Am I screwed??

[foto_man]

Hello everyone,

I am writing this post b/c I need some advice.

I got back a roll of medium format black and white, slow speed 120 film back from the lab. They had process and scanned it.

Here is an example of what they sent back:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3rpdmmbzcbh52b7/899573371.jpg

Needless to say, I am flabbergasted.

A little background:

I have shot literally hundreds of rolls of film and kept them in my fridge to be developed later.

In 2009, due to a family situation, the film where taken out of the fridge and stored in a storage unit. No climate control, just a plain old storage unit.

Finally, now, I am able to get back to my old archive. This is one of the first rolls of 120 that I've had a chance to develop. I've also developed rolls of color 35mm film that, for the most part, looks perfectly fine (a little color distortion, but nothing like this).

I now have the film sitting in ziplocks in the closet.

I am terrified that the rest of the B&W 120 film will look like this image.

Am I screwed? Is the film degrading?

This is really sad. I spent years and a ton of money. This was my work and I didn't realize this outcome was possible. I thought the film wouldn't be pristine but at least manageable with some Photoshop work.

Now I don't know what to do. Like I said, I have hundreds of rolls similar to the image posted, sitting waiting to be developed.

Do I spend thousands of dollars having them developed just to receive back this garbage?

Is there something the lab can do? Should I throw the film in the fridge now? Will it do any good?

I am dumbstruck. This is really painful.

Any advice is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

[DanielStone]

Can you post a shot of the actual film, say on a lightbox, or on a white piece of computer paper behind it, so we can see what the negatives look like when nice, strong light is back-lighting them? A lightbox would be best.

Also, was this "storage unit" an outside/garage style one where you drive up to it? Or was in an interior, more climate-controlled one? I'm asking b/c some of these storage units are essentially "ovens" in the summertime, when they're sealed up and baking in the sun all day long... Or in winter, when you can get large temperature fluctuations between summer + winter. Posting your rough location would be best(state, country, etc...)

TO ME, it looks like they've become fogged due to heat exposure. I've left rolls of film(color & b/w, both unintentionally, and intentionally) in the trunk(boot) of the car before for months, and in one case over a year. I didn't have a problem with the roll. But then again I'm in LA, where we get quite warm, but don't freeze during the winter...

[EricWHiss]

Gosh I hope not because it looks like you may have some nice shots in there.   Scan looks funky - have you seen the negs? 

[foto_man]

Can you post a shot of the actual film, say on a lightbox, or on a white piece of computer paper behind it, so we can see what the negatives look like when nice, strong light is back-lighting them? A lightbox would be best.

Also, was this "storage unit" an outside/garage style one where you drive up to it? Or was in an interior, more climate-controlled one? I'm asking b/c some of these storage units are essentially "ovens" in the summertime, when they're sealed up and baking in the sun all day long... Or in winter, when you can get large temperature fluctuations between summer + winter. Posting your rough location would be best(state, country, etc...)

TO ME, it looks like they've become fogged due to heat exposure. I've left rolls of film(color & b/w, both unintentionally, and intentionally) in the trunk(boot) of the car before for months, and in one case over a year. I didn't have a problem with the roll. But then again I'm in LA, where we get quite warm, but don't freeze during the winter...

Hi Daniel,

The negatives are at a mail order lab (Swan Photo Labs AKA The Darkroom) and I'm waiting for the negatives to be mailed back.

I don't have a light box but I may drive to a lab by my place and take some shots of the negs on the light box. I'm assuming that you want me to shoot the negs w/o the flash on, correct?

The storage unit was Public Storage. I don't think they do any climate control. They were sitting in the storage unit for about 3 years. After that, I took them home where they've been sitting in a dark closet since.

I just took the unprocessed rolls of 120 BW film I have left and put them in a light proof aluminum envelope and put them in my fridge. I sort of panicked.

I'm in SoCal as well. So I don't think humidity is an issue. Now that you mention it, this particular roll has been sitting in an envelope in a storage bin by my desk for months and months. It hasn't been stored with the rest of the film so fog by heat may be the issue.

My next step is to have a few other rolls of the 120 BW film processed. If you have any recommendations on labs, that will be appreciated.

I'm going to goto a local place here (not a pro lab by any stretch) and have them develop and proof a couple of rolls to see where I stand in regards to the example shot above.

I'll post the negative shots as soon as I can. Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks.

[foto_man]

Hi Eric,

Thank you. See my post above.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

1. Does the negative look the same way on a light table or is it just the scan?
2. In any case I would shoot a roll just with test images and let these develop in another lab, just for testing.

Good luck!
Cheers
~Chris

[Fine_Art]

It looks likely a lot of solar radiation got to the film. Too bad, it looks like very nice work.

[DanielStone]

Hey,

Give Icon (www.iconla.com) over on Wilshire Blvd a try, they've done good(not great, that's where DIY'ing it is still best IMO, as it's done EXACTLY as you want/need it done) b/w for me in the past. I give them my C-41 and some of my E-6 processing. B/W I try and do it all myself, but since I'm moving soon, my darkroom equipment is packed and stored away already.

They take mail-order btw, and still offer process + contact sheets as well, if you want that done.
IIRC, their b/w is dip-n-dunk, I'm not sure what Swan uses, but if it's roller transport(think minilab-type machine), I'd go elsewhere. The chemistry designed for those machines IS NOT designed for maximum quality, but faster throughput. A real dip-n-dunk machine is probably the best(besides rotary dev, like a Jobo) type of processor out there, since it's only chemistry that touches the film, no reels or transport rollers...

Here's their online order site:
http://online.iconla.com/

Where in the so cal area are you? If you're not comfortable posting it publicly, send me a private message if you want. I'd be happy to meet up to take a look at your negatives in-person if we're local to each other, that might be good so I can see them in-person to analyze. Again, if you want.

cheers,
Dan

[haplo602]

Does not look like a scanning issue to me. I am afraid the film's gone.

Storing exposed and undeveloped film outside controled conditions (temperature and humidity mostly) is a bad idea. The expiration date on the film is only valid for unexposed film.

[Doug Peterson]

I'm not an expert in film development, so I can't help there.

However, it might be possible to get usable results from your severely damaged film.

Attached is a 10 second job in Photoshop using a mid-radius high-threshold dust-and-scratches filter and then adding some artificial grain. It's not glorious, and I'm sure you'd rather your film was pristine, but from those above with more film knowledge it sounds like you may have to live with what you've got, in which case my aim is only to help you see if there is something useful that can still be done given your situation.

(I took the liberty of downloading and editing your image and reposting here because I felt it was, based on the conversation, and based on my intention, not inappropriate - of course if you'd like me to remove it just shoot me an email or call me at the office and I'll remove it immediately)

[Ken R]

Latency stability of Film is generally very very good. I mean, you always want to develop film shortly after you expose it, a few days or weeks after at most but generally one can get good results developing the film years after it was exposed. But stability might be compromised if the film was subjected to some nasty radiation or temperature/humidity conditions.

In regards to the image you posted. If the negative looks anything like the jpg you posted then you are screwed if you wanted a high quality image. I would pick a few rolls from the exposed lot and develop them to see if hey are in the same shape.

[Chris Livsey]

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_12_Storage_and_Handling.pdf

How was this stored in respect of 120 rolls? If loose and just the backing paper for protection in a cardboard box I think it not worthwhile to test more than one more, preferably different stock, if shot, just in case it fared better. To me it is not a latent image issue but degradation of the actual emulsion I suspect humidity and fungus. I am sorry. You could try asking Ilford if any was their stock, I can pass on an e-mail contact, as tere technical Dept loves this kind of challenge. Kodak these days who knows?

[DanielStone]

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_12_Storage_and_Handling.pdf

....

Hey Chris,
Motion products are quite different to still film, and they(MP products) require much more expedited processing than still film does. Obviously this doesn't mean that the regular joe still photographer who shoots 50 rolls/year should wait until the same time to process them all, that wouldn't be "ideal". However, if properly stored away from heat and large temperature fluctuations(like inside the house), I've had film that was shot over 1yr prior to my having it processed, and I haven't found any ill effects.

In this case, I believe that the culprit was time + large temp fluctuations. If the storage unit was the somewhat typical "drive up and park at your unit exterior garage-style storage unit" that's prevalent here in so. cal, I don't have high hopes for the rest of the rolls.

Also, the higher speed the film(if this is Ilford Delta 3200, then I can fully understand, if it's Ilford FP4+ or Fuji Acros then I can really only blame it on heat) the more base+fog it'll have as it ages/deteriorates from the date of exposure.

Combine these adverse storage conditions, potential for underexposure in the original negative, and a potential processing issue(see my prior posting about roller-transport processors and higher-than-normal processing temps, which these machines use), and you have a potential recipe for disaster , as we've seen here.

But in my case, I've had film(35mm, 120, 220 and sheet film, E-6/C-41/BW) go 6-12+ months between time of exposure and processing it, and in 95+% of cases, the film is perfectly fine.




To the OP:
Can you list what type of film this is, and(if you can remember) how it was exposed? This might help weed out more culprits in this search for an answer.

-Dan

[uaiomex]

Foto-man, you can always join Instagram 
Just kidding. I really feel your pain. It seems to be a hell-good of a body of work. I hope something can be done about it in post.
Eduardo

[Chris Livsey]

Hey Chris,
Motion products are quite different to still film, and they(MP products) require much more expedited processing than still film does.
-Dan

Indeed (and that is usually due to colour balance issues) but the storage conditions and causes of degradation are the same and Koday AFAIK doesn't publish a comprehensive, easily quotable by link, list like that for still film. I hoped that the OP could from that identify why his storage was causing problems.
I agree also that there is variance in latent image stability.
From my conversations with Ilford their take is that newer crystal type films are more stable with latent image as are faster emulsions (which may be counter-intuitive) and the age of the film when exposed is a factor. Ilford's Pan-F has a poor reputation for latent image stability partially because of the bad boxes it ticks, old emulsion, slow film.
Bad is relative here you will still get a "good" image under most circumstances.Pan-F has a poor reputation for latent image stability because of the bad boxes it ticks, old emulsion, slow film. But i think we agree this is largely not a latent image issue but storage conditions.
The OP did state in the first post "slow film" so that 's one tick in the bad box.
He also states 35mm colour was OK. Hence my comment about "naked" 120 rolls I suspect the 35mm was in canisters giving some environmental moisture protection.

[foto_man]

Hey,

Give Icon (www.iconla.com) over on Wilshire Blvd a try, they've done good(not great, that's where DIY'ing it is still best IMO, as it's done EXACTLY as you want/need it done) b/w for me in the past. I give them my C-41 and some of my E-6 processing. B/W I try and do it all myself, but since I'm moving soon, my darkroom equipment is packed and stored away already.

They take mail-order btw, and still offer process + contact sheets as well, if you want that done.
IIRC, their b/w is dip-n-dunk, I'm not sure what Swan uses, but if it's roller transport(think minilab-type machine), I'd go elsewhere. The chemistry designed for those machines IS NOT designed for maximum quality, but faster throughput. A real dip-n-dunk machine is probably the best(besides rotary dev, like a Jobo) type of processor out there, since it's only chemistry that touches the film, no reels or transport rollers...

Here's their online order site:
http://online.iconla.com/

Where in the so cal area are you? If you're not comfortable posting it publicly, send me a private message if you want. I'd be happy to meet up to take a look at your negatives in-person if we're local to each other, that might be good so I can see them in-person to analyze. Again, if you want.

cheers,
Dan

Hey Dan,

I just spoke with the Tech at Swan. Name's AJ. Good guy, an old film processing guy (he said he's been developing film for 40 years).

So the roll posted is Ilford Panf50

Here's the info he gave me:

They use ilford developer on a Refema (sp?) machine. It's a Dip n' Dunk process so no worries there. They throw away the paper backing so no chance in getting that back.

He said that Pan F is the film that most disappoints people. He also said that it does not hold up over time and to develop it asap. Stated that it should be rated 25 ASA and that the lab is in constant contact with the Ilford guys in England as to there processing.

AJ said that I'm basically screwed.

I know Icon. I have used them before in the past. I think my next step is too develop a few more rolls and see what if this problem is pervasive or again, just a one off b/c the image posted was especially poorly treated.

I took the film out of the fridge last night and now they are in a cool, dark closet in the same aluminum envelopes.

This is really disheartening.

I'm still going to shoot the negatives on a light box and post it here. I'll still get a few other rolls developed as well.

I'll keep everyone posted.

Thanks for everyone's nice words on the shot. I wish it came out better.

[foto_man]

I'll try and address everyone's questions. Here goes:

1. Does the negative look the same way on a light table or is it just the scan?
2. In any case I would shoot a roll just with test images and let these develop in another lab, just for testing.

Good luck!
Cheers
~Chris

Hey Chris,

I haven't got the negs back yet. I have shot a few more rolls recently and had them developed. No problems on the newer stuff.

I'll post shots of the negs when I get them back.

It looks likely a lot of solar radiation got to the film. Too bad, it looks like very nice work.

Thanks. Again, hoping that this is just a one off on this roll as it was sitting in an envelope for months next to my desk (my office gets a lot of light during the day).

I'm not an expert in film development, so I can't help there.

However, it might be possible to get usable results from your severely damaged film.

Attached is a 10 second job in Photoshop using a mid-radius high-threshold dust-and-scratches filter and then adding some artificial grain. It's not glorious, and I'm sure you'd rather your film was pristine, but from those above with more film knowledge it sounds like you may have to live with what you've got, in which case my aim is only to help you see if there is something useful that can still be done given your situation.

(I took the liberty of downloading and editing your image and reposting here because I felt it was, based on the conversation, and based on my intention, not inappropriate - of course if you'd like me to remove it just shoot me an email or call me at the office and I'll remove it immediately)

Hey Doug,

Your touch up is a lot better than the scan the lab sent. No worries on doing it. I appreciate it. People use PanF 50 because of the tight grain and rich blacks. That all went out the window with this roll. Hope it's not all of them.

Latency stability of Film is generally very very good. I mean, you always want to develop film shortly after you expose it, a few days or weeks after at most but generally one can get good results developing the film years after it was exposed. But stability might be compromised if the film was subjected to some nasty radiation or temperature/humidity conditions.

In regards to the image you posted. If the negative looks anything like the jpg you posted then you are screwed if you wanted a high quality image. I would pick a few rolls from the exposed lot and develop them to see if hey are in the same shape.

Hi Ken,

I'm going to have a few more rolls of it developed. Let's see what happens.

http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploadedFiles/US_plugins_acrobat_en_motion_newsletters_filmEss_12_Storage_and_Handling.pdf

How was this stored in respect of 120 rolls? If loose and just the backing paper for protection in a cardboard box I think it not worthwhile to test more than one more, preferably different stock, if shot, just in case it fared better. To me it is not a latent image issue but degradation of the actual emulsion I suspect humidity and fungus. I am sorry. You could try asking Ilford if any was their stock, I can pass on an e-mail contact, as tere technical Dept loves this kind of challenge. Kodak these days who knows?

Hi Chris,

Yes, it's Ilford PanF50. I've also shot delta 100 and HP5. They are all waiting to be developed. They were stored in a large ziplock as stated above (indoor storage unit, no humidity control). Before that, they were always in a fridge.

Any advice from the Ilford guys will be greatly appreciated. This is 10 years of my work. Forget about the money and time, it's the heartbreak of all those images I saw thru the camera (possibly) turning to mush.

 

To the OP:
Can you list what type of film this is, and(if you can remember) how it was exposed? This might help weed out more culprits in this search for an answer.

-Dan

Hey Dan,

Ilford PanF 50. Pushed 1 stop as that day was particularly cloudy. I rated it at ASA100.

Foto-man, you can always join Instagram 
Just kidding. I really feel your pain. It seems to be a hell-good of a body of work. I hope something can be done about it in post.
Eduardo

Thank Eduardo. I was hoping to make some prints instead.

[amsp]

Instead of trying to restore it to it's original state (that ship has obviously sailed), or just throwing it away, you might want to try and use the distressed look to your advantage and create something new with it instead. See example below. At least that way you haven't simply lost years of work.