Old Film Found-Wondering What it is

[andrew_pike1]

My mother presented me with an old box filled with negatives from

when my grandmother was little in the late 1930's. Some look like

medium-format, and measure approx. 4.5x2.5 in.

 

Others are square, and I suspect they come from a Brownie of some

sort, and measure approx. 2.5x2.5 in. Sometimes they are alone,

other times they come two to a strip.

 

Then, there are some negatives which I suspect to be some archaic

35mm strips, except they only have one row of sprocket holes. They

fit perfectly into my scanners' 35mm holder though.

 

All the negatives have the words "Kodak Safety Film" printed on

their edges.

 

I would suspect the color negatives to be possibly some of the

original Kodacolor film from 1937. The black and white maybe Super-

XX pan or Verichrome-Pan?

 

They are all in remarkably good condition for their age-the fading

isn't too bad, and they scan without too many difficulties.

 

I want to know what format these negatives are, what film they might

be, and what "Safety Film" means.

 

Any answers would be appreciated.

 

Thanks in advance.

[rowland_mowrey]

Andrew;

 

"Safety Film" means that the clear plastic support is not the old explosive cellulose nitrate film base, but rather is probably cellulose acetate, which is not dangerous.

 

The color film you have may be rather rare.

 

If the negatives are orange in color though, the film is probably a masked color negative newer than what you might think, but if it is unmasked with a clear background, then it could be an early unmasked color negative or a screened negative somewhat like Dufaycolor. Kodak made both.

 

The perforated film sounds as if it might be 828 size. That was similar to 35mm with the type of sprocket hole you describe. The frame size is just a bit bigger than 35mm.

 

Ron Mowrey

[robert_johnson15]

Kodak Safety Film means that the film is on an acetate base and NOT a nitrate base.

 

The film with only one row (wide apart I am assuming) of sprockets of a size the same width as 35mm film is 126 format. They should be square format. This would be relatively modern film dating from the period around 1970's. One or two odd emulsions are still available in the 126 size.

 

I could guess the 2.5 to 4 inch film could be 120 roll film, although 116 and 122 roll film would be slightly bigger and could fit that description.

 

Robert Johnson

[andrew_pike1]

The color negatives are orangish, so they're not original Kodacolor. Thanks Rowland.

 

Thank you for clarifying about "Safety Film". When you say that the old nitrate base used to be explosive, when you were developing it could it literally blow up in your face or what? How was it volitile (sp?)?

[steven_clark]

Any nitrate if lit on fire genrally explodes, though some not very spectacularly. Nitrates form a good percentage of all explosives made.

[dean_williams]

"Thank you for clarifying about "Safety Film". When you say that the old nitrate base used to be explosive, when you were developing it could it literally blow up in your face or what? How was it volitile (sp?)?"

 

Flammable would be a better term. The film was a nitro celluose base. A very similar compound is used to make smokeless powder for firearms. Heat can set either aflame and they will burn in a ferocious manner. The film won't burst into flame or explode while in the developer. Both smokeless powder and nitrate based films need an initiator to set them alight, like a match or a nice hot projector lamp.

[john_shriver]

The 4.5 x 2.5 inch negatives would be 116 or 616 size. By far the most common format in the 1930's, since it made a reasonably sized contact print. The 120 and 620 sizes were for poor folks who couldn't afford the larger size. (The huge 3.25" by 5.5" 122 size was for the rich folks.) 116 and 616 were available until the early 1970's.

 

Any B&W roll films edge-printed "Kodak Safety Film" are probably from after 1951, when roll film production shifted from nitrate to safety base.

 

For the 35mm wide film, a 28x40mm rectangular image would imply 828 size, a 26mm square image would imply 126 size. These both have one sprocket hole per exposure. If there are more holes, maybe this is something more exotic.

 

Verichrome pan would be fine grain, Super-XX would be very coarse grain, much harsher than today's Tri-X. Panatomic-X was also available in the common roll film sizes. Only advanced photographers with an adjustable camera and the knowledge to use it would use Panatomic-X or Super-XX, everyone else used Verichrome or Verichrome pan.

[rowland_mowrey]

Nitrate film bases were very prone to causing fires and burned very fast. When they aged, the films became quite dangerous and were prone to explode under certain conditions, such as when packed in boxes or closed cans.

 

I believe that it is generally illegal to posess these now as they are so dangerous. Most motion pictures were duplicated onto safety base and the only samples of old nitrate films are in museums under carefully controlled storage conditions.

 

Nitrate films caused many early theater fires due to the heat of projection.

 

Ron Mowrey

[randrew1]

"I believe that it is generally illegal to posess these now as they are so dangerous."

 

Gee I hope not. I have many of my father's 616 format negatives that are all on nitrate base (as was all roll film before 1951). I have some glass plate negatives that were coated with colloidion which is essentially the same matierial. None of these show any signs of deterioriation yet.

 

A roll of motion picture film on nitrate base has a mass far greater than an index box with some old negatives. It is a fire hazzard but not an extreme explosion hazzard. In the days before safety film, projection room fires were not uncommon. 15 or 20 years ago there was a fire at the George Eastman House where many rolls of motion picture film were lost. They burned vigerously and were difficult to extinguish, but there was no explosion. Explosions are possible if the material is confined, but the primary hazzard was fire.

 

I'm not worried about a fire starting in my box of negatives. I know they will eventually decompose, but they are OK so far.

[rowland_mowrey]

Ron;

 

I said that "I believe" regarding illegality. I was not sure. I still am not sure what the situation is regarding nitrate films. It may just be for some purposes or some places such as museums, and there is a specification for storage.

 

Here are the exact dates manufacturing ceased:

 

Type of Film and Last Year of Nitrate Manufacture

 

X-ray films 1933

 

Roll films in size 135 1938 (A)

 

Portrait and Commercial sheet films (B) 1939

 

Aerial films 1942

 

Film Packs © 1949

 

Roll films in sizes 616, 620, etc. (D) 1950

 

Professional 35mm Motion Picture films (E) 1951

 

Prior to these dates, some manufacturers films were coated on safety film even in spite of these cutoff dates.

 

Improper storage is the most important factor with respect to the danger of nitrate based films. Mass of the film is also important. A kg of film on nitrate base is equally dangerous regardless of the format of the film. At best, regard it as a severe fire hazard.

 

I'll have to check some of my old film that goes back to the 20s. I never even gave it a thought.

 

Ron Mowrey

[akocurek]

You guys have gotten me spooked with this talk of exploding film. I have a box of negatives from my dad which include some 4.5"x2.5" frames. These would have been from the late '40s and early '50s. I don't see "Kodak safety film" anywhere on the edges. Is there a way of discerning the type of film? If it doesn't say "safety film", is it necessarily nitrate based?

[rowland_mowrey]

Adrian;

 

I don't know, and don't know an easy way to find out.

 

Kodak did mark their acetate film 'safety film' but I have no idea who else, if anyone, did the same.

 

The old film is relatively safe, but deteriorates with age and becomes more and more flamable with age, high humidity, and high temperatures during keeping.

 

As a matter of fact, I have no real idea of how unsafe it is, and now find that I apparently have some myself stored in old boxes in my office. So, I'm trying to decide what to do myself.

 

Since it appears that the film was manufactured later than I thought, then more people among us have such film in their storage areas, and I would guess that it is safer that I was led to believe years ago when the subject came up at EK.

 

I would say that since it has been stored in my home for over 50 years, and I would guess I have at least 1 kg of negatives, then it isn't that bad.

 

I reload my own shells for target shooting, and have over 1 kg of gunpowder stored here. Oh, and that brings up the illegality issue. One county here in NY requires you to register if you buy or own any nitro cellulose or gunpowder products, and another does not, so that rule varies from place to place.

 

I have 3 cans of propane for our camping stove and 1 gallone of kerosene for our kerosene stove in case we lose power in the winter as well. So, I guess every home has things that are dangerous if mishandled.

 

I'm not going to worry. I have too many other things to worry about.

 

Ron Mowrey

[john_shriver]

There are good discussions on the storage of nitrate film in Kodak publication F-30, Preservation of Photographs. Also in some of the online sites run for photo-archivists.

 

Realistically, it takes reels of 35mm movie prints to make a spontaneous combustion risk, stored in bad conditions. But, it has happened in recent times, took out a major archive.

 

Where nitrate films have pretty much been banned is in projection booths in movie theaters. There's more than enough energy in a projection lamp to light the film on fire if it stops moving (film break). Old projectors were designed to detect this, automatically put out the light, and had the reels closed in sealed compartments. Also, the projection booths were quite non-combustible. Modern pancake projectors would be a true death trap with nitrate film.

 

The most important caution is to segregate nitrate film from all other types of film, and store it so that it can breathe. The gases if gives off when decomposing are (1) destructive to images on all types of film, and (2) auto-catalytic, in that they encourage the decomposition of nitrate film.

 

But, please, don't dispose of it out of fear. In the quantities you have, it's just not a risk. Nor are they any more dangerous than ping-pong balls, which are made of exactly the same stuff.

 

I have heard tell of parents who let their children do photography and darkroom work in the 1930-40 period, but would not let them keep the negatives after they printed them once. Ridiculous!

 

Kodak gives various methods for telling nitrate film from safety film, which are pretty fussy. Or, you can cut off a tiny slive of the film, hold it in forceps, and light it on fire. Nitrate burns distinctively fast!

[Bill C]

Regarding the questions about nitrate film base, possibly the best source of information easily obtained (for those who can withstand a 3 or 4 megabyte download) is from Henry Wilhelm's book, "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs: Traditional and Digital Color Prints, Color Negatives, Slides, and Motion Pictures" from 1992.

 

See especially, "Appendix 19.2 - Freezer Storage for Permanent Preservation of Cellulose Nitrate Film". The entire chapter 19 needs to be downloaded. I know that other chapters also have some discussion, but have not looked them up.

 

To download from the book, start here: http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

[ronin1]

Thanks Bill for the link to the great book on care of photos and negatives.