Preserving old 4 x 5 B&W negs

[fran_c]

I have between 3 and 5 thousand 4x5 negatives that have been sitting

in an old trunk in the basement since the 1950's. They are presently

stored in 4x5 manilla envelopes, each neg separated by acid-free

paper. There are 2 to 20 per envelope. Most have miraculously

survived and are in decent to excellent shape, however, there are

signs of deterioration in some.

 

I've heard the old manilla envelopes are acidic, so they'll have to

go. Also, would it be necessary to replace the old acid-free papers

with new ones? Could the papers pick up acid from the manilla

envelopes? I would have to buy some 10,000 papers to replace them.

 

Thanks in advance for any advice.

 

Fran

[michaelging]

Fran, You could buy clear plastic Vu-all pages for the negs. They hold 4 to a page.It would be pretty expensive , but they would be safe.

[jtk]

Visit www.lightimpressionsdirect.com and get the catalog. It's not necessarily the cheapest source, but it may be the most comprehensive and knowledgeable.

 

Yes, the supposed acid-free paper would absorb from the manila, but the general environment's just as bad. Are they so wonderful that they need to be saved? Perhaps copying to 35mm with the intention eventually to scan, or shooting directly with dslr is the best course?

[ronald_moravec1]

NO PLASTIC including the vue-all. All plastics outgas (decompose) and the vapor gets condensed onthe negs.

 

Use Light Impressions Mylar or Polyproplene sleves and these then go in 4x5 individual envelopes. Acid free boxes that are about the size of shoe boxes hold the individual envelopes with the sleeves-negs inside.

[dave_s]

Well, I'm no expert, but in 50 year old negs I'd also worry about deterioration due to nonarchival washing, in other words trace levels of residual hypo in the emulsion.

 

Am I all wet? Is there a simple fix* for this?

 

________________

 

*hehehe

[nuno_amado]

Hi Fran,

 

You can use either individual acid-free envelopes (a bit expensive for so many negs.) or, like already stated, plastic sheets that carry 4 negs each. You can safely use plastic as long as it is Poliester or some types of Propylene. Regular plastic (like many papers/cardboards) will contaminate your negs with damaging chemicals.

 

To store the envelopes/sheets use an acid-free box, away from strong lights and heat and extremes in humidity. However, let your negs breathe; it's not a good idea to store them in an air-tight box. There should be a little air circulation to prevent the concentration af any unwanted vapors.

 

Nuno

[jtk]

VueAll is especially bad, not because of its chemistry (which I don't think is a problem anymore, though once certainly was) but because it's inclined to hold grit and because it's soft and floppy it makes film loading harder.

 

I use the "Fold Lock" type which doesn't require sliding the film into a sleeve, avoiding excessive handling and the risk of sliding past rough edges or grit. These may be $7.20 for 50 in the quantity you'd want. This is item Light Impressions #20089 fyi. Again, there may be cheaper sources, but these people have provided great service and they seem to have "everything."

[fran_c]

Thanks all...

 

I'll look into everyone's suggestions. I'll check out LightImpressions. I've been scanning and restoring them (mostly dust and acid spot removal) but I've barely made a dent in two months. To answer the question...are they that important...I think they are. My father was a professional photographer in the 40's to 60's era in NYC. He spent 4 yrs studying at the NY Photography School in NYC in the mid 40's, and his work is a reflection of what many call the golden age of B&W photography. (I have more negs outside the trunk as well.) He's 80 now and I'd like to see him get credit for his work while he can still enjoy it.

[jtk]

...and if you're really serious about this, you will want to neutralize the film in some way, perhaps soaking in hypo clearing agent and washing again, perhaps squeegee-ing each neg with your fingers, washing further and dipping briefly in distilled water with a couple of drops of photoflo per 500CC. I've done this with hundred-year-old negs and had amazing amounts of oxidide wash and squeegee off, making them much better for scanning...but there are undoubtedly more chemically sophisticated approaches.

 

To my personal knowledge the risks have mostly to do with a decade around WWII, from which some of the sheet film emulsions are self-destructing (not the film base, the emulsion itself). I think you'll readily see bubbling it in your Fifties film if it's from the tail end of that era and happening at all...I wouldn't wash film that was obviously self destructing before I copied or scanned it.

 

Since washing would be a big project you'd want to learn about the specialized processes used in real archives.

[titrisol]

Light Impressions is a great source, but also the PrintFile line of negative holders is very good.

[harris_goldstein]

Are these negatives (all or part) something a preservationist organization (perhaps the NY Public Library) might be interested in? For example:

 

http://digitalgallery.nypl.org/nypldigital/explore/dgexplore.cfm?topic=cities&collection=ChangingNewYorkPhoto&col_id=160

 

If so, it might provide a path to preserve them.

[joe_harrigan]

There is only so long you have as the old film base will eventually break down even under the best storage conditions. Scan and achive them if possible.

[michael_briggs2]

The basic advice is to store them in cool (or even better cold) and reasonably dry conditions, not on contact with acid materials. Rather than going in further detail, I will give a link to Kodak's advice, publication E-30, Storage and Care of KODAK Photographic Materials:www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/e30/e30Contents.shtml

 

Generally, an archivist would hesitate to use water solutions on old materials unless absolutely necessary. Some deterioration mechanisms cause old gelatin to not be able to withstand water processing. Reprocessing all of these negatives would be an extremely large undertaking.

 

Some potential problems are from the film base. These negatives are probably too new to be nitrate, but some early acetate filmbase is also unstable. I think this self-destructing problem that John alluded to, but, if so, he mistated the problem when he said it was a problem with the emulsion rather than the filmbase.

 

The first rule is to do no harm.

 

Another excellent publication from Kodak: "Recommendations for cleaning photographic products" at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/cis145/cis145.shtml

 

Some previous discussions: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0065kv and http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006AKC

[fran_c]

Thanks again...I'm really grateful for everyone's interest and response. I will look into every suggestion as I am taking this project very seriously. Probably the best way to go would be to get them all scanned and archived, and then restore later based on importance. I'll experiment with washing with a few insignificant ones.

 

I like the idea of perhaps working with preservationist groups since there are a wide variety of subjects in the photos. I'm sure there will be interest by various groups. From what I've seen, there are negatives ranging from studies in light and shadows, portraits, commercial product photography, models, life on the streets of NYC, historic events (for ex: MacArthur's ticker tape parade), immigrant families, Italian Americans, and the list goes on and on.

 

Actually, I don't think I knew what my father looked like until I was about 10. All I remember seeing was a body with a head that looked like a Speed Graphic camera.

 

BTW, we still have his original darkroom fully in tact, enlarger and all.

[jtk]

Michael, wtr self-destruction, I was thinking about a bunch of WWII era commercial 8X10 negs (models, products) that I saw in a studio collection that was being cherry picked, then mostly burned...the prewar stuff, going back to the turn of the century, was fine. The wartime stuff was losing its emulsion in bubbles. The postwar stuff was fine. The elderly (second generation) photographer's speculation was that it had to do with wartime shortages and the gelatine in the emulsion.

 

There's plenty of archival science, but my suggestion would be to copy the negs with a DSLR before anything else.

[fran_c]

You're right, John. Most of his school study negs have bubbled, which would be wartime film. Luckily we still have many of those photos which are in good-excellent condition, having been kept in the dark all these years. There are also thousands of photos, however they aren't in any particular order and are difficult to correlate with the negs.

 

I'll look into your advice on phtographing the negs first.

[lex_jenkins]

Selenium toner is often recommended as a preservative for film and paper. However, as Michael pointed out, it may not be a good idea to saturate this old film.

 

If you can locate some Agfa Sistan or Fuji AG Guard these might be effective for preserving the film with less risk of damage due to saturation.

 

If you decide to try one of these preservatives experiment with just one of the less important sheets first.

 

Try to minimize handling and don't squeegee. Hanging a sheet diagonally will encourage any drainage to run off cleanly toward the lower corner, minimizing the risk of spotting or uneven drying.

[michael_briggs2]

John, your observations are of course correct, but I don't think the guess that the problem is war-time gelatin is correct. There is a well known problem with early acetate film base. With advanced deterioration of the filmbase, the gelatin becomes effected. One name of the problem is "Vinegar symdrome". http://www.filmpreservation.org/preservation/vinegar.html states "The symptoms of vinegar syndrome are a pungent vinegar smell (hence the name), followed eventually by shrinkage, embrittlement and buckling of the gelatin emulsion." There was more info in the links I gave above, and on the web. Fran, if some of the negatives have a vinegar smell, this is an issue to consider.

 

Early filmbase (post glass plates) was nitrate. This was very flammable and also chemically unstable, so manufacturers were eager to find a replacement. Unfortunately the early acetate bases were not as stable as first thought. Today's acetate as thought to be much better. Most (all?) sheet film is now on polyester base, which is more stable.

 

How old are the oldest negatives? Are any pre-WWII and possibly nitrate? Detriorating nitrate film can be a fire hazzard.

 

A scanner would be better than a DSLR for copying the negatives.

[fran_c]

Yes, there is a strong pungent chemical smell which I'm sure is vinegar syndrome. I've noticed that a particular batch will have bubbled, all in the same envelope, while other groups in envelopes are in tact, I'm sure, not for long, which is why I feel the urgencey of the situation. I'm afraid I can't isloate the smell to any particular negs as they are all around, and the smell hangs in the air.

 

There is a negligent amount of pre WWII film---just a few rolls and pieces of cut film strips. I can arrange for an environmentally safe disposal of those. He apparently started using the Speed Graphic at school.

[fran_c]

Oops...I meant 'negligible' rather than negligent in the above post.

 

I just placed them in our 'cold room' in the house. It's about 55deg farenheit. Better than nothing, but at least I'm not contributing to their deterioration as I probably was before by keeping them in a warm room. Thanks for that tip.

[john_shriver]

Deteriorating Cellulose Nitrate film also gives off a nasty smell, but one component of the odor is Nitric Acid.

 

If the film is Kodak, any of it that it safety (Cellulose Acetate) film will be stamped SAFETY on the notched edge.

 

There are numerous ways of identifying Nitrate film, look it up on Google. You could even light a sliver on fire, although that's not recommended. (The difference is obvious.)

 

Nitrate film should be stored separately from non-nitrate film. It should NOT be stored air-tight, as the gases it gives off when it decays accelerates the decay. So NO plastic around it. Instead, store it in unbufferd acid-free paper. See Light Impressions catalog.

 

Personally, I'd say just replace the manilla envelopes with acid-free ones. The existing acid-free paper, if it's really quality paper, should be fine. There are acidity testing pens that Light Impressions sells.

 

The major advantage of plastic storage is it makes using the negatives easier. Not any "better" for the negatives. Plus, you don't want to price 5000 Mylar sleeves!

 

A useful Kodak publications (I think out of print) is F-30, "Preservation of Photographs".

 

Rod Slemmons' paper "Photographic Archives" Philosophical and Practical Issues" (http://www.bcc.ctc.edu/cpsha/myweb/TechandCon.htm) is also nice. He's done some other good papers.

[fran_c]

Thanks, John!

 

Just did a quick check on several negs, particularly the older ones, and I do see the words "safety film" on the edges of all of them. Most are Kodak and some are Ansco. The acid-tester pen is a great idea as well. I'll order that plus the acid-free envelopes and storage boxes, and I'll test the papers with the pen. My instincts are telling me to stick with the paper products. Thanks again.

[dk_thompson]

you really need to take this stuff to a public archive and get the advice from them--a photo conservator or a certified archivist is who you need to talk to.

 

that said--best way to store these would be individually sleeved in buffered or microchamber type paper envelopes, that pass the PAT (photo activity test). don't use any type of plastic sleeving, not even mylar D. there's a certain cutoff age with negs, I can't recall the exact figure, but it's like anything pre-1970, that need to be stored in paper enclosures only because of the deteriorating offgassing of the acetate (and earlier nitrate) film bases. the plastic of the sleeves traps the offgassing and accelerates the deterioration. archivists say it's like "stewing in their own juice" more or less. the paper will protect the neg, but it also lets it breathe. the microchamber materials used by Conservation Resources Int'l now, this paper has a zeolite component that absorbs some of this offgassing and will protect other parts of your collection...the acetate isn't that bad really to other photos & negs, but the nitrate is pretty bad news.

 

when you put the negs into these enclosures--keep the emulsion side facing away from the seam. if it's a PAT enclosure, the adhesives will be neutral and they usually design the envelope, so that the seams are on the edge, not running down the middle. another type of envelope, usually used for plates, is a four flap envlope, that basically folds up around the neg/plate, so there are no seams at all and you don;t have the handling damage of sliding a neg in & out. you can also move the negs around pretty easily since the flaps give a certain amount of support. I have only used these for glass plates though.

 

so, 10K negs potentially to resleeve & rehouse? my advice is to find an archive and see if any of them are interested. Much of the current research for acetate based film storage is from the Image Permanence Institute, and they have a guidebook with a wheel for estimating longevity as well that you can buy online or get from Light Impressions, Gaylord Bros, University Products etc. You can also download a free copy online, without the wheel. This publications is called "The IPI Guide to Acetate Based Film Storage". If you do this, get the free software for the "Preservation Calculator".

 

http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/8contents.htm

 

 

IPI also sells the A-D strips for tracking acetate based neg deterioration as well.

 

btw--you won't have to worry about nitrate after about 1951. The pack films were nitrate right up to the end though, along with a lot of the consumer roll films. Most of the pro film stocks (sheets) were the first to go over to acetate, and actually if you look at archival collections now, most of the deterioration problems are actually with the early safety base films, and it's a growing problem.

 

basically what happens is the base shrinks the emulsion buckles up. I work in a museum next to an archive, and I have seen this happen--your negs are toast basically when this happens. you can float the emulsion off onto a new polyester support, but it doesn't always work, and it's expensive so it's not a good solution for an entire collection. generally what you do is called "reformatting" which is either negative duplication, or more commonly printing the negs and shooting 4x5 estar based copynegs. Now, digital imaging is becoming more acceptable though, so there's alot of that going on as well, but there's a real debate within the community about longevity concerns with digital, so the film reformatting still goes on.

 

 

the nitrate is tricky to distinguish between the acetate if it's in good shape. the dead give-away is the use of "safety film" on the edge of the neg, but sometimes you can have dupes and the like and it gets screwy...they tend to tell them apart by the time period, notch codes, "safety" imprinting, and deterioration characteristics. I have a lot of material on this, that I'v accumulated from workshops and the like--handouts and tech leaflets basically. There is a survey of acetate and nitrate based films in US archives, and there are lists of dates of manufacture etc for various manufacturers, but in the end, you really need to get some professional consultation on this, and there's no better place to go than your state or local public archive, since as a taxpayer you are a patron.

 

my disclaimer here is that I'm a photographer working in a museum, alongside an archive. I'm not a conservator or an archivist...I just print/reformatt the old stuff. so with that, these are my opinions only, not my employers. good luck, sounds like a fascinating collection. btw, if you do try to approach an institution about donating it to them or seeing if they're interested? It's always nice to make the connection between the person (your dad) and what they did with the place. It's not just the negs, but the person, their cameras (if you have any), what they did etc. They would call that provenance, and it's like a piece of the puzzle...

 

 

[dk_thompson]

btw-- I think the bubbling is probably in the acetate stuff. that would mean these negs had probably crossed over that hump you see in old negs, where they look good for a long time, and then they reach a point where they start to go downhill fast. if you have any nitrate negs, a similar kind of thing is when they start to get sort of brittle and then sticky. nitrate negs stored together in an envlope like this, they tend to all glom together...

 

I found a chart for notch codes ,but only for Kodak--pre 1949 nitrate sheet films would have a V notch first from the edge. 1925-1949 kodak acetates had a U notch in the same position. anything after 1955 would be acetate. I think this would probably account for all the manufacturers. you're probably not going to have any notch codes on the pack film though, but that should be thinner than the cut sheets.

 

after thinking about this a bit--What you describe sounds like a really wonderful collection I think in terms of subject matter and the fact that you still have the equipment is fantastic. Instead of thinking of them in terms of 10,000 negs possibly, with each one needing to be saved? Do a rough survey, and don't worry about rehousing right now, as much as figuring out what you have. It could be that as you get into them, that a fraction are so badly deteriorated that you need to either do a triage type thing and work on those first, or you need to decide if they're worth saving, and if you're ambivalent about them due to subject matter, or if they seem like a lost cause? move on. I'm not saying to throw them away or anything, but just to be practical you need a gameplan.

 

This is really the role of the archivist. they decide what stays and what goes. But since you're doing this--and not thinking about from an outsider's point of view, or from the perspective of what a "mission statement" tells you your collecting policies are, then it gets complicated because you want to save everything, when really it's almost impossible to do that.

 

I'm not saying you shouldn't try--but you need to figure out what you have, before worrying about buying 10,000 envelopes or whatever. I went to a archival mgmt. seminar once at the smithsonian--the big topic was environmental control and cold storage in particular, but one point they made was that if you cannot control the room temp & rh, then there's no point in spending the money on enclosures. In the end it's the relative humidity and the temperature that governs the life of the film, and to be honest, it will cost a bit of money to cold store 10,000 sheets of film, especially if any of them are nitrate. it will cost money to rehouse them as well.

 

so that's sort of my advice--seek out the archive for advice, but until then do your own survey, where you do a tally of what you have, and sort it out by the stuff that looks okay, or not so hot. you can have a section of great, number one keepers that mean something to you, and a section of ho-hum stuff. you need a gameplan though, because like they say--you can't save everything. not enough time, or money. it's no different in an archive or a museum. I write this from experience. a sobering reality...

 

my opinions only/not my employers.

[fran_c]

Thank you DK, for taking the time to offer your expertise. I really appreciate it, and you are absolutely right. I need to formulate a game plan before I go any farther. You can imagine what a daunting task this is for one person to suddenly take-on. My dad thought I was a bit nuts when I started, but I think my enthusiasm has caught on and he seems more and more excited about it as I hand him printed copies of scanned negatives. He smiles and says, "Oh yes, I remember that one." The provenance is all here, cameras, developing equipment, brushes, everything, even the mirrored stainless plates he used to stick the wet photos on, and when they dried, they'd fall to the floor. My job as a kid was to go around picking them up off the floor. My dad is in good health, so that's a plus, and he can be actively involved in establishing provenance.

 

As for the notches. I've checked several negs I'm a bit confused about what you found out about the Kodak notches. To absolutely confirm the year, I pulled out some negs of myself as the subject. They all say 'Kodak safety film' but they also all have a v notch at the far edge after the words Kodak safety film. These particular photos were taken in 1959-1960. However, the Ansco film does have a 'u' notch. I'll have to check with my Dad on this and see if he knows anything about it. Looking through others of varying dates, all the Kodak negs seem to have a v notch at the end. Could it be the placement of the v that's significant? There are none at the beginning.

 

Thanks again,

Fran