Mold on 50-year-old Undeveloped Film?

[Ivo Stunga]

Hmm, antifungal treatment/bath in humid environments, would that be feasible?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Hmm, antifungal treatment/bath in humid environments, would that be feasible?

Not much help when you're processing film that was exposed half a century ago. The mold has already done its damage.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Sure, but I was thinking preventitive measures.

 

[Donald Qualls]

If you have access to the film before the long storage, develop and fix, then apply C-41 Final Rinse (which has that antifungal already in it).

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Antifungal agent in Rinse aid - I like this idea, film shooters in humid environments - or all of us - could adapt this as a standard practice.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've been told that one shouldn't interchange C-41 Final Rinse and PhotoFlo, because (IIRC) Hexamine may have long term effects on the image silver -- but then, so does fungus...

 

[Steve Cohen]

For what it's worth, I have two scans of these negatives. The first was done by the lab where it was processed, the second, six months later, that I did via my Sony A7II (images from each scan are in the earlier posts). I've compared the pictures very carefully and I don't see any change in the image of the fungus. My conclusion is that regular B&W processing has killed the mold and what I'm seeing is the result of whatever it did to the emulsion. Maybe stop bath kills it or maybe it was removed with the emulsion when it was fixed.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

If I recall my biology correctly, mycelium is 1 cell thick - please correct me if I'm wrong.

That'll require microscope to see I guess. The acidic Stop bath surely did the thing if the developer didn't kill it.

 

[HowieP]

Howie P -- thanks for contributing that detail and the names of the players. But what about the second shot I posted? Looks to me like somebody got into a pickle between third & home. Any info about that?
Yes I figured it out by checking the play-by-play log: In the top of the 5th with the Dodgers leading 2-1, Maury Wills doubled, Jim Gilliam moved him to 3rd on a sacrifice fly and Willie Davis hit a grounder to the second baseman upon which Wills tried to score but was thrown out: the 2nd baseman threw to the catcher who threw to the 3rd baseman who tagged Wills out. Bobby Klaus to Jessie Gonder to Charley Smith. All immortals!

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

I don't claim any superior knowledge, but as a biologist I still think it is fungus. Suggestive features are the forked structure radiating from a single location, and the non-overlap of neighbouring 'colonies'. BTW, I'm interested to know what distinction people think there is between mould and fungus?

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.

I have tried to digitally rescue some treasured colour slides of mine that grew fungus, and gave it up as impossible because of the branching structure. It's done, you have to move on. Unless the box says 'Vivian Maier' on it, of course...

 

[Don_ih]

I'm interested to know what distinction people think there is between mould and fungus?

I think almost everyone here thinks mould is a fungus.

 

[snusmumriken]

I think almost everyone here thinks mould is a fungus.

That's a relief.

Here's an example of fungus on a transparency taken 40 years ago.

 

[AgX]

I'm interested to know what distinction people think there is between mould and fungus?

Mould is a subgroup within the huge family of Fungi.

 

[Steve Cohen]

HowieP -- thanks for contributing that info! It is amazing that 60 years hence we can still describe that game in detail and identify the players.

As for the mold, I'll be souping another couple of rolls in a week or so, & I'll report back with info and images. In the meantime, I took a look at the other unprocessed rolls (there are 16 in total -- 35mm & 620). A couple of the 35mm rolls were never full retracted into the cassette -- the tongue is out. So I pulled the film out of the cassette another inch or so, figuring that there was still some film there without an image. And then I examined that film under a loupe. I was afraid I'd see visible mold, but at least on that roll, there was absolutely nothing to be seen. So either that roll isn't moldy or the mold isn't visible until after development. We'll see. Thanks again, everybody.

 

[Steve Cohen]

I developed four rolls this past weekend and scanned them with my Sony A7II. And, sadly, they all have mold. There are bulk loaded rolls and normal Kodak rolls. I was hoping that the bulk loaded ones were worse, but it's not the case. Also, the mold is completely invisible on the film before development. I pulled out that tongue on one roll and couldn't see a thing. But after development, the first frame on that roll had plenty of mold.

For what it's worth, the mold seems worse at the tongue end of each roll. The deeper in you get, the less mold. But out of four rolls only a handful of frames are clean. And needless to say, the images are very flat. I overdeveloped them quite a bit (in Ilfotec DD-X) and there's significant fog, as well.

I'm attaching a few examples, ranging from horrifying to not bad. These are not my finest work as a photographer! Just here to give you a sense of the range of the problem.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How were the films stored so that they could get mold in the first place?

 

[Steve Cohen]

They've been in a cigar box, exposed but undeveloped for roughly 60 years. Some 620, most 35mm. For the last 35 years, that box has been in my study, so in a reasonable environment for temp & humidity. But before that, I don't really know, and I assume that it must have been in a basement or closet that was too wet. But I have no idea. And why I didn't develop these films for so long is the $64,000 question. No good answer for that.

I have another dozen rolls or so to develop. The consensus here on Photrio has been, "the damage is already done -- there's nothing you can do but process them and hope for the best." If anybody disagrees with that, or has any other ideas, I'd love to hear more.

Also, does anybody have an opinion about whether processing has killed it? I have to believe that developer, shortstop, fixer and a 30 min wash is not something mold will enjoy. But the spores can be very hardy and handling the developed negatives gives me the creeps.

 

[MattKing]

I repeat my earlier post:

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

A borrowed from the internet of static discharge (rather than mould) on film:

 

[Steve Cohen]

I remember Matt, thanks. I unrolled these rolls myself and was watching for sparks and didn't see any. And others here seemed to think it was certainly mold. So I have no idea.

(And there was no stickiness when they were unrolled -- except at the very beginning, there was no popping or kinking, no noise as the layers of the roll separated.)

 

[MattKing]

There is very little likelihood that there would be sparks visible to you, or that the static discharge would be audible.
If it was mould, you would most likely be able to see it on/in the undeveloped film.

 

[Truzi]

I remember Photo Engineer saying that a formalin-based stabilizing bath was a waste on B&W film (not necessary), but would not hurt it. If what you see is mold, I wonder if that would help preserve your negatives.

I have to say, though, that the static discharge argument is convincing.

 

[Don_ih]

Try unrolling one of them underwater (as was said above), then load it onto the developing reel. That would prevent static. I still doubt static would have that kind of impact on 60-year-old film.

 

[Kino]

I would say it is almost certainly mold and there's not much to be done about it.

However, you could try Don's suggestion of unrolling them under water in total darkness before loading on a developing reel. It would be an interesting experiment.

 

[Steve Cohen]

Interesting. Snap open the cassette, then drop the roll in a tub of water, then attempt to load a spiral reel. Maybe add photoflo to the water? Worth a try. Might not be easy loading that reel, though.

Needless to say, I'd be overjoyed if this was static and could be avoided prior to development.

Here are a couple of additional samples. This is the first frame on the roll where I couldn't see any visible mold. The blow-ups are 100%. I'm struck by the lumpy-ness of the strands.

Thanks for all your help and insights on this, folks.

Steve

 

[Steve Cohen]

Hey folks, for those of you who are still interested, I developed 5 more rolls this weekend and scanned them all.

Based on your suggestions, I unspooled the rolls under water, and loaded the reels wet, hoping to eliminate the possibility of static. Not exactly an easy task. There were a few kinks but I was able to load the reels and get everything developed. Sadly, however, this did not eliminate the problem.

I did five rolls. Four Tri-X, one Plus-X. One roll was blank. Of the other four, two had mold and two didn't. No idea why. They were all shot at roughly the same time and stored in the same box.

I still have a few rolls left to do, and I'll get them done in the next month or two, and report back here.

In any event, thanks again to all of you for your help with this. A couple of examples below.

Steve