Posted by Scott Andrews on July 31, 2000 at 18:31:10:
In Reply to: Re: photos of titanic posted by Roy Mengot on July 31, 2000 at 14:11:27:
: The issue has been considered by some chemists in the photo industry. The prevailing belief is that undeveloped film chemicals would likely be deteriorated by the salt water. The second proble m becomes getting the camera to the surface intact. Ant rust hole and the film is destroyed just by the lights of the sub or ROV. Getting the film out of the camera is a problem too. If a roll is already out of the camera and in a suitcase, then you might have something.
Hayden's not the only one that's dreamed of stuff like that. Passenger still cameras are only one source of tantilizing possibilities. As long as we're dreaming, don't forget Daniel Marvin, the cinematographer, who was seen grinding away on one of his motion picture cameras while the ship was leaving Southampton. Supposedly, he got the whole "New York" incident on film! Of course, as you point out, the salt water probably destroyed the film, and if not, then microorganisms such as those which are feeding on the iron oxide would also have damaged or destroyed any of this film - remember Dr. Cullimore's "traps" made from unexposed film? The gelatin used in the coating is also "food" for these little buggers. I suppose the only slim chance for this stuff would to have been put into a proper container and placed in a leather bag. This wouldn't protect it from the water, but seems to work well against the "wee beasties" down there!
Scott Andrews