A film, with multiple images that was not a double exposure

A cautionary tale with a long expired film

By Roger

A mint condition Lubitel 166 for a reasonable (very low) price at a flea fair turned out to have a half-exposed film in it. I have other TLRs and I have no doubt that they are much better, but I was curious as to what, in the film days, was widely seen as the affordable way into medium format. Compared with Minolta and Yashica TLR’s it is small and lightweight, so maybe it would sometimes find its way into a corner of my camera bag.

Not knowing what the film was, I guessed that over-exposure was safer than under-exposure, so exposed at roughly ISO 100. When I opened the camera and discovered that it was Ilford XP1, I immediately decided that it was not worth paying for processing, so after searching the web I found that the Massive Development Chart gives a recommendation of Rodinal 1:100 stand developed for 60 minutes for XP2 exposed at ISO 200. Lots of people seemed to find that such processing worked, so I went ahead. I knew the film must be old (it was sold only from 1981-1993 before it was replaced by XP2) but thought the extra stop might compensate a bit for this. And 5ml of Rodinal is much less expensive than 500ml stock solution of ID-11. So I went ahead.

You can obviously blame me and my cross-processing for part of the problem, but something I had not expected was seeing the numbering from the back of the backing paper – maybe C41 processing would have brought it out even more clearly. Presumably in the 40 odd years spent rolled up, the ink on the backing paper reacted with the emulsion it was in contact with – that the ink was not as inert as one might hope. Or perhaps the ink came off and acted as a mask during development, though I find it hard to believe that it would not have been washed off quickly.

I thought this might be of interest because, in the hundreds of pieces I must have read on using expired film, I have never come across anyone reporting this problem. So the Lubitel now needs a proper test with fresh, correctly processed film.

Share this post:

Find more similar content on 35mmc

Use the tags below to search for more posts on related topics:

Donate to the upkeep, or contribute to 35mmc for an ad-free experience.

There are two ways to contribute to 35mmc and experience it without the adverts:

Paid Subscription – £3.99 per month and you’ll never see an advert again! (Free 3-day trial).

Subscribe here.

Content contributor – become a part of the world’s biggest film and alternative photography community blog. All our Contributors have an ad-free experience for life.

Sign up here.

Make a donation – If you would simply like to support Hamish Gill and 35mmc financially, you can also do so via ko-fi

Donate to 35mmc here.

Comments

Bob Janes on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

My first thought was that it must be light, but that would be difficult this far into the film... were the early exposures more or less affected?
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Roger replied:

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

That’s what I thought initially, but then I realised that the whole film was affected in the same way, so it could not be that. Light could surely not have penetrated that many layers.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Bob Janes replied:

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

...and if it was I would have expected some 'ghost' images from the other layers of the rolled film and for the early images to be more effected than the later ones...

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pit Ross replied:

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

in the past a large batch of Ilford 120 film suffered from this defect. it was due to the contact of the film with the ink of protective paper. If I correctly remember the problem was the ink. The more the film remained undeveloped the more the numbering reamained impressed on the film. Ilford was conscious of this defect.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Mike Breen on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

I've seen this quite a few times on old 120 film. I often buy old bulk lots and always run a test film through before I shoot anything important. It is usually caused by age, heat and humidity; the backing paper is basically rotting away as this occurs. Quite often, the backing paper is also slightly stuck to the film.
I have a 9 pack of 120 Ilford PanF (used one discovering this issue). I was thinking about removing the backing paper in a dark bag and washing the film. I'd then back it with some 'fresh' backing paper and re-roll.
I've seen this most often on Eastern European films.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Roger replied:

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

It is clearly a more common problem than I realised. Thanks.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Chuck on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

I've been happy with my low priced Lubitel!
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Charles Higham on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

There is something familiar about the buildings in the ghostly images, and I realised these exposures are of Great Malvern station, but you might have already recognised the location.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Roger replied:

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

Yes, it is where I have often gone to test new-to-me ancient cameras.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Charles Higham replied:

Comment posted: 24/04/2026

Oh ok thanks. I thought that exposure was a found image and not take by yourself.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Russ Rosener on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 25/04/2026

If the paper backing is exposed to heat and humidity it can imprint into the film base. This is not uncommon for poorly stored roll film over several years or even decades. I had this happen on an old expired roll of Ilford Pan F. I didn't get the numbers imprinted luckily but there was a weird texture almost like sand dune imprinted on the film. It was somewhat usable at least.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

David Brancaleone on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 25/04/2026

My poor technical knowledge fails to help, but actually, I personally like the result. It's suggestive. The man on the left looking into the frame towards the railway tracks and the design of the backing paper in pleasing grays. Paradoxical though it may sound, I say : not a total disaster at all.
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Roger replied:

Comment posted: 25/04/2026

Interesting observation, Perhaps I should be more open to images that are more "creative" even if the creativity is completely unintentional.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Jeffery Luhn on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 25/04/2026

x-ray?
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NICHOLAS HOWE on A cautionary tale with a long expired film

Comment posted: 28/04/2026

I ordered a batch of Fomapan a few months ago and used it test the Sasquatch517 I did not store it correctly and it did get warm being in Florida .. Yes the antihalation or backing remjet left its .exit on the emulsion looked cool Processed another batch same thing that was with a very thorough pre wash which rinses out with a bright green colour Still the same markings It is not due to film processing but heat reacting with film backing and anti halation again this was 120 Fomapan
Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Roger replied:

Comment posted: 28/04/2026

Interesting that it can happen with new film too. I gave my film a pre-wash too, because the recipe for stand development recommended it. The washing water came out very dark.

Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *