Staticmaster brush for cleaning dust from negatives

Have you used this? I just received mine from B&HPhoto, purchased

as another potential tool for cleaning light dust from film. This

was after reading good reviews online from people who recommended it

for this purpose. But now I'm wondering if I've just been "had"! I

can't seem to get it to do ANYTHING like what's advertised!

 

After trying in vain to convince myself it was having some kind of

effect (anything at all) with some negatives I was preparing to

scan, I finally got serious and did a little test. Using the top of

my monitor as a suitably dusty test surface, I first dragged the

staticmaster across the surface with the strip facing down and less

than an inch from the surface, but with the bristles not quite

touching the surface. I wiped it across the same area several

times. No effect. No dust movement of any kind. Thinking that

maybe the effect is supposed to just break the static cling

and "loosen" the dust from the surface, I then brushed across the

surface once more, this time with the brush lightly touching. All

this did was kind of smear the dust, picking up or displacing very

little of it. For comparison, I then tried a plain old (non-

radioactive) brush - a fine painter's brush which is part of another

system I have for cleaning film. A light swipe across the surface

with the painter's brush cleared a very distinct clear path out of

the dust. So the Staticmaster can't even be said to be "just a

brush" - because it is even worse than a plain old brush!

 

What gives? Is there something I'm doing wrong? Are there some

magic words I'm supposed to chant? Did I just got a "bad" one? (It

is labeled replace after February 07, so it's apparently

not "expired"). Or is the Staticmaster just another scam?

Another "99 MPG carburator?"

 

Sorry about the rant. But I'm starting to feel like I really got

taken with this one. I hope I'm wrong.

 

Jeff

The StaticMaster brushes are just as you say - no more or less effective than a non-radioactive brush. Polonium static eliminators were popular in packaging and converting operations, but were largely abandoned 30 years ago due to tightened OSHA and NRC regulations. The strip in the StaticMaster is just a fraction as strong as needed to do the job. Just as well. Alpha-emitters are nasty.

 

The Kinetronic antistatic brushes, somewhat conductive to drain static, work as well as anything, and are a lot cheaper and lighter than the StaticMasters.

You didn't specify as to what type of monitor you were using in your experiment as CRT's it will generate too much static electricity on their own for the Staticmaster to overcome (I don't know about LCD's but mine doesn't seem to generate any). I've tried Staticmasters in the past and never found them to be of much worth. In fact, I don't care for brushes in general since it so easy for oil to buildup on the brissels necesstating constant washing to keep clean. Eventually I just gave up and stuck with compressed air from my own air compressor which works pretty good.

Jeff,

 

I don't know about the staticmaster brush. I use an Ilford Anti-Static Cloth (13 x 13 inch) with a Hakuba Super Blower Large (6 x 2,5 inch) for cleaning light dust from film. First I blow of the dust with the blower, than I wipe the film very gently with the anti-static cloth. This makes my film virtually dust-free and it doesn't scratch the film at all. Both products are available from BH and cost about 20 USD all together.

 

Juergen

I used Staticmasters decades ago in th darkroom. They have a certain limited usefulness in that situation. Basically, you can't depend on that light polonium to overcome anything that continually generates its own charge, or for that matter, anything with a large static potential. Basically, it just keeps the brush itself from generating additional static while using it.

 

In the darkroom:

 

1. Touch the negative to an unpainted portion of the enlarger to dissipate static.

2. Use Ilford Antistaticums (at the end, following years of various other products) to clean the negative thoroughly.

3. Touch the negative to the enlarger again.

4. Hold the negative at an angle under the light beam of the enlarger to illuminate any remaining few dust particles.

5. Use the Staticmaster to flick away any remaining single particles.

 

Of course, after processing, it was often still necessary to mix Spotone to the correct paper emulsion tone and spot out any remaining dust spots on each and every print. Photoshop cloning is much easier.

I join the others here in skepticism about the StaticMaster's effectiveness. I think the anti-static cloth/blower approach is probably more effective.

 

As for alpha particles being "nasty": wrong, unless you eat or inhale an alpha emitter. If you aren't worried about dying in a car accident every time you start the engine, then you shouldn't be worried about your StaticMaster frying your gonads. They are simply a helium nucleus (2 protons + 2 neutrons) and can't penetrate skin nor travel more than a few cm in air. They'd have to be ingested or inhaled to hurt anyone.

Thank you, Michael...

 

However, I described alpha EMITTERS as being nasty, not alpha PARTICLES per se (which will not penetrate a sheet of paper). Alpha emitters, including Polonium, tend to be assimilated along with Calcium. Thus they tend to be concentrated at the growing ends of bone where alpha particles can be very harmful. Regardless of the practical threat imposed by Polonium static eliminators, the NRC essentially banned their use in the mid 70's because the potential or perceived threat to the environment.

 

I guess you slept late that day in Physics 102.

>>However, I described alpha EMITTERS as being nasty, not alpha PARTICLES per se (which will not penetrate a sheet of paper). Alpha emitters, including Polonium, tend to be assimilated along with Calcium. Thus they tend to be concentrated at the growing ends of bone where alpha particles can be very harmful. Regardless of the practical threat imposed by Polonium static eliminators, the NRC essentially banned their use in the mid 70's because the potential or perceived threat to the environment. <<

 

Okay, kids, now you be sure not to eat your father's Staticmaster brushes.

I'll back Kinetronics too.

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

>>I described alpha EMITTERS as being nasty, not alpha PARTICLES<<

 

Indeed you did. A clever and quick retort trumps an accurate one anyday... :)

 

>>I guess you slept late that day in Physics 102.<<

 

Entirely likely. Physics 101 was the falling-anvils and billiard-balls-transferring-

momentum stuff. Whirling charged particles always gave me pause....

 

Have a good one!

I thik it depends on emulsion some too. Good luck ever discharging anything c41. E6 seems to be a little better but it's still not great. Silver B&W seems to have much less of a static problem, maybe related to the high metal content, beats me.

Good to hear positive comments on the Kinestat products as I have been waiting on the 120 brush kit from Adorama for some months now. On LCD monitors and dust - my workplace is quite dusty (carpet shedding in a closed air con office); dust particles settle in abundance on the near vertical faces of all the Dell LCDs...

Jeff, I agree with Mike that testing the brush with a monitor may not be a good test. If the monitor is on, it may be generating static electricity at a rate higher than can be overcome by the brush.

 

I use the brush by holding the radioactive portion over the negative for a few seconds, then hold the negative facing down and use a flicking-brushing technique to dislodge the dust.

 

Edward, your belief that the NRC essentially banned the use of alpha emitters is contradicted by products on sale that use them. Besides the Staticmaster brushes, there are numerous smoke detectors with americium-241 (http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclides/americium.htm ).

Thanks for a lot of good replies. I appreciate the comments about my test as far as the monitor and static are concerned, but I have repeated this on top of wooden cabinets and other places, with the same poor result. I am resigning myself to the fact that the Staticmaster doesn't really work - at least not as advertised. In fact, I think I will just throw it in the box with my Boofey "booflette" - they seem to go together. ;-)

 

For what it's worth, I have experimented with many dust removal techniques, besides the staticmaster and the booflette mentioned above. I find that the most convenient technique is simply blowing it with a can of compressed air. This works very well for light particles of dust. I'm trying to get away from it though due to the ever present chance of spewing propellant onto the film. Plus the fact that the cans run out rather quickly so I'm forever having to buy more. Recently I purchased a Giottos "rocket" bulb. This serves as sort of a replacement for the canned air. It works best when you are trying to spot the film clear of a few easily seen light specs. It is much less convenient and more difficult to use however for removing dust over a larger area (like a 6-frame strip of film).

 

Probably my favorite dust-busting technique is something which I think I first saw recommended for digital sensor cleaning. The idea is to use a nylon artist's brush (something flat, about 1" wide, from an arts supply store). You first make sure it is very well cleaned of any sizing. Then you spray air through the bristles for several seconds using compressed air. This imparts a static charge to the brush, so that when you sweep it over the film (not necessarily even touching it) the dust jumps to the brush. It's very effective. Of course, when using cans of compressed air to charge it you run into the same issue as before - propellant can spew onto the brush. So in that sense it has the same risk as using air cans by themselves. I would be very interested to hear of others who use this technique and have found a different way of charging the brush. Or do brushes like the Kinetronics one have the same effect without having to "charge" them? (that's what I was hoping for with the Staticmaster).

 

Anyway, I have a final technique which I use when I am really serious about having clean film - which usually arises because I am trying to avoid using the scanner's IR dust cleaning function (a.k.a ICE, FARE, etc.). For this, I start by lightly blowing or brushing off the dust dust using any of the techniques above. Then while wearing gloves I wipe down the film with IPA (isopropyl alcohol), using basically the same technique one uses for cleaning optics. This involves releasing a few drops of IPA onto the edge of a folded piece of lens tissue, the carefully wiping the tissue across the film, using only the moistened edge and applying light pressure. A little more involved perhaps, but it can be effective. Especially when there is any gunk which can't be simply blown or brushed off.

 

So I'm still working this all out and haven't found one method that works well all the time.

 

Jeff

I'd be careful using any sort of "brush" across any of my negatives for fear of doing more harm (scratches) than good. Have you tried canned air? That seems to do the trick for me. Hope this helps.

Dear Manuel,

 

Not a problem in my experience (40 years this year)

 

Cheers,

 

Roger