The first TRI-X, expired 1965 : Tested in 2024

[SEK]

Hello fellow black and white photographers,

I have a collection of vintage films, including Super-X from the 40s, and today I tested a 400 ft roll of expired TRI-X film from 1965. While examining the film, I noticed spider/flower patterns, initially thinking they were fingerprints. However, it appears to be mold or fungus growth. I spooled 30 ft onto a 100 ft spool for testing, and to my surprise, after fixing, the negatives were sharp with no cloudiness. Scanning with a Pakon 135 and adjusting curves and levels produced nice results.

The one concern I have is the safety of using this film. Since there is mold or fungus growth, should I be concerned about handling and safety?

 

[koraks]

That's a nice find!
You've got some quite pretty fungal growth going on along the edges of the film. Neat to see how the strands of mycelial growth fan out across the emulsion.

If in terms of safety you refer to the risks of nitrocellulose film: I think 1965 TriX should be safety film already. It should say so on the edge print. I'm sure someone will chime in with the definitive answer.
Or is your concern about something else?

 

[cerber0s]

That's a nice find!
You've got some quite pretty fungal growth going on along the edges of the film. Neat to see how the strands of mycelial growth fan out across the emulsion.

If in terms of safety you refer to the risks of nitrocellulose film: I think 1965 TriX should be safety film already. It should say so on the edge print. I'm sure someone will chime in with the definitive answer.
Or is your concern about something else?

I think he’s concerned about exposure to mold and fungi.

@SEK nice images from that old film!

I wouldn’t be too concerned about exposure to the mold. Mold, fungi, and their spores are all around us in nature, we’re exposed daily. Just don’t lick the film, if you can help it

 

[xkaes]

It depends on what it -- mold/fungus -- is and how much of it there is. Mold can be nasty. It grows in warm, wet places -- like lungs. Plus it can infect your camera gear. At a minimum, I'd wear an N95 mask when using it -- but I would not put it in any of my cameras, that's for sure.

 

[koraks]

Well, if this is about the mold, I wouldn't worry about it. Like @cerber0s says, mold and fungal spores are everywhere. If you don't get sick walking in an autumn forest, you won't get sick from handling a few feet of mold-infested film.

There are occupational hazards associated to working in environments with very heavy fungal spores, but this is a roll of film - not an oyster mushroom farm. Quite different!

 

[Paul Howell]

Well, if OP puts the remained in the freezer until needed that might kill of the spores, then the chemistry including the Stop Bath should kill what remains. Once the film is dry in a low humidity environment little chance of the mold coming back.

 

[xkaes]

Last time I checked, the stop bath comes after the film is exposed in the camera. And even though acetic acid is very good at killing mold, I would not put that film in any camera I wanted to keep. That would be spreading the spores all over inside of the camera -- and rear of the lens.

 

[Chuck1]

Just out of curiosity does the fungus show up on unexposed developed negs?

 

[mshchem]

Oh Boy

 

[xkaes]

Just out of curiosity does the fungus show up on unexposed developed negs?

The "fungus" feeds on the film's gelatin, so there should be something missing where it has "eaten", whether exposed or unexposed, developed or not. Seems odd that the fungused areas are white!

 

[koraks]

Seems odd that the fungused areas are white!

Not necessarily. The fungus itself blocks light; it's somewhat opaque, even if many forms appear white under reflected light. Moreover, the physical changes to the gelatin layer may end up reducing light transmission; a bit like ground glass.

 

[xkaes]

Of course! Thanks.

 

[MattKing]

Try another test. You may find that the only parts affected are in the outermost part of the 400 foot reel.
Even though the signs of fungus are at the edge of the film, the environment in the container may be such that only the outermost part will be affected.
Can you show us a backlit digital image of a few frames of the negatives themselves, including the rebate and the space between frames?

 

[SEK]

I shot another test roll, this time using an ISO of 200, compared to the previous test at ISO 100. The film is rated at 300, but due to its age (65 years), I aimed for ISO 200. However, the shots were taken in the evening with no sunlight, resulting in dramatically different images from the initial test shot in sunny weather. The images were scanned again using a Pakon 135 (non-plus) and I made adjustments to levels, brightness, and contrast.

For safety, I was initially concerned about handling the film and using it in my camera. However, I will take precautions while handling the film. My trusted Rebel X film camera and zoom lens will be dedicated to this 400ft roll.

This test roll shows much more fungi than the initial one, likely because the film is getting closer to the start of the roll "MattKing". Due to safety concerns regarding fungi, I will use this film cautiously. The unexposed film also shows signs of fungi. Here are the photos for reference "Chuck1".

MattKing, Attached as per your request. images attached.

Lastly, I selected an image of the Calgary Tower from the Stampede grounds. The original photo was faded, so I transformed it into a creative art piece. I printed it in monochrome at 17 x 22 inches. The result is soft, dreamy, and evokes a sense of nostalgia.

Thanks for your time and feedback.

P.S. I will be testing another test with this film at 100 ISO on a sunny day and will post the results by the weekend.