Tech Pan wabisabi

[polyglot]

I bought 80' of Very Very Old 70mm Tech Pan off eBay and ran a handful of test frames (EI6, 12, 25, 50) last night with my new RZ 140 M-LA. Developed it in C41 developer for 7:00 and it came out beautifully, plenty of shadow detail at EI25 and with less contrast than I would normally develop a film. Plenty to work with, except...

Something is growing on it. Something thin and spidery and fungus-like, though it could be any old mould that's lived in the can for the 20 years since it expired.

The seller (who I haven't contacted yet) offers a refund in the listing on 3 of 4 cans if the film is faulty - should I take him up on it? I'd be getting back $45 and spending probably $30 on postage to send it back, which makes me inclined to keep it if only for the cartridges! Should I expect less mould towards the far end of the film?

Got any wabisabi kind of photographic suggestions for super high-res film with bonus crustiness? I'll post an image tomorrow, no time to scan tonight.

I saw there was a motherlode of 70mm TP sold about 3 times here on APUG a year or three ago. Does the current holder of that stash wish to part with any of it?

 

[Vonder]

When something is "not as listed" you can ask the seller to refund all costs, including shipping costs both ways. I have had sellers balk on the return shipping but if I insist, and they still balk, I go directly to eBay and eBay has always provided me with return shipping labels, or in some cases the seller says keep it.

 

[el wacho]

Here you go ...
http://calebcharland.com/biographs/

 

[Dr Croubie]

When you say 'spidery fungus-like', does it look like (there was a url link here which no longer exists)?
Depends on how extreme it is, and how far into the middle. If it's just around the edges, could make a nice vignette/border for some portraits.
Personally, I'd go shoot something nice and old, technical or industrial and probably rusty, like down at the Port (or maybe I'm just obsessed with old rusty buildings down there because it's not too far from my drive home).

 

[polyglot]

Yep, it looks a bit like that example from newtorf. A bit less straight-line thatched, but with similar growth patterns. The growths are physically larger but a smaller fraction of the frame since this is 70mm, not 35mm.

I'll go post in that thread too once I have a scan, since it seems to confirm that the issue there was growths not the double-exposure everyone was accusing them of.

el wacho: erm, I don't think I plan to go *quite* that far

 

[StoneNYC]

Yep, it looks a bit like that example from newtorf. A bit less straight-line thatched, but with similar growth patterns. The growths are physically larger but a smaller fraction of the frame since this is 70mm, not 35mm.

I'll go post in that thread too once I have a scan, since it seems to confirm that the issue there was growths not the double-exposure everyone was accusing them of.

el wacho: erm, I don't think I plan to go *quite* that far

Sorry for your loss.... lol

Honestly, not only would I throw out the pictures, I wouldn't even let them touch my scanner... further I would throw out the cans too (or send them back). That's certainly the kind of thing that SPREADS to other films you own, and if it's being that aggressive I wouldn't want it anywhere near my stuff...

Get rid of it! Including the cans, DO NOT reuse the spools.

That's my biased advice agains mold spores...

 

[polyglot]

bah, unnecessary paranoia. Fungal spores are all around anyway; what matters is whether you give them a chance (moisture+heat) to grow. You'll never have a spore-free environment.

Anyway, a scan:

That also served as a test for my new 140/4.5 M/L-A macro, which you can see here operating at 1:2. At EI16 there is shadow detail everywhere, and the 7:00 of development I gave it wasn't enough; the image is quite flat both in the scan and on the neg. I've left the scan at low contrast so that all the detail in the fungus is retained.

The interesting thing is that the density of the fungal-affected areas seems proportional to the exposure, as if the fungus was acting as a development catalyst rather than an exposing agent. You can barely see tiny tendrils of it extending out of the frames, but it has no silver density where there was no optical exposure.

 

[analoguey]

Recently bought an RB lens that has some fungal spots on the rear element - the vendor said it was very few but I see most of the rear element having 2 full circles of spots, debating whether to retain it or send it back.

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

 

[EdSawyer]

Agreed with polyglot, there's always spores around, it doesn't "spread"-, it's already everywhere. Mostly inert unless given the right conditions.

 

[mexipike]

I would let the seller know, just so he doesn't sell more mold film!

 

[Hatchetman]

Boy, the results are so nice (except for the mold) I'd be tempted to keep it all anyway and hope some of it is OK.

 

[StoneNYC]

bah, unnecessary paranoia. Fungal spores are all around anyway; what matters is whether you give them a chance (moisture+heat) to grow. You'll never have a spore-free environment.

Anyway, a scan:

That also served as a test for my new 140/4.5 M/L-A macro, which you can see here operating at 1:2. At EI16 there is shadow detail everywhere, and the 7:00 of development I gave it wasn't enough; the image is quite flat both in the scan and on the neg. I've left the scan at low contrast so that all the detail in the fungus is retained.

The interesting thing is that the density of the fungal-affected areas seems proportional to the exposure, as if the fungus was acting as a development catalyst rather than an exposing agent. You can barely see tiny tendrils of it extending out of the frames, but it has no silver density where there was no optical exposure.

You said that this image was fine, and then disappeared after, which tells me that it was spreading regardless of the fact that the film had already dried correct? So this appeared after the film was already completely dry? That means that it does spread even without moisture, and that you're putting other stuff at risk, yes mold spores are everywhere, but this obviously sounds aggressive. Anyway I wouldn't take the chance better safe than sorry, it's not really an important image anyway right?

That's just my advice but what do I know anyway

 

[Truzi]

If the film can be stabilized after development, you may be able to find creative uses for this. If you don't look too hard, it's almost reminiscent of a paisley or fractal pattern.

 

[polyglot]

You said that this image was fine, and then disappeared after, which tells me that it was spreading regardless of the fact that the film had already dried correct? So this appeared after the film was already completely dry? That means that it does spread even without moisture, and that you're putting other stuff at risk, yes mold spores are everywhere, but this obviously sounds aggressive. Anyway I wouldn't take the chance better safe than sorry, it's not really an important image anyway right?

That's just my advice but what do I know anyway

Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension. The emulsion is fine (speed, contrast, grain, lack of fog, etc) except that something has grown on the film. The point is that the only fault is the fungus, if it even is fungus.

The tendrils, which have already grown in the film over the last TWO DECADES, extend outside the image areas except that they produced no silver where there was no exposure, so it seems to act as a development catalyst. Mould/fungus takes months/years to grow, it doesn't grow across an image like that in the day between me drying and scanning the film. And it certainly doesn't form metallic silver on its own after the film has been fixed!

 

[polyglot]

Boy, the results are so nice (except for the mold) I'd be tempted to keep it all anyway and hope some of it is OK.

Yeah, I plan to. Got some cogitating to do on a theme, but I'm sure there's a good project in this.

I've told the seller it's mouldy and they still have some rolls listed from the same batch so I'm quite tempted to make a lowball offer.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Yeah, I plan to. Got some cogitating to do on a theme, but I'm sure there's a good project in this.

Yeah, me likey those results too. As it's just at the top and bottom, could do well for landscapes to give some 'texture' to the sky and forground. Maybe go up to the mid-north and shoot some lone trees/buildings with nothing else but red sand and blue sky.
(or if anyone can give me a 70mm hassy back for cheap enough I'd be tempted to take a roll off your hands and do that myself)


Just a thought, there's always the trick that I do when I get a lens with fungus on it, mount it on a tripod and point it at the sun for a few days, UV seems to kill all the spores. Would that work on TechPan too?

 

[StoneNYC]

Yeah, me likey those results too. As it's just at the top and bottom, could do well for landscapes to give some 'texture' to the sky and forground. Maybe go up to the mid-north and shoot some lone trees/buildings with nothing else but red sand and blue sky.
(or if anyone can give me a 70mm hassy back for cheap enough I'd be tempted to take a roll off your hands and do that myself)


Just a thought, there's always the trick that I do when I get a lens with fungus on it, mount it on a tripod and point it at the sun for a few days, UV seems to kill all the spores. Would that work on TechPan too?

I would suggest doing that AFTER the exposure and development...

 

[StoneNYC]

Seriously, you need to work on your reading comprehension. The emulsion is fine (speed, contrast, grain, lack of fog, etc) except that something has grown on the film. The point is that the only fault is the fungus, if it even is fungus.

The tendrils, which have already grown in the film over the last TWO DECADES, extend outside the image areas except that they produced no silver where there was no exposure, so it seems to act as a development catalyst. Mould/fungus takes months/years to grow, it doesn't grow across an image like that in the day between me drying and scanning the film. And it certainly doesn't form metallic silver on its own after the film has been fixed!

I read it just fine, but you weren't clear, The way that it was written, it sounded as if the lines appeared after the film had already been developed, not that it existed prior to taking the photograph... I'm sorry for the misunderstanding of course, I wasn't trying to aggravate you, I just think that the wording was funny. Anyway, I'm a little more paranoid than you obviously, but I hope you get even better results with the next experiment.

I also hope my stash of tech pan in 70 mm doesn't have this issue...