Advice on old family negs

[conrad_hoffman]

I have a bunch of my wife's father's and grandfather's negs and prints. They date from the 1920s to 1940 or so, maybe some later. Most are nitrate base. A lot are big roll film, 115 mm wide, cut into singles. They seem to be the oldest. Others are small sheet film. One roll of Panatomic. Not X, just Panatomic, on nitrate base from the edge label. Unfortunately, a huge number of these are overexposed, underexposed or just plain blurry. Never have one or two people shot so much film and improved so little.

Anyway, I'm starting to worry about the hazards of nitrate film. Just how dangerous is it to have these in a small wooden cabinet in the house? I don't want to dispose of them, though I could probably get rid of half due to technical problems. They seem to be in good shape, no real breakdown, though there's a slight smell. Quantity is about one large shoebox full. Copy and discard? Keep an eye on them? Run for the hills?

[William Michael]

This should provide assistance.  LINK

Temperature, humidity and NON-airtight storage are key points to consider.

At one stage early in my career I worked close by a Film, TV and Radio Archive Department: they took correct storage protocol and the threat of combustion seriously, this was before we had mandated rules here.

If they were mine I would firstly cull down to the ones I really wanted to keep and then copy them to digital files, and then properly dispose of the lot.

It's probably a good idea to be aware of what laws there might be in your area and what caveats there might be on your house insurance.

Bottom line - If stored properly I think the danger is slight, however, I think the above is not an overreaction and is sound advice.

WW     

[AJG]

I read recently about this question with regard to old movies, both theatrical prints and original negatives and some archivists are beginning to have second thoughts about digital copying  and destroying originals due to the necessity of transferring digital copies repeatedly to new materials and formats to avoid obsolescence that could lead to these materials no longer being possible to see and use.  In my lifetime I've seen a lot of digital storage formats come and go--anybody else remember 5 1/2 " floppies?  Good luck playing any of those back now, although I'm sure somebody somewhere probably still has a functioning drive with the appropriately old computer/operating system that can play back the floppy if it hasn't deteriorated beyond use.  Projecting nitrate 35 mm movies (which I have done) does require specialized equipment for safety--fully enclosed projectors of the kind that every commercial theater in the US routinely had from the 1920's through the 1950's, but storage isn't as difficult as that and probably isn't that much of a risk.  William Michael's advice is probably the best way to go, especially the editing part.  Only save and/or copy the good stuff and get rid of the rest.

Edited February 28 by AJG
improve clarity

[conrad_hoffman]

Thanks! That link was very good. I'm a bit less worried as these are not in air-tight storage and they're in a place that doesn't get too warm. Looking through them last night I found quite a few that are worth scanning. I'm a bit baffled by the format of many. Roll film, but huge! About 4 1/2 inches wide by 6 inches. It doesn't match any of the antique formats I've found at several sites. Obviously cut from a roll. Any guesses?

[William Michael]

Kodak Roll Film 111.

Neg Measurements 6 1/2 x 4 3/4 inches.

Released 1898.

 

WW

[conrad_hoffman]

Close, but these are 6 1/2 x 4 1/2. Never seen the stuff, but if it's like 120, could the paper be 4 3/4 and the film narrower than the edges of the paper?

[William Michael]

18 hours ago, conrad_hoffman said:

 . . . I'm a bit baffled by the format of many. Roll film, but huge! About 4 1/2 inches wide by 6 inches. It doesn't match any of the antique formats I've found at several sites. Obviously cut from a roll. Any guesses?

7 hours ago, conrad_hoffman said:

. . .  these are 6 1/2 x 4 1/2. Never seen the stuff, but if it's like 120, could the paper be 4 3/4 and the film narrower than the edges of the paper?

If the second mentioned are the exact negative measurements, sans border, my guess would be 126 Roll Film.

Introduced 1906.

126 was used in Kodak 4 Series Folding Cameras, and typically in those cameras provided a neg. 6 1/2 x 4 1/4, I am almost certain, with a border.

The extra 1/4 inch on your negatives could probably be accommodated by encroaching 1/8" into each side of the strip border.

WW     

 

[mikemorrellNL]

On 2/29/2024 at 12:59 PM, William Michael said:

If the second mentioned are the exact negative measurements, sans border, my guess would be 126 Roll Film.

Introduced 1906.

126 was used in Kodak 4 Series Folding Cameras, and typically in those cameras provided a neg. 6 1/2 x 4 1/4, I am almost certain, with a border.

The extra 1/4 inch on your negatives could probably be accommodated by encroaching 1/8" into each side of the strip border.

 

@conrad_hoffman Just one more thing ..

If you have good quality (300-600 dpi?) scans of your selected photos, just bear in mind that there's usually a lot that be done to improve the scanned photos. For example:

- white balance and contrast correction

- damage repairs (tears, cracks, scratches, etc.)

- Possible 'enhancements' to sharpness, clarity, etc.

It could well be that you could make these improvements yourself! If not, just be aware that I work voluntarily as a 'restorer' of old photos at a couple of 'voluntarily restoration' websites.  We're all volunteers so all photo restorations are free of charge. If you're interested, let me know.

Best wishes,

Mike

[conrad_hoffman]

Fear not, I do restoration quite often. Not as good as some, but learning all the time. Maybe you can tell me how to improve a bit. My usual workflow is to shoot the negs with my Z6 on a light table. I shoot the emulsion side, then flip the shot in Affinity Photo. I then slide the curves to the opposite corners to convert to positive, followed by bending the curve to get the tonal quality right. That's where I know I could do better. Even with my own good black and white negs, I like the tonal quality from a scanned darkroom print better than the tonal quality from a scanned and "bent" negative. In theory (I think) it has to be possible to tweak the curve to get to the same place, but I know I'm missing something.