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

Re: Nitrate duplication



Bill,

Two points here. While the nitrate may continue to decompose, it is
unlikely to spontaneously combust. Most all instances of that were cases
of nitrate motion picture film sealed in cans. Sheet negatives in
envelopes in porous boxes deteriorate at a much slower rate because the
off gassing can disperse.

Second, given the nature of the photos (student theatricals) why not just
contact print the negatives (fiber-based paper) and have copy negatives
made as requested. The contacts will last more than 100 years (so we are
told) and the image loss is slight, particularly considering the
content. Plus you will have prints to show the potential customers.

   ---Terry

-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-
Terry Abraham   Special Collections, University of Idaho
<http://www.lib.uidaho.edu/special-collections/>


On Wed, 8 Nov 2000, William J. Maher wrote:

------snip----
> 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
-----snip----
>
> 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>