Hi Peter - I read the Kodak "Vinegar Syndrome" paper on Tri- Acetate film, and they don't emphasize enough, the word WATER. If negatives are stored in a dry atmosphere, they will not degrade very much over time. And having come to this work from an early background and interest in chemistry (since the 7th grade, believe it or not <g>), I am virtually certain that you are incorrect in some of your postulates. First, you are talking simultaneously (in the same sentence), about film, presumable B&W, and color slides. They are two totally different animals! Film must be washed completely, with all traces of hypo, hypo eliminator, and any other chemistry - totally gone. Traces of chemistry on film of any substrate will cause staining and/or bleaching over time. I suppose those traces might protect against some kinds of mold (because of their altered pH), but it wouldn't do much good with a bleached out negative, caused by incomplete washing. Secondly, about color slides of all sorts. Virtually all the colors in transparency films, Kodachrome included, are organic dyes, which are susceptible to molds. But what is common to all molds, is moisture. Even color transparencies, when stored in low humidity, can have remarkable storage lives. True, controlled humidity, as most museums have, is expensive, and on a personal note, I lived in Arizona as a kid, and all my B&W negatives are still intact, even though they've been with me for 40 years in NYC. But I've picked the driest, darkest spot in my studio for storage, using an antique oak storage cabinet (which may not be the best, because of out-gasses), but because wood has a tendency to absorb and release moisture. The negatives within are in archival sleeves) have remained unchanged. If you doubt this last statement, you might read of why Stradivari stored his violins clipped to a clothes line stretched inside his second floor workshop in a part of Italy which has high humidity in the summer and is dry in winter. They never cracked or got moldy, but of course he washed all the hypo out, then used distilled water for the final rinse :-) All that said, I'm in a never-ending process of scanning my best work dating back to the 1950's, mostly because for my interpretation, I like the digital rendition of many black & white prints better than the silver versions. That's especially true with the last few years' progress in the process. Regards, Clay Price > Peter Marshall wrote: > ...Film, especially if washed well, is a very attractive substrate for > moulds etc. I think fixer and other chemicals in low concentration are > likely to offer some protection, although of course fixer will react > with the image to give silver sulphide. Many if not most of my > trade-processed slides are suffering irreversible mould damage, and > also > quite a lot I processed myself.... > Kodak paper on Vinegar Syndrome: > http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/technical/vinegar.jhtml? > id=0.1.4.11.12.4&lc=en >
Message
Re: Digital Vs. Film
2005-12-13 by Clayton Price
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.