greg_miller10

<p>Thank you all! Just the information I was looking for!</p>

<p>Most effective final rinses/stabilizers in the past contained Formaldehyde. If doing a rewash on vintage reversal films (Kodachrome/Ektachrome) how important is it to restabilize or final rinse the film in a wetting solution that contains formaldehyde? Was the function of formaldehyde strictly as a biocide and is a biocide necessary when rewashing dirty, mold free film? Is there a universally effective or appropriate final rinse, when rewashing, for both Ektachrome and Kodachrome film?</p>

<p>The first image is not at all what one would expect doing a conventional print onto light sensitive paper from a negative with a warming filter on the camera. I'm not certain why there would be any question that the second image isn't the superior or more correct, as the eye sees it, image. Digital or analogue issues aside the first image would only be desirable if you were trying to mimic the look of a photo taken under some strange mercury vapor lighting or similar. A look that could be effective if it were creating the intended mood but I don't think that's what you were looking for.</p>

<p>One more idea....I haven't had to deal with Kodak customer service at this level for a long long while but in the past, you'd have been able to send the film into a technician and get a real qualified answer to your question. Being a professional film I'm betting you still can. 1 800 242 2424 extension 19 (I think) for professional products.</p>

<p>It's still difficult to tell for sure what's going on here but if the negatives are a good representation of how they actually look I'd say the film looks old. A lessening of the intensity of the color of the orange mask and a reduction of the saturation of the color is typical of old or maybe heat damaged film. Eventually that orange, in most cases, turns to a dirty green and this to me looks like it is going in that direction. Did you leave the film in a hot car for any amount of time? If the film had been under developed creating the lower contrast images, the orange mask wouldn't be faded as it is here.</p>

<p>I don't suspect a bleach/fix problem because there is generally a bit more of an unevenness than in this case. Would hurt though to rebleach and fix to make sure. My guess is that it's not a development problem...or at least one I'd know how to create.</p>

<p>These images aren't big enough to see much grain and they aren't all that helpful for telling if you have a problem with how the film was developed or discovering what the issue is. To really tell a development problem you need to look at the negative and not the scanned image. There does seem to be an odd color crossover happening that is fairly obvious in the silly putty colored dirt while other parts of the picture are more neutral - but this could be a scanning issue too. </p>

<p>You need to look at the negative...how does it look compared to other negatives of the same type and brand? Is the orange mask different? Does the edge printing look different? Is the overall contrast and density different? Is it as transparent as your other negatives? </p>

<p>There could be a small amount of silver retention causing the grain in which case that can be corrected by rebleaching and refixing. If it is a development or developer problem then there's not to much to be done.</p>

<p>If it were the lab you'd notice other problems as well. Over or under development can cause grain issues. Under development because you have to put an agressive curve on your scanned image to get the contrast and brightness correct and this causes grain. With over development the film is simply more grainy. Check the printing in the rebate of the film to see if it matches another Portra 160 that you've had processed in the past. Preferably one of a near same vintage. If the printing is comparatively dense or thin then there is likely a development problem.</p>

<p>Yes...the answer is quite simple providing the film is reasonably malleable and not prone to breaking. Simply wind the film against it's curl into about a circle 3 to 5 centimeters in diameter. Hold it in place with an elastic band that is not too tight. Let the film sit for about 24 hours and it should be fine to scan. I'd avoid the rewash if possible. Simply winding it against the curl will also eliminate cupping (the curl across the width of the film vs the length of the film) long enough for the film to be decently flat for scanning. You might find that over a few days the film will again cup significantly, making it difficult to scan and sleeve.</p>

<p>As John suggest, keeping the film in some kind of bladder where you can squeeze out the excess air is a good idea. I do find that refrigerating developer also makes a big difference to how long it will last. Color is an OK indicator of whether it is still effective or not but some kind of test on something like a control strip or some pre-exposed unimportant film would be the safe approach...if not to just toss it out.</p>

<p>If you want a developer you can keep a long time and is also my favorite B&W film developer for modern film, you might want to try x-tol.</p>

<p>Wow...a lot of interesting and thoughtful debate here. I think there are a lot of odd ball factors here - the film is over a half century old, the work requested has not been paid for, the person who took the pictures and many of the people in the pictures are probably dead and so forth.</p>

<p>Ultimately I think I will not be using the pictures even though it saddens me that they don't get seen. I've been finding lately that many clients are happy to let us use their images if we ask...in fact many are flattered. Here's one taken in the 1930s we just developed about a week ago and we do have permission to show it as we like. While definitely not stellar in terms of quality, still an extremely charming image.</p>

<p>Thanks so much for all the thoughtful contributions.<img src="http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/311732_225016110887850_168856929837102_607532_46381786_n.jpg" alt="" width="576" height="864" /></p>

<p>Thank you John and Brian. It's helpful information. Ultimately a copyright lawer would be the way to go but on the other hand we can simply get permission from other people to use their photos. These are just such amazing pictures though and it would seem a shame if they were to remain forever unseen on a hard drive somewhere.</p>

<p>Question for Brian. For the sake of respectful debate, I'm very curious why as an ethicist you wouldn't use the pictures? My feelings on this is that a person has asked us to do a considerable amount of work for them and after seeing the preview of the pictures and realizing that for whatever reason they didn't want the pictures, decides that they wouldn't pay us for the time and expense involved in the work. Surely the ethical concerns are theirs and not ours. The pictures are in no way offensive or would in anyway reflect poorly on the subjects. Most people in the pictures would no longer be alive. My opinion is that they're beautiful and should be shared and the person who decided they would basically "dine and dash" at our company has no claim to our respect or the pictures they abandoned. Your thoughts?</p>

<p>We had one client about 5 years ago that had us process several rolls of vintage film for them and have never paid us. We have tried on repeated occasions to get payment from them but have been unsuccessful. <br>

Just lately our company has been compiling sample photos of our processing of old film. This customer has some fantastic picture dating back into the 1940s that we would like to use as samples. Does anyone have any idea if at this point, we own the pictures or not. From an ethical stand point I feel that I should be able to use them because they asked us to do a service for them and they have never paid us for that service.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm not sure what post processing has been done here but there's a real retro look to the color...especially in the flower shot. Very nice treatment regardless. So often I see film photos that take very little advantage from the fact it is film and often they can be examples of why digital is better...not here though. These are a great examples of showing some advantages of film over digital. Maybe buying cheap film that doesn't try to be perfect is the better approach.</p>

<p>When I first saw the subject of this post I thought the same thing as Larry Dressler but it really is an interesting article and was glad my attention was drawn to it.</p>

<p>Please post back what you find and also if Colorlab was able to help. It's nice to have a ready referral for customers.</p>

<p>http://www.colorlab.com/</p>

<p>This is the motion picture lab that deals with restoring motion picture film and they know specifically how to deal with vinegar syndrome. They do some really amazing work. I'm not sure if they will take in still film or not but you should at least give them a call. Talk to Jake. If they don't they should have a referral for you. </p>

<p>It comes up from time to time that a customer will ask, when mailing film to us, whether they should mark it "Film, Do Not X-Ray"</p>

<p>I've been inclined to tell people not to mark their package because I feel that is more likely to draw attention to your package and make it more likely to be X-Rayed. I have a hard believing that USPS or other courier services would be putting the well being of your film ahead of their security precautions.</p>

<p>Am I being paranoid?</p>

<p>I can't say for sure what has happened specifically to your film but if it went through the same bath as your other film at it was fine then something is wrong with the film and not the chemicals.</p>

<p>Not to make any judgement on fresh Fuji film, but our experience with it here (we only develop old film) is that Fuji film is far more sensitive to the environment than most other films. I suspect there might have been some X-ray damage in shipping or the film sat a few days in a hot storage container or vehicle before it arrived to you.</p>

<p>For those that were unaware, there are still at least a half dozen different Super 8 film stocks being manufactured. I find it truly surprising and also pleasing in a way. Kodak that so often gets criticized for dropping product too quickly definitely deserves kudos here.</p>

<p>Frank's advice if good. At my own photo lab we very recently had a customer who a sent film to us over 5 years ago. Even though the job was unpaid for and never collected we still had the film. We have all unpicked up order and the negatives from order where customers took downloads and never picked up or requested their negatives, from when we opened in 1999.</p>

<p>You should check with your photo finisher.</p>

<p>Film is becoming a specialty item and it wouldn't be at all surprising if it weren't available anywhere outside of specialty shops very soon. Prices will rise accordingly as will the uniqueness of the endeavor of film photography. There's good and bad to be said about it. </p>

<p>In my experience color management is by no means flawless even when you have everything working as it should. A print is not a computer screen - there will be differences. Also having a huge effect on print matching will be not only the quality of light you view your print under but also the quality of light you do your photo editing in. Ultimately, I've found I never really get the print to match the screen perfectly but I do consistently get prints I'm very happy with.</p>

<p>I have the spyder as well and I was happy with how it made my monitor look but still I couldn't really get the print to match the screen even when I was using it in conjunction with their print calibration software which was pretty useless. When calibrating your monitor with the Spyder you need to have it set on "print standard" to get even close for print matching.</p>

<p>Finally, in the end I purchased an NEC monitor that came with a probe made by x-rite, set my calibration for the monitor to "print standard" and now I have results that I'm very consistently happy with. I use the canned profiles which are alway better than what the Colorvision generated print profiles would give me.</p>

<p>In my opinion color management is an imperfect science because there are too many variables to make it entirely reliable.</p>

<p>Thank you Jeff...I have sent you an e-mail.</p>

<p>Interesting point Marc...maybe people are buying them as memorabilia. Hadn't occurred to me.</p>

<p>I went on ebay to buy some Kodachrome to test an idea I have to process it into color (digital final image only and sure to be very labor intensive and expensive - primarily to satisfy my curiosity). After checking the completed listings I was surprised to find that many people are still paying 3 or 9 dollars per roll for it. I assume what is going on here is ignorance or not so scrupulous sellers who aren't including the fact it can't be processed into color anymore, thus eliminating the very factor that made this film special.</p>

<p>Anyway...thought it was interesting and maybe others might think so too.</p>