Film developed from a camera lost in a glacier for 50 years

[mollyc]

I read a really interesting article this morning about a camera that was found on an Argentina mountain after its owner perished on the during a climb in 1973. The whole article was mesmerizing, and not being someone who is into mountain climbing, I knew nothing about the story prior. But the camera was preserved in the ice for 50 years, and when it was found, it was sent to Film Rescue International, a lab in Saskatchewan and they were able to develop the film and see the images the photographer took just before her death. It is wild to think it survived that long, but most of us know that film is well preserved in cold temperatures.

The article said that the film was first developed as black and white, and then after they decided the negatives were in good enough shape, they redeveloped them as color. How does that work? I did not know this was a real technique, but there is an image of the negatives as black and white, and then color images scattered throughout the article.

It's kind of a long read, but even for someone who isn't interested in mountaineering, it's a fascinating story.

Ghosts on the Glacier (Gift Article)

Decades after the unexplained deaths of two American climbers in Argentina, a camera belonging to one of them was found in the snow. The film held astonishing images, but the mystery endures.

www.nytimes.com

 

[mollyc]

Here's a description of developing as bw and then as color. It doesn't about the actual chemical process, but shows the results of some negatives and images.

FAQ

www.filmrescue.com

 

[someoldguy]

Here's a description of developing as bw and then as color. It doesn't about the actual chemical process, but shows the results of some negatives and images.

FAQ

www.filmrescue.com

That's pretty neat ! I hadn't thought you could pull color out of (color) film developed as B&W . But what do I know ... I was thrown out of Chemistry in High School . I saw the original Times article and also found it fascinating .

 

[mollyc]

i feel like @bunnspecial would know how this works.

 

[brendan67]

Fascinating stuff. a long great read.

 

[bunnspecial]

i feel like @bunnspecial would know how this works.

First of all, thanks Molly for sharing this! It was a fascinating read.

As for the developing, here's my answer:

First of all, remember that color film really is B&W film with some extra "stuff" sprinkled in. That extra stuff is the color couplers, which(in everything but Kodachrome) are attached to the silver halide crystals in the emulsion and sort of are "along for the ride." When color film is developed, it essentially progresses as B&W film until all of the silver is removed, leaving behind the dye clouds that the color couplers formed when the silver grains formed during development

As a side note, Kodachrome does not integrate color couplers-they are added during processing. Even though I think there's been some success recreating the Kodachrome process, it's also at the mercy of sourcing the correct dyes, one of which I remember being not particularly easy to find and expensive when I did find it. "Not easy to find" is coming from a chemist who has access to the catalogs and catalog prices(the latter of which often aren't available unless you're logged in with a verified account) of most of the chemical companies out there

1. Developer-AFAIK the standard Kodak developer is not that different from something like D76, although I don't know the exact chemistry of it. As a refresher, developers are reducing agents that take exposed silver halide crystals and reduce them to metallic silver, which forms as grains we can see. There are a handful of common developers out there. Metol and hydroquinone are the standard combo for D76, HC110, Dektol(D23) and some others. Phenidone is another common one-it shows up in Rodinol and I'm sure others. The exact behavior can be tweaked not just by the developing agent but also of course by concentration, pH(most developers function in alkaline solutions, but just how alkaline can make a difference), and sometimes the addition of other substances like sodium sulfite(which acts as a grain "solvent.")

2. The film is fixed as usual, which removes any undeveloped silver halides. At the end of this step, the film will be a B&W negative. There's not a ton to say here. There are basically two fixers-the classic is sodium thiosulfate, aka "Hypo", and the more modern one is based on ammonium thiosulfate("rapid fixer.") Friends don't let friends use hypo It's cheap but that's about all it has going for it. Both work by forming soluble coordination complexes with the silver+ ion in the silver halides. ammonium thiosulfate just does it faster, better, and is much easier to wash outn of the film.

3. The film is "bleached", a process which removes any silver metal. Bleach in this context is an oxidizing agent that converts metallic silver into a soluble silver salt. I haven't studied bleach chemistry in a lot of detail, but one formula I'm familiar with uses potassium permanganate.

BTW, some C-41 kits combine the bleach and fix into a single solution called, unsurprisingly, "Blix." It works, but is not best for archival stability. The old Tetenal press kits used it, primarily so that you had fewer solutions to handle and could do it faster when you were developing in your hotel room bathroom. The Cinestill kits use it now.

In any case, the result at the end of step 2 above SHOULD be readily viewable as a B&W negative, and should also be lightfast. Most of my at home processing has been E-6, but I seem to recall that E6 was also lightfast once you'd done the initial fix step(E-6 is developed, fixed, bleached, re-exposed, developed again, and then bleached again, although some of these steps are combined-I think bleach can easily go together with chemical fogging, and budget kits use Blix+chemical fogging as the second step).

Even though you'll have a working B&W negative, though, albeit probably a very low constrast one if you've developed as if the final result will be color, the color couplers will still be there. That means that you still bleach it after you've viewed the B&W negative and end up with a color image. It's probably not a terrible strategy for film where the results are uncertain. It's always possible that the couplers have done crazy things, and you may end up with wacky colors or no image at all after bleaching. Stopping to scan the B&W negative at least leaves you with some record of the image.

 

[r.harris1]

This was absolutely fascinating, thank you for sharing! And thanks to @bunnspecial for the great information!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I read a really interesting article this morning about a camera that was found on an Argentina mountain after its owner perished on the during a climb in 1973. The whole article was mesmerizing, and not being someone who is into mountain climbing, I knew nothing about the story prior. But the camera was preserved in the ice for 50 years, and when it was found, it was sent to Film Rescue International, a lab in Saskatchewan and they were able to develop the film and see the images the photographer took just before her death. It is wild to think it survived that long, but most of us know that film is well preserved in cold temperatures.

The article said that the film was first developed as black and white, and then after they decided the negatives were in good enough shape, they redeveloped them as color. How does that work? I did not know this was a real technique, but there is an image of the negatives as black and white, and then color images scattered throughout the article.

It's kind of a long read, but even for someone who isn't interested in mountaineering, it's a fascinating story.

Ghosts on the Glacier (Gift Article)

Decades after the unexplained deaths of two American climbers in Argentina, a camera belonging to one of them was found in the snow. The film held astonishing images, but the mystery endures.

www.nytimes.com

Thank you, @mollyc, for sharing that; it is an absolutely fascinating and strangely compelling read.

And the story of the camera that was subsequently discovered - and the fact that the film could be (and was) developed - is also extraordinarily interesting.

Thanks, too, to @bunnspecial for sharing his terrific and vast store of knowledge on such matters.

 

[_timo_redux_]

I had hoped, when reading the article, that her pictures would shed light on the mystery of what happened to her and the other dead climber. Alas, they did not.

I was left with a feeling of sadness, really; as the pictures seemed a poor memento for her still-alive sister.

 

[winxmac]

The article seems to be designed for viewing on vertical screens or viewed as vertical in general... Thanks for sharing the article...

 

[AlixSPQR]

”Had he not known the origin of the film — trapped on a glacier in Argentina for decades — LaBossiere “would have assumed it was on a shelf somewhere,” he said.”

So, the development of the film was the least of the mystery.

Fascinating story, thanks @mollyc

 

[TechRunner]

An engaging and tragic read. Thanks so much for sharing @mollyc!

 

[GuruZac]

I read a really interesting article this morning about a camera that was found on an Argentina mountain after its owner perished on the during a climb in 1973. The whole article was mesmerizing, and not being someone who is into mountain climbing, I knew nothing about the story prior. But the camera was preserved in the ice for 50 years, and when it was found, it was sent to Film Rescue International, a lab in Saskatchewan and they were able to develop the film and see the images the photographer took just before her death. It is wild to think it survived that long, but most of us know that film is well preserved in cold temperatures.

The article said that the film was first developed as black and white, and then after they decided the negatives were in good enough shape, they redeveloped them as color. How does that work? I did not know this was a real technique, but there is an image of the negatives as black and white, and then color images scattered throughout the article.

It's kind of a long read, but even for someone who isn't interested in mountaineering, it's a fascinating story.

Ghosts on the Glacier (Gift Article)

Decades after the unexplained deaths of two American climbers in Argentina, a camera belonging to one of them was found in the snow. The film held astonishing images, but the mystery endures.

www.nytimes.com

What a great article! Very well put together and what an interesting story.

 

[laptech]

I agree with the others, a very interesting read but it got me thinking, I wonder if the contents of a digital camera could be saved if it was in the same conditions? Would the cold prevent the camera's internal memory chips/SD card from degrading?

What surprised me was seeing the tape with the owners details on it still attached to the base of the camera in what appears to be in perfect condition. I would have thought the ends of the tape would have shown signs of coming away from the camera but nope, still in perfect place. I assume the camera being in it's leather holder helped.

 

[mollyc]

First of all, thanks Molly for sharing this! It was a fascinating read.

As for the developing, here's my answer:

First of all, remember that color film really is B&W film with some extra "stuff" sprinkled in. That extra stuff is the color couplers, which(in everything but Kodachrome) are attached to the silver halide crystals in the emulsion and sort of are "along for the ride." When color film is developed, it essentially progresses as B&W film until all of the silver is removed, leaving behind the dye clouds that the color couplers formed when the silver grains formed during development

As a side note, Kodachrome does not integrate color couplers-they are added during processing. Even though I think there's been some success recreating the Kodachrome process, it's also at the mercy of sourcing the correct dyes, one of which I remember being not particularly easy to find and expensive when I did find it. "Not easy to find" is coming from a chemist who has access to the catalogs and catalog prices(the latter of which often aren't available unless you're logged in with a verified account) of most of the chemical companies out there

1. Developer-AFAIK the standard Kodak developer is not that different from something like D76, although I don't know the exact chemistry of it. As a refresher, developers are reducing agents that take exposed silver halide crystals and reduce them to metallic silver, which forms as grains we can see. There are a handful of common developers out there. Metol and hydroquinone are the standard combo for D76, HC110, Dektol(D23) and some others. Phenidone is another common one-it shows up in Rodinol and I'm sure others. The exact behavior can be tweaked not just by the developing agent but also of course by concentration, pH(most developers function in alkaline solutions, but just how alkaline can make a difference), and sometimes the addition of other substances like sodium sulfite(which acts as a grain "solvent.")

2. The film is fixed as usual, which removes any undeveloped silver halides. At the end of this step, the film will be a B&W negative. There's not a ton to say here. There are basically two fixers-the classic is sodium thiosulfate, aka "Hypo", and the more modern one is based on ammonium thiosulfate("rapid fixer.") Friends don't let friends use hypo It's cheap but that's about all it has going for it. Both work by forming soluble coordination complexes with the silver+ ion in the silver halides. ammonium thiosulfate just does it faster, better, and is much easier to wash outn of the film.

3. The film is "bleached", a process which removes any silver metal. Bleach in this context is an oxidizing agent that converts metallic silver into a soluble silver salt. I haven't studied bleach chemistry in a lot of detail, but one formula I'm familiar with uses potassium permanganate.

BTW, some C-41 kits combine the bleach and fix into a single solution called, unsurprisingly, "Blix." It works, but is not best for archival stability. The old Tetenal press kits used it, primarily so that you had fewer solutions to handle and could do it faster when you were developing in your hotel room bathroom. The Cinestill kits use it now.

In any case, the result at the end of step 2 above SHOULD be readily viewable as a B&W negative, and should also be lightfast. Most of my at home processing has been E-6, but I seem to recall that E6 was also lightfast once you'd done the initial fix step(E-6 is developed, fixed, bleached, re-exposed, developed again, and then bleached again, although some of these steps are combined-I think bleach can easily go together with chemical fogging, and budget kits use Blix+chemical fogging as the second step).

Even though you'll have a working B&W negative, though, albeit probably a very low constrast one if you've developed as if the final result will be color, the color couplers will still be there. That means that you still bleach it after you've viewed the B&W negative and end up with a color image. It's probably not a terrible strategy for film where the results are uncertain. It's always possible that the couplers have done crazy things, and you may end up with wacky colors or no image at all after bleaching. Stopping to scan the B&W negative at least leaves you with some record of the image.

Thank you so much for your explanation. It's really helpful.

Does this mean that theoretically (and don't worry, I have zero interest in actually trying this) that I could develop C41 film with Isofol and rapid fixer to get to the negatives, then later just blix them? That's basically what the Film Rescue people did (although with a lot more experience)? I get that the results for this wouldn't be as good as a traditional, proper development, but conceptually this is what happened?

 

[mollyc]

This was absolutely fascinating, thank you for sharing! And thanks to @bunnspecial for the great information!

I thought people here might find it interesting. 🙂

Thank you, @mollyc, for sharing that; it is an absolutely fascinating and strangely compelling read.

And the story of the camera that was subsequently discovered - and the fact that the film could be (and was) developed - is also extraordinarily interesting.

Thanks, too, to @bunnspecial for sharing his terrific and vast store of knowledge on such matters.

Note to self - when losing a camera, make sure it's a film one in a cold climate.

I had hoped, when reading the article, that her pictures would shed light on the mystery of what happened to her and the other dead climber. Alas, they did not.

I was left with a feeling of sadness, really; as the pictures seemed a poor memento for her still-alive sister.

You are kind of left with that feeling as you read the article, will the photos solve the mystery, but who would take a photo of their own untimely death? Rather improbable. (I felt the same way though.)

The article seems to be designed for viewing on vertical screens or viewed as vertical in general... Thanks for sharing the article...

Seems formatted well enough on my laptop, albeit with a narrow column of text? The videos are full width, and worth watching.

”Had he not known the origin of the film — trapped on a glacier in Argentina for decades — LaBossiere “would have assumed it was on a shelf somewhere,” he said.”

So, the development of the film was the least of the mystery.

Fascinating story, thanks @mollyc

I do think that some of the "theories" of what happened seemed kind of far fetched. Unlikely to be a love triangle with a gay woman and all men, and why would you take a backpack full of money on a mountain hike when you need to conserve weight and space?

An engaging and tragic read. Thanks so much for sharing @mollyc!

For sure.

What a great article! Very well put together and what an interesting story.

I was riveted throughout the whole thing.

I agree with the others, a very interesting read but it got me thinking, I wonder if the contents of a digital camera could be saved if it was in the same conditions? Would the cold prevent the camera's internal memory chips/SD card from degrading?

What surprised me was seeing the tape with the owners details on it still attached to the base of the camera in what appears to be in perfect condition. I would have thought the ends of the tape would have shown signs of coming away from the camera but nope, still in perfect place. I assume the camera being in it's leather holder helped.

Yeah, the Dymo tape sticking on leather for 50 years with water infiltration?? Like we used that stuff all the time in the 70s/80s and it only stuck for about 18 seconds. That's as magical as the film development!

I find it unlikely that a modern camera would survive like this and get usuable images from it down the line. I have heard of SD cards being run through the wash and surviving, so that would be theoretically possible, but in 50 years will we still even have an application able to open proprietary raw files?

 

[clayj]

I find it unlikely that a modern camera would survive like this and get usuable images from it down the line. I have heard of SD cards being run through the wash and surviving, so that would be theoretically possible, but in 50 years will we still even have an application able to open proprietary raw files?

I'm sure we will. Consider Adobe's PDF/A file format, which is designed for long-term (indefinitely-long) data storage:

PDF/A - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The main trick is that you need a physical reader for physical media.

 

[mollyc]

I'm sure we will. Consider Adobe's PDF/A file format, which is designed for long-term (indefinitely-long) data storage:

PDF/A - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The main trick is that you need a physical reader for physical media.

Well cameras don't make images in pdf form. They use their own proprietary files formats, and even a new model from the same brand has a different coding than previous models.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I thought people here might find it interesting. 🙂

I certainly did.

Actually - and you have already used the verb "riveted" - I have to say that I was, yes, riveted.

Note to self - when losing a camera, make sure it's a film one in a cold climate.

Yes, agreed.

Film certainly keeps; I do wonder whether we will be able to say the same - and here, I write as an historian who spent considerable time researching in archives - about digital records, and digital photographs.

Already, many floppy discs are unreadable, (especially the first generation ones), which cannot be said of - for example - medieval manuscripts, or Egyptian papyrus scrolls.

You are kind of left with that feeling as you read the article, will the photos solve the mystery, but who would take a photo of their own untimely death? Rather improbable. (I felt the same way though.)

Agreed.

I do think that some of the "theories" of what happened seemed kind of far fetched. Unlikely to be a love triangle with a gay woman and all men,

That very thought crossed my mind.

Very very unlikely.

and why would you take a backpack full of money on a mountain hike when you need to conserve weight and space?

Yes, very strange.

Yeah, the Dymo tape sticking on leather for 50 years with water infiltration?? Like we used that stuff all the time in the 70s/80s and it only stuck for about 18 seconds. That's as magical as the film development!

That was fascinating.

I find it unlikely that a modern camera would survive like this and get usuable images from it down the line. I have heard of SD cards being run through the wash and surviving, so that would be theoretically possible, but in 50 years will we still even have an application able to open proprietary raw files?

These very questions have also occurred to me.

 

[kc9hzn]

Well cameras don't make images in pdf form. They use their own proprietary files formats, and even a new model from the same brand has a different coding than previous models.

I had a Canon point and shoot camera that I put CHDK on, back around 12 years ago. It, of course, had a RAW format that nothing would understand (because, of course, it didn’t natively support RAW without the use of CHDK). But it also supported using Adobe’s DNG (digital negative) format in lieu of its native RAW format. DNG is probably the way to go when it comes to portable RAW.

 

[mollyc]

I had a Canon point and shoot camera that I put CHDK on, back around 12 years ago. It, of course, had a RAW format that nothing would understand (because, of course, it didn’t natively support RAW without the use of CHDK). But it also supported using Adobe’s DNG (digital negative) format in lieu of its native RAW format. DNG is probably the way to go when it comes to portable RAW.

For sure, right now dng is the most stable. But most cameras don’t shoot dng; they have to be converted. And we can only imagine what computers will look like 50 years from now. File compatibility is an issue for lost or in-use cameras regardless.

 

[goodthymes]

Technicals aside, was a fascinating read kept me enthralled the whole artile. Thanks OP!

 

[AlmightyKang]

Great article and very interesting. Thanks for posting. The way I'm going, that's how I'm going out. Nearly died up a mountain a couple of times this year already!

On the technical perspective, with a modern camera, an SD card probably wouldn't last as long as the film did. The FLASH itself would probably retain the data as it's fine at very low temperatures as it actually reduces electron migration and leakage, but the traces and the carrier would likely oxidise away and destroy the metal bonding layer on the IC die itself.