Are my negatives ruined?

[ISmith97]

Recently had 5 rolls of film developed which I have had stashed for years. I don't have a dark room so I used a local shop who sends out to a 3rd party for processing. I was expecting some of them to be a bit dodgy as I knew I had not stored them safely (they were probably subject to significant humidity fluctuations...). They have all come back with the same dappled effect, almost looks like a bit like pixilation if they were corrupt digital images. Does this look like it could be caused by damp? I am told by 1 reliable source that it could not be damp, or the camera itself. Is this a mistake of the development? Any advice very very welcome!
Agfa Isolette camera, 1950s, previous rolls of same film & camera have been fine (either processed myself or used a different local shop (now gone). 120 Ilford film, mostly FP4 or similar.

 

[koraks]

Welcome to Photrio, @ISmith97 !

Does this look like it could be caused by damp?

Yes, absolutely. 120 film is prone to issues like these because of the backing paper that's in firm contact with the film. High temperature, humidity and just unfortunate choice of materials used by the manufacturer can result in this kind of mottling. It's fairly common with old, poorly stored film like yours, but it even occurs from time to time with fresh, in-date product.

Is this a mistake of the development?

Probably not. Try a fresh roll of film to verify, but this is virtually certain to be caused by the film itself.

 

[ISmith97]

Welcome to Photrio, @ISmith97 !



Yes, absolutely. 120 film is prone to issues like these because of the backing paper that's in firm contact with the film. High temperature, humidity and just unfortunate choice of materials used by the manufacturer can result in this kind of mottling. It's fairly common with old, poorly stored film like yours, but it even occurs from time to time with fresh, in-date product.



Probably not. Try a fresh roll of film to verify, but this is virtually certain to be caused by the film itself.

Thank you so much, that's very helpful. I am such an idiot for not looking after them! The irony is quite painful as I now work in a photography archive Good to know its not the camera as I was hoping to use it for a wedding this week.
Anyone else with any further input very welcome to continue the conversation, I'm interested to learn everything.

 

[koraks]

I am such an idiot for not looking after them!

Don't beat yourself up over it. Happens to the best of us, really. And the worst of us, too!

Good luck with the wedding! I'd certainly recommend to run a fresh test roll through the camera by means of exercise before diving into that one, though. While the single, partial frame you posted looks good camera-wise, this doesn't mean that it's necessarily defect-free. And more importantly, that single frame does suggest you may have leaned towards underexposure, so I'd ensure that you are sufficiently familiar with the film you're going to use and how much light it really needs.

 

[ISmith97]

Don't beat yourself up over it. Happens to the best of us, really. And the worst of us, too!

Good luck with the wedding! I'd certainly recommend to run a fresh test roll through the camera by means of exercise before diving into that one, though. While the single, partial frame you posted looks good camera-wise, this doesn't mean that it's necessarily defect-free. And more importantly, that single frame does suggest you may have leaned towards underexposure, so I'd ensure that you are sufficiently familiar with the film you're going to use and how much light it really needs.

Should have clarified, using for fun at a wedding rather than being commissioned, don't worry! Thank you for the method tips too Its a delightfully easy camera to use, never had a problem getting my subject in focus but always struggle with exposure, if I get it right its more luck than judgement! I suppose a real pro would go around with a lux meter?

 

[koraks]

I suppose a real pro would go around with a lux meter?

Not a lux meter, but a light meter, yes. I couldn't imagine photographing without one. I mean, I've done it, on occasion, but it's a hit & miss endeavor and only works under very predictable and consistent lighting, and usually only with lots of experience. In the typical environment that a wedding tends to offer, I personally wouldn't even bother and just use a phone instead...

 

[jeffreyg]

I’m puzzled by what you showed. I have been using various Kodak and Ilford 120 films for about fifty years under all weather conditions and living in a high humidity climate often out with film in my camera bag in the trunk of my car or from our air conditioning into 90+ degree yard and having to wait for the condensation on the lens to clear. Yet I have never run into what you described. Either I have been lucky all these years or something else might have happened with your film other than a backing paper issue. I would follow the advice given and check the camera and processing as well.

 

[Don_ih]

I agree with @koraks - there is no way the camera could cause that. There's almost no way a developer could cause that (if it had undissolved developing agent floating around in it and was barely agitated, it is somewhat possible). And I've had very expired 120 film give exactly that result. Unfortunately, there's nothing to do about it.