Mold on 50-year-old Undeveloped Film?

[Steve Cohen]

I've recently found a box of old, exposed, but undeveloped black and white film -- Tri-X. This stuff is likely about 50 years old! It was stored in the original canisters in an old wooden cigar box.

Hoping that there would still be an image, I brought two rolls to a local lab, and asked them to develop it. They ran it through their normal process, which uses something called F-76 (a knockoff of D-76) and we push processed it a bit (ie. over developed it).

And sure enough, there is still an image there. I chose to have the lab do a low-res quickie scan, rather than a conventional contact sheet. I've got a scanner rig based on a Sony A7II, which I'll use to do better scans.

But there's a big problem -- a spiderweb/tree-shaped pattern of lines creeping in from the edges of the film. One roll is much worse than the other, but they both have it. Sample attached -- from a blank frame at the head of the roll.

I'm guessing this is either mold or some kind of static charge that created a latent image.

Has anybody seen this before? Do you know what it is? And more to the point, I've got another dozen rolls or so that have yet to be developed. Is there anything I can do prior to developing to minimize it?

Many thanks!

Steve

 

[relistan]

I've recently found a box of old, exposed, but undeveloped black and white film -- Tri-X. This stuff is likely about 50 years old! It was stored in the original canisters in an old wooden cigar box.

Hoping that there would still be an image, I brought two rolls to a local lab, and asked them to develop it. They ran it through their normal process, which uses something called F-76 (a knockoff of D-76) and we push processed it a bit (ie. over developed it).

And sure enough, there is still an image there. I chose to have the lab do a low-res quickie scan, rather than a conventional contact sheet. I've got a scanner rig based on a Sony A7II, which I'll use to do better scans.

But there's a big problem -- a spiderweb/tree-shaped pattern of lines creeping in from the edges of the film. One roll is much worse than the other, but they both have it. Sample attached -- from a blank frame at the head of the roll.

I'm guessing this is either mold or some kind of static charge that created a latent image.

Has anybody seen this before? Do you know what it is? And more to the point, I've got another dozen rolls or so that have yet to be developed. Is there anything I can do prior to developing to minimize it?

Many thanks!

Steve

View attachment 275512

Just hazarding a guess, but it looks like emulsion damage, possibly from heating and cooling a bunch over time. If you look at it under a loupe can you see it as cracks in the surface of the emulsion? This seems more likely to me than mold. But I am, like you, still just guessing because I haven't seen that before.

 

[Steve Cohen]

Great. Thanks for the input. The lab where it was done believes it's mold and they are refusing to do any more rolls because they're concerned it will contaminate their bath. (I've got about a dozen more.) The image I posted here is by far the worst of all -- from the head of the roll. I haven't gotten the film back yet, to examine it directly -- they emailed me low res scans. So I'll be able to report back in a couple of days after I've had a closer look. There's a picture from a ball game which shows the scoreboard, and with a little sleuthing I figured out the date it was shot -- Sept 6, 1964. Yikes.

 

[MattKing]

Welcome to Photrio.
I would have guessed fungus, not mould, but it certainly appears to be contaminated. As gelatin is a major component of a film emulsion, it isn't incredibly surprizing.
If you were local, I would be happy to develop it for you, because as long as you don't employ replenished chemicals, it is easy to make sure that any contaminants like this end up going down the drain.
Even in a multi-use commercial lab, I doubt that there would be any damage to their process if they spaced the rolls out, but I respect their desire to keep as much mould/fungus away from their processing line as they can.
Look for someone who uses small tanks and reels and "one-shot" chemicals.

 

[Steve Cohen]

Thanks, Matt. That makes good sense. Do you know if there's any way to clean or sterilize the film before development? Or is the emulsion already damaged? And also, what I'm seeing is very low contrast even with 15-20% overdevelopment. Should the next batch be developed even longer? Any suggestions?

Here's an example. This frame has a lot less fungus, but it's still pretty objectionable. (From the scoreboard I have determined that this was shot on Sept 6, 1964. Yikes.)

Thanks again,
Steve

 

[Steve Cohen]

The camera, btw, is a Zeiss Contaflex with the 50 mm Tessar.

 

[Kino]

If you are just going to scan it, tweak it a bit...

The damage is permanent. No way to avoid it so just process it.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Go Mets!

 

[MattKing]

If you are just going to scan it, tweak it a bit...

The damage is permanent. No way to avoid it so just process it.

View attachment 275544

+1
I think the tentacles coming from the sky enhance the image .
The low contrast may very well be due to age based fog. There are some techniques available to help minimize that (cooler development temperatures in a low fog developer for a longer time) but just increasing development won't help you a lot.

 

[Steve Cohen]

Thanks, Kino. Sorry to hear that, but what will be will be. I'm thrilled that there's an image at all after 55 years.

And yeah, go Mets! Unfortunately, it appears that they lost to the Dodgers that day, 3-4. The Dodgers had only recently moved to LA, and it was also the year Shea Stadium opened in NY.

I'm thinking that I want to overdevelop these negs more than what was done here. The lab called this "plus one stop". The second roll was done "plus one and a half" and it looks more or less identical. I need to take a look at the negatives to be sure, but I'm thinking that I should try about 50% over development. If 8 min is normal, then go to 12. Or maybe even 16?

Any thoughts on that?

 

[Steve Cohen]

Oops -- Sorry Matt, I didn't see your reply when I posted just now. Undoubtedly fog is part of the problem. Do you have a suggestion for a low fog developer? This was D-76.

Basically, it's starting to sound like I should be grateful that there's an image and deal with it after scanning.

 

[MattKing]

Do you have any HC-110? If so, try dilution B at as low a temperature as you can manage - 60F? If you need help calculating a time, post here.

 

[relistan]

Ah yeah fungus makes sense. It does look like fungus

 

[alanrockwood]

Think of your first image as an experiment in modern art.

 

[AgX]

Welcome to Photrio.
I would have guessed fungus, not mould, but it certainly appears to be contaminated.

Your mixing up things.
Fungi is the superior term, including moulds. But it also includes mushrooms.

The correct term here is mould.


For the differenciation between mould and electric discharge:
Moulds attack the gelatine, and thus will be seen as change in emulsion structure. Whereas electric discharge shows up as silver/dye image. Something that in general does not change emulsion structure. Though we have films where it does as Kodachrome.

 

[Tel]

The content of these photos (If your example is representative) is so good that a few spiderwebs of emulsion damage hardly ruin the photo. It looks like the mould grew inward from the edges--in the example posted, some judicious cropping and careful work with, say, a clone stamp would make a big improvement. The base fog may be harder to correct, but even as-is this is wonderful stuff.

 

[Steve Cohen]

Thanks everybody -- that is super helpful. What a wonderful community! I'm happy to meet you.
Tel -- yes, these are amazing images. I was expecting to see clear film after 57 years, so they are real discoveries. I haven't posted the stuff of my family, but the look down memory lane is breathtaking. I'll scan them properly (with my A7II) and work on them in Lightroom and report back here, probably next week.
AgX -- I'll have the negs later today and tomorrow and will examine with a loupe and report back.
And Matt, I can get HC-110, no problem. I haven't used a chemical darkroom in many years (I had a color setup in the early 80s, B&W prior to that) -- but the tanks and beakers and thermometer are still in the garage somewhere. I'm still hoping to find a lab that will do it for me, but I will have to explain that there might be mold and I think the proprietors will probably run screaming to the hills.

Anyway, I will report back soon -- and thanks again, y'all.

Steve

 

[Kino]

Personally, I think the mold IS part of the story now; why eliminate it? Great conversation starter...

 

[Steve Cohen]

I picked up the negatives this morning and took a careful look at them with a loupe. The spidery patterns are in the emulsion -- as if they part of the exposure. Perhaps they were mold "on" the negatives before development but at this point the pattern is clearly "in" the negative. The patterns have no color, and they are not raised at all. Whatever was there before development, it has become part of the image, and if there was actual mold, it has been washed away. So, AgX, does that mean your idea of static is a possibility? The pattern is pretty much throughout the roll, and it is more present at the edges and seems to come in to the image area from there.

Regarding Matt's thought about fog, I think that's spot on. The clear film edges aren't really clear. So the blacks in the entire image are lifted. But still, there's an image present. I suspect that some of the images were underexposed in shooting, which, of course,would make the fog more of an issue.

Another problem -- after 57 years in the canister, they are very curled!

And finally, from the canister label, I see that the film was bulk loaded, by some company that took big rolls of Tri-X and put it in canisters. I don't know if that would influence things, but how the bulk film was handled -- whether there was moisture present, for example, might be relevant.

Next step for me, will be to scan some of the frames properly -- but that curling will make the scanning tricky.

Any thoughts?

 

[Tel]

Not sure what scanner you use, but Better Scanning makes anti-Newton glass to lay on top of the film and (hopefully) flatten it. I've developed found film from the 60s and 70s and found that this method was useful, although in one case the film was so badly curled that I had to tape the glass to the carrier to prevent the film from lifting it up.

Edit: can't wait to see more

 

[MattKing]

that curling will make the scanning tricky.

Loading the developing reels as well!
The possibility exists that what you see is the result of what was left after the mould/fungi ate what they wanted to eat, secreted what they wanted to secrete, and then died.
Sort of like the trail left by a slug or snail, after the slug or snail is gone.
Isn't being on a site with a bunch of "visual" people fun?!

 

[Kino]

Next step for me, will be to scan some of the frames properly -- but that curling will make the scanning tricky.
Any thoughts?

Your film is suffering from "core set" or "spool set". Hopefully you haven't cut them into strips yet, but if you have and do have a 35mm developing reel, you can carefully load them into the reel BACKWARDS with the emulsion out. It may take some doing and finesse, but once you do this, let the film sit in an elevated humidity environment for a while and then wait a few days. The film should eventually relax, but remember that it's been tightly wound for ... how many years?

 

[Steve Cohen]

Tightly wound for 57 years. And, sadly, the lab cut them. But, that's a great tip. Thanks. I think the scanning will be possible, one way or another. I'll get into that, possibly tomorrow, possibly early next week.

 

[Steve Cohen]

Hey folks -- if any of you are still checking in here, I finally scanned those old images properly -- using a Sony A7II with a Micro Nikkor attachment. Here's the result. Not bad for 1964 -- and left in the canister till now.

 

[MattKing]

Thanks for sharing that.
A person who would be likely to know passed on some information to me about what has been attributed here to mould (mold).
Apparently, based on the appearance of the images posted, that is not mould, but rather branch static that is forming because the film has dried out and lost much of its static protection over the many years. The film would have been wound for so long that it's all core-set, curled up, and most likely somewhat blocked. When the roll is unwound, the film discharges at the point of separation which usually begins at the edges and runs inward.

There really isn't a way to get out of this short of putting a humidifier in the camera. If one were to try to humidify the roll and then try to use it, the moisture being added might actually increase the blocking of the moistened emulsion to the base.