Acetate vs Polyester base

[miha]

Is polyethylene (print file sleeves) gas permeable, or not?

 

[Gibran]

Is polyethylene (print file sleeves) gas permeable, or not?

No. But it does depend upon how it is made into a final product as well. Tyvek, made of Polyethylene, is basically weaved of fine strands so because of this cloth-like nature, it is gas permeable.

Here are some good links:

https://www.loc.gov/preservation/about/faqs/photographs.html

https://www.nedcc.org/free-resources/preservation-leaflets/5.-photographs/5.3-care-of-photographs

Quote from above link and referenced by Library of Congress link, bold added by me (now, I'm wondering what the difference is between "older safety film negatives" and the versions we use today on acetate):

Either paper or plastic enclosures may be used to house photographic materials. There are many types of both available from archival supply vendors, but keep in mind the different characteristics.

• Paper enclosures are opaque, which protect the item from light exposure, but may increase handling since the item must be removed to be seen.
• Archival paper is porous and stable, protecting the items from changes in environmental levels, and preventing any accumulation of moisture or gases.
• Choosing between buffered and unbuffered paper is less important than previously thought; both types of paper can pass the Photographic Activity Test (PAT) and selection depends on your usage.
• Avoid Kraft paper or glassine paper, which have high acidic levels.
• Plastic enclosures should be made of uncoated polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene – other plastics may have components or coatings that off-gas and weaken as they deteriorate, damaging photographs and other archival materials.
• Always avoid polyvinylchloride (PVC), as it is very unstable.
• Plastic should not be used to store nitrate or older safety film negatives

 

[ericdan]

Unrelated to the topic but still an interesting fact I discovered.
instead of contact sheets I use an old mini lab scanner. It does the same effectively just much faster.
I the really really clear bases of RPX 25 or Rollei 80s don't work in those machines. The base is so clear that it's not being detected. Something else to keep in mind depending on what your workflow is.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

• Choosing between buffered and unbuffered paper is less important than previously thought; both types of paper can pass the Photographic Activity Test (PAT) and selection depends on your usage.
• Avoid Kraft paper or glassine paper, which have high acidic levels.

There is more than one type of glassine paper. If you read this statement correctly it means to use only glassine sleeves and envelopes that are pH neutral. It is not intended as an outright ban on all glassine products. Read the description of any product before you buy. The archival supply sites that I visited state that their glassine products are pH neutral.

 

[Gibran]

There is more than one type of glassine paper. If you read this statement correctly it means to use only glassine sleeves and envelopes that are pH neutral. It is not intended as an outright ban on all glassine products. Read the description of any product before you buy. The archival supply sites that I visited state that their glassine products are pH neutral.

I don't think that is what is meant - and the wording and punctuation support this in the statement imo. In fact, the Society of American Archivists state the following:
"Glassine is often used to make envelopes to store photographic negatives. Its hygroscopic properties make it inappropriate for archival use."
http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/g/glassine

It's this hygroscopic/ moisture absorbing property that can cause glassine - acidic or not - to stick to emulsions over time.

Here's some more, sad (because many of us are almost certainly using one of the materials in "Should be avoided" list) quotes from Wilhelm from "The Permanence and Care of Color Photographs" linked below. Despite the title, there is a lot of info on Black and White negatives and film within. Bold added by me.


Enclosure Materials:

• Recommended: Uncoated transparent polyester (e.g., DuPont Mylar D and ICI Melinex 516). Also suitable are uncoated polypropylene (e.g., Her- cules T500 film) and certain nonbuffered 100% cotton fiber papers (e.g., Atlantis Silversafe Pho- tostore). Probably satisfactory is high-density polyethylene (recommended as the best avail- able low-cost material for amateur photofinishing applications).

• Should be avoided: Low-density polyethylene (e.g., Print File, Vue-All, and Clear File notebook pages and sleeves); cellulose acetate (e.g., Kodak Transparent Sleeves); polyvinyl chloride [PVC] (e.g., 20th Century Plastics vinyl notebook pages); surface-treated polypropylene (believed accept- able for slide pages, however); conventional glass- ine; acid-free glassine; kraft paper and most other common types of paper; matte polyester (e.g., DuPont Mylar EB-11); and synthetic paper-like materials (e.g., DuPont Tyvek).

1. Materials and adhesives used to make the enclosures must not be hygroscopic (attracting moisture from the surrounding air), nor contain any chemicals that could cause, or contribute to, fading or staining of black-and- white or color photographs during the intended storage period.

Glassine is specifically advised against by ANSI IT9.2-1991 and by Eastman Kodak.31 So-called “acid-free” alkaline-buffered glassine should also be avoided. The most satisfactory low-cost substitutes for glassine envelopes are high-den- sity polyethylene enclosures, which have been discussed previously.

From:
Dead Link Removed

Beyond the Library of Congress, the Society of American Archivists and Henry Wilhelm, I don't know what further proof we need that glassine of any type is not considered archival. Unfortunately, low-density polyethylene is out as well.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I don't think that is what is meant - and the wording and punctuation support this in the statement imo. In fact, the Society of American Archivists state the following:
"Glassine is often used to make envelopes to store photographic negatives. Its hygroscopic properties make it inappropriate for archival use."
http://www2.archivists.org/glossary/terms/g/glassine

It's this hygroscopic/ moisture absorbing property that can cause glassine - acidic or not - to stick to emulsions over time.

I live in a very warm climate with relatively high humidity throughout the year. In more than 50 years of using glassine sleeves I have never experienced any sticking or any other problems. However polyester sleeves will stick and require something like a letter opener to free the film from the sleeve. Glassine materials have been used for over a century in libraries and museums. Since there are several types of glassine paper I take the SAA blanket caution with a grain of salt. Of course negatives and prints should be stored properly and not subjected to high temperatures and humidity.

 

[Gibran]

I live in a very warm climate with relatively high humidity throughout the year. In more than 50 years of using glassine sleeves I have never experienced any sticking. However polyester sleeves will stick and require something like a letter opener to free the film from the sleeve. Glassine materials have been used for over a century in libraries and museums. Since there are several types of glassine paper I take the SAA blanket caution with a grain of salt. Of course negatives and prints should be stored properly and not subjected to high temperatures and humidity.

I live in Florida and have experienced my acid-free glassine sleeves from thirty years ago sticking to the emulsion of 4x5 negatives. I have been through hurricanes/ power outages, etc. so no doubt perfect conditions did not always exist. That said, it's only the negs in the glassine that stuck to the emulsion. I think I have provided plenty of references for the fact that glassine - acid free or not- is not considered archival for use by Museums today.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I live in Florida and have experienced my acid-free glassine sleeves from thirty years ago sticking to the emulsion of 4x5 negatives. I have been through hurricanes/ power outages, etc. so no doubt perfect conditions did not always exist. That said, it's only the negs in the glassine that stuck to the emulsion. I think I have provided plenty of references for the fact that glassine - acid free or not- is not considered archival for use by Museums today.

Interesting I too live in Florida. The eye of Charlie passed over my house and I eventually had to have major repairs to my roof. Interesting too that I have had the opposite observations. My 135 and 120 negatives are fine but those in polyester sleeves and pages often stick. When this happens a mark is left on the emulsion side. When you made your first post I was curious since I had never had any problems. I checked with three companies that sell archival supplies and they all sell glassine supplies as archival without any caveats. So agree to disagree.

 

[georg16nik]

...I checked with three companies that sell archival supplies and they all sell glassine supplies as archival without any caveats. So agree to disagree.

Glassine is chemically and physically unstable.
Even when a given material passes PAT, the “archival” label is discouraged by the ISO TC in at least two ISO documents.

 

[Gibran]

Interesting I too live in Florida. The eye of Charlie passed over my house and I eventually had to have major repairs to my roof. Interesting too that I have had the opposite observations. My 135 and 120 negatives are fine but those in polyester sleeves and pages often stick. When this happens a mark is left on the emulsion side. When you made your first post I was curious since I had never had any problems. I checked with three companies that sell archival supplies and they all sell glassine supplies as archival without any caveats. So agree to disagree.

I was lucky enough to live in Miami during Andrew and Central Florida during Charley.

In my case with the glassine, it stuck to the emulsion and, like paper products can do, left itself behind within the emulsion when removed. Polyethylene sleeves were used with most everything else.

Back at work today (a Museum), I note the following from this book:
Ritzenthaler, Mary Lynn & Diane L. Vogt-O'Connor with Helena Zinkham , Brett Carnell , and Kit A Peterson. PHOTOGRAPHS: ARCHIVAL CARE AND MANAGEMENT. Society of American Archivists, 2006
http://saa.archivists.org/store/photographs-archival-care-and-management/337/

"Glassine, which is often found as an enclosure for negatives in historical collections, is not recommended for storing photographs (see fig. 7.15). Most historical examples are acidic, and while contemporary glassine can be acid-free with a neutral PH, it is not possible to manufacture the desirable alkaline buffered stock. Glassine is also highly hygroscopic; under damp conditions it can cockle (thereby distorting image surfaces) and can also adhere directly to the materials it is intended to protect (see figure 7.16)." pg 228

That is the definitive last word on the archival quality and use of glassine.

 

[miha]

I'm using SVAR sleeves made of Dyapoly, Alkorprop D (polyproylen?), they claim they are of museum quality. I'm wonder if this material is gas pearmeable. In addition to this I'm surprised Print file, Clear file etc are not considered archival by the SAA according to one of the posts obove.

 

[Gibran]

I'm using SVAR sleeves made of Dyapoly, Alkorprop D (polyproylen?), they claim they are of museum quality. I'm wonder if this material is gas pearmeable. In addition to this I'm surprised Print file, Clear file etc are not considered archival by the SAA according to one of the posts obove.

That was from Wilhelm Imaging Research, not the SAA. I was surprised to see that as well. Later today, I will look through the SAA "bible", PHOTOGRAPHS: ARCHIVAL CARE AND MANAGEMENT and see what that source has to say. The general guidline from the source that the Library of Congress uses state the following but does not distinguish between low density and high density polyethylene. Low density polyethylene, used by Print File (which I still have a question about), etc., is what is in question by the Wilhelm source.

• Plastic enclosures should be made of uncoated polyester, polypropylene, or polyethylene – other plastics may have components or coatings that off-gas and weaken as they deteriorate, damaging photographs and other archival materials.
• Always avoid polyvinylchloride (PVC), as it is very unstable.
• Plastic should not be used to store nitrate or older safety film negatives

 

[Gibran]

In the SAA source book, PHOTOGRAPHS: ARCHIVAL CARE AND MANAGEMENT, referenced above, detailed polyethylene specifications are not given with regard to high density or low density. It does state that plastic is inappropriate for cellulose acetate negatives as the plastic would trap the volatile decomposition products unless they are stored in cold storage. This circles back to the thread title as it means that we should not be using any plastic storage sleeves for modern triacetate negatives but should instead be using a paper product that passes the PAT (photographic activity test)...but not glassine apparently.

Here is one more source that agrees with the Wilhelm reference with regard to the Polyethylene being of high density (so not the typical clear stuff like from PrintFile). It also otherwise agrees with the SAA and the Library of Congress. This is from the Canadian Council of Archives and can be downloaded from here:
http://www.cdncouncilarchives.ca/RBch6_en.pdf


Plastics
A wide variety of plastic enclosures are available. Plastic enclosures selected for archival
use should not contain plasticizers, slip agents, ultraviolet inhibitors, dyes, coatings or
other materials that can break down leading to the deterioration of the enclosed record.
Safe plastics include:
• Polyester (polyethylene terepthalate) Mylar Type D or Milinex 516
• Polypropylene
• Polyethylene – high density
• Polystyrene
• Polycarbonate

This source further states with regard to our modern, cellulose triacetate films:

Cellulose Acetate Base Film
Cellulose acetate film base, introduced in the early 1920s, was the second commercially
available plastic used for photographic negatives. Cellulose acetate was also known as
“safety film” as it was considered to be safer than cellulose nitrate. The term “cellulose
acetate” refers to a group of acetates which includes cellulose diacetate, cellulose acetate
butyrate, cellulose acetate propionate and cellulose triacetate. All of these cellulose
acetates deteriorate in a similar fashion and have the same storage and handling
requirements.

and, with regard to storing triacetate negatives:

Rehouse negatives in buffered paper envelopes that have passed the PAT.
Ideally, cellulose acetate negatives should be placed in cold storage. Original
cellulose acetate negatives should, where possible, be retained even if duplicate
negatives have been made.

 

[miha]

Very interesting if not at least a bit controversial, thanks. I'm not aware of paper sleeves (buffered, PAT tested...) beeing readily available.

 

[Gibran]

Very interesting if not at least a bit controversial, thanks. I'm not aware of paper sleeves (buffered, PAT tested...) beeing readily available.

They are from Gaylord.

Sleeves:
http://www.gaylord.com/Preservation/Archival-Envelopes,-Sleeves-&-Protectors/Gaylord®-80-lb-Text-Buffered-Negative-Strip-Envelopes-(100-Pack)/p/WE210B

Box for above:
http://www.gaylord.com/Preservation/Archival-Storage-Boxes/Photo,-Print-&-Art/Gaylord®-Tan-Barrier-Board-Flip-Top-Archival-Negative-Box/p/NSB

They also have a good reference for the archival storage of photographic materials.

http://www.gaylord.com/resources/guide-to-collections-care/section-2

 

[miha]

They are from Gaylord.

http://www.gaylord.com/Preservation/Archival-Storage-Boxes/Photo,-Print-&-Art/Gaylord®-Tan-Barrier-Board-Flip-Top-Archival-Negative-Box/p/NSB

Have a closer look at the image in your link - film strips in plastic sachets!! I fail to see the point.

 

[Gibran]

Have a closer look at the image in your link - film strips in plastic sachets!! I fail to see the point.

Unless the color film in the image is on polyester, that would not be the recommended archival method. Take a look at the other link I posted of the buffered paper negative envelopes. That's what is recommended to be used for cellulose triacetate based negatives. The plastic is alright though if the film is polyester as that is a stable film base, unlike triacetate.