What does this to a negative?

[Too Many Cameras]

I've been digitizing some slides, negatives, and plates that were loaned to me. They span from the early 19-teens to 1966. This is from around August 1942, based on the rest of the slides in the box. This is a 4X4 slide on probably Kodakchrome (that seemed to be the photographer's film of choice.) So far none of these other slides in this or the other boxes have exhibited this odd coloration or strange pattern.

The slides had been kept in a photo lab closet for the last 30 years, before that who knows. Most of them are sandwiched between two glass plates and taped on all sides. (It's a pain to get these in and out of my slide copier when I digitize them with my DSLR...) Anyway, and ideas on if this is a processing error, storage issue, or something else?

 

[BMbikerider]

Kodachrome has a bit of a bad reputation for scanning only overcome by Nikon with a dedicated Kodachrome slide scanning channel on the last models. But why this is an odd man out in the ones you have scanned I just don't know. If it was scanned on a flatbed, does the scanner you are using have a facility to 'restore colour' My Epson V500 does and it usually makes a good job of it.

 

[Chris Nielsen]

Yuck! Looks organic, some kind of growth on the slide?

 

[bdial]

Agree on the organic, looks like it might be a fungus perhaps? What does the surface of the slide look like?

 

[Kawaiithulhu]

It looks like a fungus grown into just one color layer? Either that or a manifestation of Nyarlahotep the Crawling Chaos.

The large lines could almost be mechanical, as if it froze, and then the fungus grew from there?

Alternately this one slide was contaminated with some wet chemical and this organic looking pattern is the crystalline structure left behind after it dried.

I'm favoring the crystal version because it doesn't involve freezing or large roots and would explain the mechanical observation.

I love a good mystery.

 

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

This looks amazing. If you've more of those, it could make a very interesting set. Please share.

 

[Peter de Groot]

Couldn't it be a double exposure of some kind? With a fluke during development? Or a dye coloroing afterwards just for experimentation sake?

 

[AgX]

There are two images (and two layers) involved:

-cat
-reticulation

The latter would be the coarse type of reticulation especially one observed during drying. But the structure within those reticle is very strange.
You'll have to have a look at that slide with a loupe or microscope, maybe to open the mount.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I agree with AgX having never seen this particular pattern before with reticulation. However once you add digitization to the mix then many strange artifacts can be created. Gross reticulation can usually been seen if the slide is tilted so that the light grazes the surface of the emulsion.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There are at least 2 problems here, perhaps 3. One created the purple color, another created the reticulation pattern and a third the orange spots. I would guess, a spill of some liquid followed by heat and an infection by fungus or bacteria. But, that is just a WAG. I would want to examine the slide with a loupe and also by reflected (incident) light to see the surface. I would also want to see the condition of the mount.

PE

 

[Too Many Cameras]

Thank you, everyone. I'll take some digital photos of it tonight. Let me assure you that what you see on that image is what it looks like held up to the light. I'll get out my K-3 and macro gear and see if I can get some 1:1 or 2:1 shots of the damage patterns. I'll also pop open the mount and see if that adds any interesting details.

 

[AgX]

PE,
I don't see orange spots. Those large spots are just the cat image showing through.

The upper image reminds me more and more of a stained tissue slice. I'm even quite sure about it.
As if a histological preparation has been layed onto that cat image.

Two transparencies in one mount? Simple as this??
Or a deliberate double exposure, refering to some cat related histological issue?


EDIT:
I think was too optimistic. The longer I look the less I can place it as histological preperation.

 

[Too Many Cameras]

They yellow spots are definitely not the cat. It's hard to see there, but they lack texture and detail. I don't know what film this is, but it looks kind of like emulsion that wasn't cleared. This slide is one of ten 4X4 slides and most of them mirror some 35mm slides that were all taken in the same month's period. So it's almost like select images were re-taken on 127 film. I'll pop this open tonight and see if there's a second layer. To my eyes, there does not appear to be a second layer.

 

[MattKing]

They yellow spots are definitely not the cat. It's hard to see there, but they lack texture and detail. I don't know what film this is, but it looks kind of like emulsion that wasn't cleared. This slide is one of ten 4X4 slides and most of them mirror some 35mm slides that were all taken in the same month's period. So it's almost like select images were re-taken on 127 film. I'll pop this open tonight and see if there's a second layer. To my eyes, there does not appear to be a second layer.

Kodak used to offer slide duplication services, which may have included duplication to 127 (so called "Super Slides").

 

[sepiareverb]

This certainly looks like something mushroom based.

 

[Photo Engineer]

The 4x4 mounts were also made to take 120 film.

And on the purple background, the spots are rendered (by comparison) a light orange or yellow orange in color. There is little or no detail in those areas.

What condition is the mount in? Does the mount have glass? I have seen glass mounted Ektachromes do something like this.

PE

 

[Alan Klein]

What does the fungus eat? Isn't the food gone after 50 years?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Gelatin!

 

[AgX]

-) I see no hint that the cat image is destroyed. To me it does not seem very sharp from the begin. Resolution being sufficient to resolve the carpet left in the image but not cat's hair)
-) If there would be something eating off the gelation I see no reason that it would stop in a certain layer.

So to me there are two main different layers. One being affected. (Leaving any deliberate mounting of images aside.)

 

[Too Many Cameras]

@PE: The mount is glass with taped edges. 120 makes sense. Many of the slides were from a pro who used a National Graflex for much of his work (there's a photo from this set of him with the camera.) I'll see when I open this tonight if it's cut-down 120 or not. I'll also grab one or two of the okay slides from this batch and see if they look like reproductions or not.

 

[Truzi]

You know how you can "see" images in clouds? Well, just below the center-line of the cat's eye on the right (our right, not the cat's) there appears to be a face.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bugs can stop eating gelatin if the ingredients in the gelatin don't agree with them. Thus, a layer can be left untouched if the dye is not digestible.

PE

 

[AgX]

Yes, but I do not assume the layers to be that different concerning eadibility (except for top and dividing layers).

 

[Gerald C Koch]

@PE: The mount is glass with taped edges. 120 makes sense. Many of the slides were from a pro who used a National Graflex for much of his work (there's a photo from this set of him with the camera.) I'll see when I open this tonight if it's cut-down 120 or not. I'll also grab one or two of the okay slides from this batch and see if they look like reproductions or not.

Perfect for trapping moisture within the mount and encouraging the growth of fungus. The only time I encountered this problem was with slides that were covered with glass.

 

[Robert Oliver]

Andy Warhol?