[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Nitrate duplication



Colleagues:

BACKGROUND:

The University of Illinois Archives has a large collection of photographs
on University history, campus buildings, faculty, students, etc. Most
archivists would be comfortable regarding these records as something more
akin to documentary than art photography--that is the value in retention
is not so much for the quality of the image composition, focus, and
exposure than for the record they provide through the visual image.

In this main body of photographs, we have approximately 1,300 known
nitrate sheet film negatives (mostly 8 x 10, 5 x 7, or 4 x 5).  On last
inspection, the negatives were in relatively good condition, not showing
signs of serious deterioration.  Based on the 9 stage categorization of
deterioration identified by Larry and Jane Booth (PictureScope, Spring
1982, p. 15), I believe that the bulk of the negatives have not even
reached the first stage (emitting an odor of nitric acid).

Although the deterioration has not advanced very far, we know that the
negatives will only get worse, that they can become dangerous (flammable
at ever lower temperatures), and that once they do deteriorate more the
it will be impossible to use them to create a replacement print or
negative.

THE QUESTION: Our immediate problem is trying to obtain an estimate for
replacement so we can request campus funds for the project.  On the basis
of the Booth recommendations in the above cited Picturescope article, we
believe the most viable method of reproducing the negatives is by Direct
Duplicating Negatives.  In Booth's article, they cite a Kodak film
SO -015.  I believe that that film was later replaced by SO-339.
Recently our University's Photolab checked with Kodak and found that
SO-339 has been further replaced with SO-132.

The issue on which I would appreciate your advice is the potential
longevity of SO-132 versus any other commercially or commonly used
negative film.  Our Photolab said that Kodak's representative stated the
life of SO-132 as guaranteed for 100 years or 150 years if selenium toning
were used.  My general reaction is that while I am doubtful that I will
still be working at the UI (although I have considered the Jermey Bentham
option), committing money to 100 year longevity does not sound like a
sound budgetary decision.

Keeping in mind that shots such as those of stage sets for student
theatrical productions from the 1930s are not the sort of image that one
would want to save in the same way as if we had images made by Ansel
Adams, what do my archivist colleagues think about the viability of SO-132
for such duplication?

Thanks.

William J. Maher                        University Archivist
UNIVERSITY ARCHIVES, Room 19 Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
1408 West Gregory, Urbana, IL 61801
(217) 333-0798 FAX (217) 333-2868       E-mail:  W-MAHER@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu

A posting from the Archives & Archivists LISTSERV List!

To subscribe or unsubscribe, send e-mail to listserv@listserv.muohio.edu
      In body of message:  SUB ARCHIVES firstname lastname
                    *or*:  UNSUB ARCHIVES
To post a message, send e-mail to archives@listserv.muohio.edu

Or to do *anything* (and enjoy doing it!), use the web interface at
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/archives.html

Problems?  Send e-mail to Robert F Schmidt <rschmidt@lib.muohio.edu>