Film Oxidization
Greg Miller
exposure then cassette (35mm). This due to the fact that a roll films
is not exposed to the additional cytalist of oxygen because a roll
film wraps up onto itself to a great degree displacing the air that
the film will be exposed to during storage. This theory comes from
the fact that I can normally get much better results when processing a
40 year old roll film then I can processing a 20 year old cassette
film. Is there any conventional wisdom on film oxidization. I think
that a combination of exposure to heat and oxygen is a much bigger
factor then exposure to heat alone. Oxygen is a huge factor in the
aging process of all kind of artifacts, why is it seldom mentioned as
a primary factor in unprocessed film storge? Would someone with
concerns for film storage while travelling in a hot climate be better
off with roll film then cassette? I say yes. Any opinions or perhaps
some hard cold facts?
Greg Miller
Film Rescue International
Francis A. Miniter
When my father died in 1999, I found stored in his attic a dozen or so
rolls of 120 size C-22 film that had sat there for about 30-35 years. I
successfully developed the film (subject to some loss of color). I also
found some ancient film from around 1915, a single roll on a large wooden
spindle. I developed it - less successfully, but I did get at least one
useable image.
From my personal experience, it would seem that paper wrapped film is
capable of withstanding extremes of temperatures for many years at a time.
Francis A. Miniter
Tom Phillips
plastic, paint, etc. Given tightly enclosed 35mm film canisters, these may
be the oxidizing catalysts over time. Just a thought.
Tom Phillips wrote:
> Have you checked for any research available from the Image Permanence
> Institute?
>
> http://www.rit.edu/~661www1/
Russell Shaw
How about storing all the films in non air-tight containers,
put all the containers in a large box, then purging it with
dry nitrogen? Bubbling nitrogen into chemical bottles will
probably give developers a longer shelf life too.
Mike King
Exceptions?:
1) I have seen unexposed and poorly stored roll film imprint the frame
numbers onto the film. One time I picked up some free 120 film; Ilford
HP-5, July 1984 store in a chicken coop, boxed and wrapped. I shot a test
of--the film was unusable except for testing camera repairs for light leaks.
Under these conditions I lean towards a chemical reaction rather that light
fog to explain the phenomena, maybe an ink migration from the numbers on the
paper backing to the gelatin or a chemical reaction?
2)There's not a lot of oxygen inside a 35mm film can so I suspect if the
film was shot and then replaced in the can the oxidation would not be
present or minimal. Wouldn't help in my case I most often do not re-can the
film except with bulk loads. Those I put back since I don't trust reloads
to keep light away from the film when out of the camera--even my own
reloads. And I keep track of the number of times a cassette has been used
and pitch them at the first hint of a leak or after about five rolls
whichever comes first.
--
darkroommike
......................
"Greg Miller" <filmr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55bfe96e.02042...@posting.google.com...
Greg Miller
> You might be on to something Greg.
>
> Exceptions?:
>
> 1) I have seen unexposed and poorly stored roll film imprint the frame
> numbers onto the film. One time I picked up some free 120 film; Ilford
> HP-5, July 1984 store in a chicken coop, boxed and wrapped. I shot a test
> of--the film was unusable except for testing camera repairs for light leaks.
> Under these conditions I lean towards a chemical reaction rather that light
> fog to explain the phenomena, maybe an ink migration from the numbers on the
> paper backing to the gelatin or a chemical reaction?
>
> 2)There's not a lot of oxygen inside a 35mm film can so I suspect if the
> film was shot and then replaced in the can the oxidation would not be
> present or minimal. Wouldn't help in my case I most often do not re-can the
> film except with bulk loads. Those I put back since I don't trust reloads
> to keep light away from the film when out of the camera--even my own
> reloads. And I keep track of the number of times a cassette has been used
> and pitch them at the first hint of a leak or after about five rolls
> whichever comes first.
>
> --
> darkroommike
>
Hey Darkroom
Your right. The printing on the backing paper will often migrate into
the negative and I do believe it to be a chemical condition verses a
photo sensitive condition (yes i know that in this case the two are to
a degree intercahangable). This hyposis due to the fact that the
imprint manifests itself where the actual printed numbers lay against
the emulsion and not as if light had shone through the backing paper
and exposed the numbers through the base onto the emulsion. This is a
problem yes but not at all to the degree I find the former.
Greg
Mike King
will see in a lifetime, more power to you, Greg.
Cheer up, only three more months to spring in balmy Canada.
--
darkroommike
......................
"Greg Miller" <filmr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:55bfe96e.02042...@posting.google.com...
Francis A. Miniter
I remember one July 4th - 1983 I think, in any case it was the 100th anniversary
of the Statue of Liberty, because the celebration was on the television. I was
in Topsail, Newfoundland, outside of St. John's, at my in-law's house. Several
of us decided to build a bonfire on the "beach", which had rocks not sand. It
was 9:00 pm and colder than any of us had really imagined. After several trips
back to the house, I was finally adequately layered in undershirt, shirt,
sweater, windbreaker and parka (with hood up) to start the fire. The three
others with me were similarly clad. I do have pictures!
Francis A. Miniter