Interesting - my images disappeared before development

[juan]

OK - last March my own car tried to murder me. I was on a shoot and the car hopped into reverse, knocked me down and ran over me. Over the couple of days previously, I had made a half-dozen 8x10 exposures.

Understand that I am using TMX that expired in 1996. It was a gift and has been frozen since new. It always seemed to work just fine.

Over the past few days, I've finally felt up to developing those half-dozen exposures made just over six months ago. There's almost no image on the developed negatives, and they show large spots and uneven areas.

Now consider this. I had left an open box of film on my counter, intending to reload film holders when I returned. The film in the box has been in exactly the same environmental conditions as the exposed film in the film holders. I loaded some of this film over the weekend, shot it, developed it the next day, and the images were just fine.

So, I suppose I'd better not shoot more than I can develop within a couple of days.

 

[Rick A]

First, I hope you are all right, but how does a car jump into reverse? Did you leave the engine running, and not shift entirely into park? Oh well, how were the negatives stored prior to development? Were they damaged in the accident? Need more info to answer the question.
Rick

 

[juan]

It's not really a question -just an observation. The exposed film sat in the film holders in a closet at room temperature. Not damaged in the accident. The unexposed box of film sat on a counter in the same room.

The car was stopped with the engine running. I got out and, for all I know, Ansel Adams and William Mortensen got into a fist fight in the front seat and knocked it out of park. I'm thinking of getting one of Ansel's mules.
juan

 

[doughowk]

Once exposed, does the latent image gradually fade if not developed? Might be worth some research time.
Glad you're able to start developing some negs.

 

[Jon Shiu]

I've developed film exposed 25 years prior and the images came out okay, with some fogging.

Jon

 

[George Collier]

Latent image should last much longer, in my experience. Longest I can remember is a year at least, but I don't know what the expected limit is. Sounds like they were subjected to something, like heat or light.
Can you post a scan? - would be most helpful.

 

[Denis K]

Is it possible that you developed the film in a such a way that the emulsion was not properly facing the developer? Like in a rotary tube with the emulsion side facing the tube.

Denis K

 

[Terence]

I'm about 3 years behind on my developing (Don't ask . . . ), and was shooting expired film to boot. I have yet to see anything other than a little fogging, and even that is only on maybe 1 out of every 15 to 20 rolls.

I'd say other things are amiss.

 

[juan]

No scans available - I tossed the negatives. There were just the faintest of high values showing on a couple - nothing at all on others. They were of full range landscapes shot outdoors - my usual subjects. I usually don't make wild mistakes in setting exposure, so I think the image should have been there at one time.

I don't think a stupid developing mistake is the reason - thought I've made plenty of those. I developed six negatives, each separately, in one of the old J&C tubes. I use EMA. I've long made a practice of removing the film from the holder and immediately curling it so the emulsion is on the inside of the curl for insertion in the tube. I don't think I would have mixed it up on the six old negatives, and gotten it right on four new ones.

I, too, have developed roll film that was more than a decade old with only a little fogging. I wonder if the fact that the film is 13-years out of date may affect the "image holding" ability.
juan

 

[railwayman3]

I don't think that six months in a reasonably temperate and dry environment would normally destroy a latent image in that way, and can only suggest that something, however obscure, has affected the film in the holders. I'm thinking maybe fumes of some sort???

Could the holders have been subjected to something during the time the exposures were made, and presumably they were away from the box of film on your counter? Or could the box of film have been still sealed at least enough to protect it more than the film in the holders?

I've read of films being affected by fumes from polish on furniture (when kept in drawers) and there has been at lease one case in the UK recently where sofas made in China have contained packets of insecticides strong enough to cause injury to allergy sufferers (I think it was formaldehyde fumes?).

 

[DanielStone]

I guess the negatives didn't want to get printed .

Its a PITA when film decides to do this, but hopefully those mountains and clouds, or whatever the subject was, will be there again so you can shoot them again!

Besides, you'll have a great story to tell if anyone else is at the same place at the same time .

 

[reellis67]

Ansel Adams and William Mortensen got into a fist fight in the front seat and knocked it out of park

Crap! I knew I should have gone our shooting with you guys that day

:munch:

- Randy

 

[fschifano]

High values only showing? Sounds to me like you severely under exposed the film.

 

[ntenny]

High values only showing? Sounds to me like you severely under exposed the film.

Loaded backwards? I've heard an estimate of about 5 stops loss to the typical dyes in sheet film, which seems about right for "high values only showing".

-NT

 

[Curt]

Only bad can happen when you try to capture someones soul.

I hope you are OK.

 

[BenZucker]

you said you shot it in march, if it was a cold day perhaps your shutter could have been affected by the cold, though usually this goes the other way (over exposure)

 

[jasonhall]

Loaded backwards? I've heard an estimate of about 5 stops loss to the typical dyes in sheet film, which seems about right for "high values only showing".

-NT

I don't really have any experience with LF(so why am I answering here?) However this was exactly my first thought. I just have no idea how close that 5 stop estimate could or would be.

Jason

 

[juan]

All interesting theories, but I don't think any would apply. It was March in Florida - not cold - in fact, I was wearing a short-sleeved shirt that showed my broken arm frighteningly well. I don't think they could have been loaded backwards as I feel for the notches when unloading, too. I think it must have something to do with the age of the film and the time between exposure and development.

I think I'll go out tomorrow and shoot a couple of negatives, then put them away for six months, develop and see what I get.
juan

 

[Sirius Glass]

Have you been or were you at or near the Bermuda Triangle?

Did you get caught up in a digital vortex?

Steve

 

[removed account4]

juan

i think you need some gaf universal developer
and it will all be alright ...

 

[juan]

John,
I've been waiting for you to find the formula.
juan

 

[removed account4]

John,
I've been waiting for you to find the formula.
juan

juan,

i wish had it !
i am sure your problems would vanish
and your negatives would magically appear.

john