 50-100 for any sort of results.

Wow!
You're gonna need to overexpose the heck out of this one to avoid the dreaded brown tone.

Is that anything like the "brown note" in music? 

[Francois]

Yeah...
In my book, anything "brown" with mushy contrast fits into the "bad things" category 

I did see the Mythbusters testing the Brown Tone...

[Skorj]

Thanks for the tips!
I will indeed over-expose.
50 sounds a lot though!

[Indofunk]

Actually, just realized that 50 was for my 200 speed Gold. The 400 stuff could probably get away with 100, but then faster film degrades more quickly than slower film, etc etc. Another thing you can try is to push it in C41, but in my experience that just tends to amplify the fog rather than bring out the image...

[Skorj]

I'd feel better with 100 or 200, but will try both!

[Francois]

I know that it might sound a bit excessive but I'd expose it closer to 25.
1981 is a very long time ago.

[John Robison]

Even when fresh Kodak color negative material could tolerate 2-3 stops overexposure. That was why it was used in single use cameras that were set to 1/100 second at f11 which by the exposure chart would be 3 stops overexposed in bright noonday sun.
Of course dense negatives could still be printed conventionally but I’m not so sure how well dense negatives scan.

[Francois]

With a good scanner, probably just fine. Most good scanners now have a D-Max of close to 4.0, which is plenty for most things.