Digital BW, The Print

Actually, while we're on this topic, I might just tap into the
collective knowledge.

A few months ago I had a problem with green stains when I developed 
my Tri X - stored in the fridge, developed in Xtol.

I tried a few lists - some people suggested it might be the halide
layer and recommended putting the film through a high PH (paper
developer); other people suggested it was a problem with a batch of
Tri X when developed in Xtol, maybe switching to D76 would help.

Well, a high PH developer worked for some neg.s but not others and I
didn't have any problems with D 76.

But I did come across some interesting commentary on removing mould
from negs.  Some suggestion that freezing might help...   Here's some
of what I found - use at your own peril...

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an26/an26-5/an26-512.html

http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=31676&seqNum=2&rl=1

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008Pfv

http://www.lib.umd.edu/TSD/PRES/detailprocedure.html

Cheers
Gareth

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
<petermarshall@c...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> djon43 wrote:
> 
> >--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter Marshall
> ><petermarshall@c...> wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Essentially affects film since the 1950s. Triacetate was used for all 
> >>35mm except I think some special emulsions such as Kodak High Speed 
> >>Infrared, and also for some 120 film. So basically it is all on its
> >>    
> >>
> >way out.
> >
> >Wrong, much is on Estar and similar base.
> >
> >  
> >
> 120 and sheet film may be Estar as I said, but for 35mm everyone went 
> over to triacetate in the 1950s. 
> 35mm Tri-X, FP4, T-Max etc all triacetate films. Only 35mm on estar
base 
> I ever used was the infrared.
> 
> Costs are for humidity and temperature control, not the filing sheets. 
> If you really want long lifetimes, add in the inert gas!
> 
> Almost from the start I went in for archival processing.  I normally 
> used hypo clear and washed films for twice the manufacturers
recommended 
> times and made sure I had frequent changes of water. The negs are
all in 
> archival filing sheets except for some early work in glassine, which I 
> think is also reasonably archival. But I live in an area noted for 
> humidity, which is my particular problem. Also that I'd need a larger 
> house for really archival storage.
> 
> Scanning both improves storage and also gets better prints. It's
enabled 
> me to make A1 size prints from 35mm of a quality that I would never
have 
> beleived, as well as better normal-size images. So I'd recommend it to 
> anyone, even if you think your negs are going to be in pristine 
> condition in 20 years time.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Peter
>