jim_glidewell

<p> I just finished scanning all of my dad's negatives. Here is what I ended up doing.</p>

<p >First I picked out a couple of rolls that were in good condition and took my chances and tried soaking them in distilled water, followed by the Photo Flo. This worked out well and relaxed then negatives somewhat. Not completely, but enough that they were manageable.</p>

<p >But then I tried one that was in poor condition and when I scanned it I noticed that it had a mottled or "cobblestone" look to it where the emulsion was broken up. It wasn't noticeable just by looking at it, so I don't know if it was bad already or soaking it destroyed it. Fortunately, this roll was one I didn't care that much about anyway, but I decided to learn my lesson and try a different approach.</p>

<p >So next I tried John's suggestion about rolling the negatives backwards around a tube. I just used a 1 1/2" PVC pipe that I had laying around and wrapped tissue paper around it to protect the negatives. I only let this sit for about a week but it was enough to relax the negatives somewhat. </p>

<p >I would say that reverse winding the film for a week probably relaxed the film about as much as soaking in water and maybe was safer.</p>

<p >So I am finished now, so thank you everyone for your help. </p>

<p >Scott, I tried your idea of putting two negatives back to back in reverse before putting them in the sleeve and it seemed to work well. Although I was concerned about scratching the negatives by doing that so I had to be careful. Probably if I had reverse would the negatives and let them set for several months they may have eventually relaxed completely.</p>

<p>In the meantime I cut a small sliver from each roll and tried the burn test. All ten rolls are nitrate, even if only a few are marked that way.</p>

<p>Bob, I have a couple of rolls that I did hang up for a week with weights (clothes pins) at the bottom. They did relax some although they want to curl up as soon as I remove them. But they are better than before, so maybe this is the best I can hope for. The trouble is, after I cut and scan them I place them in photo sheets and the sheets then curl! But maybe if I keep them flat this way in a photo album for a year they will eventually flatten. Thanks.</p>

<p>I just did the burn test and all ten rolls are nitrate. And with some of them the emulsion is already missing.<br>

When you said you would be hesitant to use Photo-Flo, was that because it is a surfactant? What if I just soaked it in distilled water? Some of these are already cracked and I would be reluctant to roll them backwards. So for some of these it may come down to chancing soaking with water or just dealing with curled negatives.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. Some of the film has "Nitrate" printed on it. One says "DuPont Nitrate".</p>

<p>We recently found about ten rolls of B&W negatives that my dad took in the 1940's, so of which are from the Army. He used to develop his own film and these have been tightly wound in the original film cans for the last 70 years.<br>

I would like take some of the stiffness out of them so I can scan them in, and after looking around it seems that the normal approach is to soak them in distilled water for 30 minutes, followed by dipping in Photo-Flo and then hanging to dry.<br>

I was all set to start when I discovered a problem - about half of these are nitrate film which I have read are dangerous. So now my question is, do I treat these the same way? Should I still soak them in distilled water, or do I need a different approach? I would like to go ahead and scan them and then probably destroy them since they are so dangerous.<br>

If I had to, I could scan them as is without soaking. I already did one roll that way, but it was very difficult to work with because of the still curl. But if that is my only safe option I'm willing to skip the soaking.<br>

Thank you.</p>

Thank you, Eric. Both Kalispell and Missoula limit the miles to 1050/week. Spokane and Great Falls are unlimited mileage. The car rental at Spokane is about $200 less than Kalispell, and Great Falls is about $100 cheaper (for two weeks). But if the drive from Spokane isn't anything special I'll write that one off. Also, Spokane is much cheaper to fly into, but since I'm planning on using frequent flyer miles, the cost doesn't matter.

 

As for doing a lot of driving, it's not that I WANT to do a lot of driving, it's that I'd be willing to if it was worth my while. Photo Traveler says the area from Missoula to Kalispell was nice, but I wasn't sure about the rest of it.

 

It sounds like I better push my vacation up a couple of weeks if I want to catch the flowers.

I plan on going to Glacier National Park this summer around the end of July or early

August (I haven't been there in 30 years). I'm looking at my options of different cities

to fly into. The obvious choice is Kalispell. But I've been looking at some of the

outlying cities such as Missoula, Great Falls and even Spokane. I notice that some of

these roads are marked as scenic routes and I'm wondering if they are worth the

drive. If I fly into Great Falls, I could make a large circle taking 90 and 12 to Missoula,

93 up to Kalispell, and then taking 89 back to Great Falls after visiting Glacier and

Waterton Lakes. But this will also add another 400 miles. I don't mind the extra miles if

there is something worth seeing, but I don't want to drive just for the sake of driving.

 

How about Spokane? I notice the road goes over some National Forest land. Is that

worth seeing?

 

Also, my dates are flexible and I hope to see wildflowers. How is my timing? Am I too

early or too late?

 

Thank you for your help,

 

Jim

Felix,

 

I packed it well and insured it all three times. The first time I even double boxed it. But they always returned it in their own packaging which I thought was inadequate. The first time they shipped it back the corner of the box was dented in but I didn't notice any damage. The second time they returned it, I didn't notice any damage to the box. But the viewfinder is cracked (the plastic housing) and parts inside are broken. It took a nasty blow and I suspect more and more that it was shipped that way. Maybe their packer dropped it or something.

 

I have written a letter to headquarters in NY, and also Japan. I have also filed a complaint with the BBB, which I'm not sure will do much good but I figured I would try. I have also looked up to see which court I need to go to for a lawsuit. In NY, small claims court is used for any dispute under $5,000. You are right, if I have to get a lawyer it won't be worth it. But if I file for a lawsuit I would be doing it hoping they will offer to settle out of court. I have put off filing the lawsuit because then the BBB will no longer investigate, I would rather take the easy route first.

 

All I know is I have been looking for a DSLR in the under $1,000 range. The Olympus EVOLT-500 was one of my top contenders, but not anymore. I will never buy an Olympus again.

So far I've talked to several people in repair and the Corporate Manager and have gotten nowhere. The corporate Manager offered be $50 off the repair cost and I turned it down. I already paid $219 and all they did was break it. Why should I pay any more? I will write to corporate next, and try to contact Clark Howard and contact BBB and maybe Japan too. To tell you the truth, the more I think about it the more I think it was broken before it shipped. The the people in the shipping department dropped it or something. The reason I say this is I never noticed any damage to the box.

 

Gerry, the first time I sent it back I couldn't complain either - except for the shoddy packaging. They only kept it two days and it was on its way back. But things went downhill from there.

 

William, there are actually a fair number of "Glidewell's" around (probably more than you think). I suppose we could be related somehow, but probably not. My grandparents came from England in the late 1800's and then settled in Florida. Although we do have some relatives we can't track down.

I have an Olympus E-10 that died on me a while back. Olympus has a flat rate of

$219 to fix cameras. It was debatable if it was even worth fixing, but I sent

it in anyway. When it came back it worked for a day or two and then died again,

so I sent it in again. When I got it back that problem was fixed, but then I

noticed physical damage - the viewfinder was broken. So I returned it again.

They wrote back and said it wasn't covered under warranty, and I would have to

pay $233 to fix it. I've spent over an hour arguing with them on the phone to

no avail.

 

It doesn't surprise me at all that it came back broken because they used very

cheap packaging when shipping it back. The box was barely large enough to hold

the camera. The first time I saw the box my initial reaction was "Surely that

can't be my camera", but it was.

 

Bottom line, I spent $219 to fix my camera and it was a complete waste

of money. I will never buy from Olympus again. Their repair service is

terrible.

I went to Arches and Canyonlands a couple of years ago in January and it wasn't too bad. In the morning it was cold (about 20 degrees) and I had to scrape the windows. But by mid-morning I getting rid of the thermals and by afternoon it was in the 50's. The only bad news is I was hoping for snow! Also, I found it hard to get a good picture of Park Avenue at Arches because the sun was so low. Also, motels in Moab are cheap in winter - I paid less than $30 a night.

 

Actually, I wanted to ask a similar question. I'm thinking of making a trip in December to Zion, Bryce, Grand Canyon, Paria canyon and Sedona and am wondering what to expect. I assume at 8,000 feet Bryce will be cold, but what about the others?

Kosta,

 

Is that you, the guy I met at sunrise at Bryce on his way to Calf Creek and the Wave? If so, I did the Wave a few days after you.

 

Anyway, I met a professional photographer who also told me of another canyon where he said the professionals go to for their pictures and just say it is from Antelope since Antelope is so crowded. He told me he was able to pay extra and convince the guide to give him a private tour, but I didn't get the name of the place.

 

Also, there a are a number of private tour operators in Page. Don't waste your money on them and just go there yourself. The private ones just charge more money and say "Here's a nice shot", "and here's a place for a picture". Stuff you can figure out on your own.