Acetate vs Polyester base

[AgX]

Problem - I once put more than 40+ exp. in a 35mm cassette quite easily without realising that I'll struggle to put them in a (Jobo 1500) single reel.

When bulk loading in the past for my AE-1 I always spooled about 40 exposures into the cassette and never had issues with the clear Jobo reels, even not when a bit of film was outside the reel...

 

[georg16nik]

Lots of great films on Poly, still even in 2016.
Most of the AGFA made films need custom dev or at least some coffee brew.

The films from the “big” brands are acetate for 35mm and 120 but poly for all other formats.
Basically, if you are shooting 35mm or 120 and you sing in the Kodak/Ilford/Fuji church - you are screwed.
While the bigger formats made by the above mfg got the red carpet treatment.

business as usual.

 

[nworth]

The curl factor depends on the polyester material that is used. The APS films had a special polyester base that laid very flat, despite being tightly rolled in the cassette. Different manufacturers are likely to use different materials. I don't know the current situation, but the polyester base DuPont used for motion picture film was quite different from the material Kodak used for instrumentation films which was very different from the one that Kodak used for APS films. Since some of these materials cost more than others, material cost does enter into the manufacturing decision.

 

[ericdan]

The archival properties of polyester film are paramount to me. For that reason I only use polyester films - there are many in sheet film but not so with the roll films. If only Kodak made T-max 400 roll film with the polyester base!

agree. that would be awesome!

 

[ericdan]

Interesting as my experience with processing quite a bit of 80S and Superpan 200 is the opposite. I see a lot of curl lengthwise with 120, so much so that the film can still be stood on it's edge after storage under weight. Even the entire negative sleeve can be stood on it's edge. By contrast, TMY2 120 for instance dries amazingly flat. This is with a final rinse in Photo Flo. I would be curious if you are using a different wetting agent that might be giving flatter drying. Developer is either HC-110 or Rodinal. Adox CHS 100 II also curls a bit but not as severe as 80S and Superpan 200 in my experience.

80S is a film I have shot a lot of lately, purchased from both B&H and Argentix. Two different batches (one older and one newer with the different backing paper). Same experience with both. Beautiful film imo but the curl and, to a greater extent, the dirty film/ emulsion issues and or quality control (seen when scanned at hi res) are deal breakers for me.

I developed my Retro 80s in Rodinal 1+50 and used Fuji QuickWash and Fuji AgGuard (stabilizer + wetting agent).

 

[Gibran]

I developed my Retro 80s in Rodinal 1+50 and used Fuji QuickWash and Fuji AgGuard (stabilizer + wetting agent).

Thanks. Fuji AgGuard is not available here though one report I read said that it actually does prevent fiber based paper from curling. hmm. It seems like a very unique product.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060509171006/http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Ag_Guard

 

[ericdan]

Yeah I actually just printed 11x14 Adox MCC110 and ran it through AgGuard. It dried almost perfectly flat on a towel on the floor. Then ironed it on acid free sketching paper with low heat and put it under a heavy book for a day. Again in between paper sheets. It's absolutely flat. As flat as it would be out of a press. Not sure if it's the AgGuard or the paper itself.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Thanks. Fuji AgGuard is not available here though one report I read said that it actually does prevent fiber based paper from curling. hmm. It seems like a very unique product.
http://web.archive.org/web/20060509171006/http://wiki.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Ag_Guard

I never heard that before but will now have to try it!

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I have negatives on acetate base that are many decades old. They show no sign of deterioration. I see no reason to worry about archival permanence especially in this age of air conditioning. It would be high heat and humidity that would cause problems.

 

[ericdan]

Like 32 degrees Celsius and 98% humidity?
AKA Japanese summer

so if I wanna keep shooting my acetate based Tri-X or HP5 I need to keep the air-conditioning running when I am not home.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The negatives in my possession have experienced only a small amount of time under optimal conditions. For most of their existence they were exposed to the heat and humidity of unrelenting tropical Florida.

 

[ericdan]

Ok, the humidity in Florida probably is worse than here.

 

[destroya]

80s and 400s are nice but quite high in contrast. I assume realistically they are more like 50 and 200 iso respectively.

I have shot many rolls of both films. I settled on Pyrocat Mc and beutler for both depending on thesituation. In lower contrast scenes I use pyrocat. The 80s shot at 50 and400s/superpan at 160. For higher contrast I shoot the 80s at 80 using beutler 1+1+8 and the 400s/superpan at 160 in beutler 1+1+10. Both give great sharpness and tonalrange. The beutler has higher accutance.

 

[mooseontheloose]

Like 32 degrees Celsius and 98% humidity?
AKA Japanese summer

so if I wanna keep shooting my acetate based Tri-X or HP5 I need to keep the air-conditioning running when I am not home.

That's what I've been doing since I moved back to Japan six years ago, for both negs and cameras/lenses. The utility cost does go up a bit, but it the equivalent to a night out with friends, so I don't worry about it too much.

 

[mnemosyne]

That's what I've been doing since I moved back to Japan six years ago, for both negs and cameras/lenses. The utility cost does go up a bit, but it the equivalent to a night out with friends, so I don't worry about it too much.

Hm. Heat certainly doesn't help, but humidity and and light are your biggest enemies. And me thinks there should be less wasteful methods to protect negatives from humidity than keeping a whole apartment air conditioned 24/7. For film sleeves/binders, what about the "dry boxes" they sell in Japan for camera gear in combination with something like
http://www.yodobashi.com/コダック-Kodak-8597684-フィルム保存剤-モレキュラーシーブ-120パック-1ガロン/pd/100000001003137101/
which should be "film safe". Pack your negatives in the box on a dry day before the start of the rainy season. This should get them over the Kyoto summer?

 

[mooseontheloose]

Hm. Heat certainly doesn't help, but humidity and and light are your biggest enemies. And me thinks there should be less wasteful methods to protect negatives from humidity than keeping a whole apartment air conditioned 24/7. For film sleeves/binders, what about the "dry boxes" they sell in Japan for camera gear in combination with something like
http://www.yodobashi.com/コダック-Kodak-8597684-フィルム保存剤-モレキュラーシーブ-120パック-1ガロン/pd/100000001003137101/
which should be "film safe". Pack your negatives in the box on a dry day before the start of the rainy season. This should get them over the Kyoto summer?

You're right, it does seem a bit much, but it helps with non-photographic things too (like clothes and shoes) as heat+humidity is a killer for so many things since it often leads to mold and mildew. I do keep photo stuff in the dark, in dry boxes, with additional dry packs inside to help. I also have about 30 "dry pets" - a desiccant that turns liquid (in a plastic container) scattered throughout the apartment and in closets and cupboards to help. In the winter it takes about 3-4 months for the desiccant to turn liquid, in summer it's usually about a week. Luckily, my apartment is small (by Western standards) and the 2 aircon units I have are brand-new and eco-friendly, so everything helps. I'm not a fan of air conditioning per se, but I do keep the units on "dry/dehumidify" and the temp at around 26 degrees, in my attempts to not be excessive but protect the thousands of dollars worth of gear and travel (for the negatives) that I have stored here. For me it's worth it.

 

[georg16nik]

...And me thinks there should be less wasteful methods to protect negatives from humidity than keeping a whole apartment air conditioned 24/7...

Keeping a whole apartment (or room) air conditioned 24/7 is no guarantee the humidity and temperature will be kept at optimum.
Acetate films archival inferiority is business opportunity for all manufactures to milk the photographer a bit more - fancy envelopes, storage containers.. The films will still out-gas, so you need to replace the envelopes every now and then.

Acetate films will degrade measurably within 30 to 40 years even when stored within optimal environment.

 

[miha]

Image Permanence Institute on Acetate film storage:

Full aricle: https://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/webfm_send/299

 

[MartinP]

Acetate films will degrade measurably within 30 to 40 years even when stored within optimal environment.

I print negatives from family archives (stored in shoe-boxes and loose in a drawer) regularly and have noticed no visible deterioration and no strange smells, despite the negs being over fifty years old, though all safety film. Perhaps 'measurable' means with instrumentation, rather than in actual use?

Do I recall correctly that 'perfect' storage conditions are a couple of degrees above freezing and very very dry? In which case any livable household environment is sub-optimal, to say the least.

 

[mnemosyne]

Like 32 degrees Celsius and 98% humidity?
AKA Japanese summer

so if I wanna keep shooting my acetate based Tri-X or HP5 I need to keep the air-conditioning running when I am not home.

Eric, I think you are worrying too much. I agree Tokyo is a very humid experience between June and September but average RH is certainly nowhere close to 98%. Take some precautions during the summer (store your negatives together with desiccants), use common sense, but don't freak out over it. If it comforts you, I have survived two years in Ishikawa pref where it is basically wet and humid year round with an annual average RH of 73% (compared to 62% for Tokyo and 76% for Havana, Cuba). Even then, I didn't notice any ill effect on my negatives.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

A brief article from those concerned with film preservation.

http://www.filmpreservation.org/preservation-basics/vinegar-syndrome

As the article points out " its (vinegar syndrome) progress very much depends on storage conditions.." As others attest in their experience, in my 70 years in photography I have never seen a single case. Despite what some may think the condition is not the ultimate fate of all acetate based film.

Vinegar syndrome appears to be an autocatalytic process. The acid fumes encourage further degradation. Therefore it is recommended that film be stored in archival cardboard boxes rather than in sealed metal cans which confine the acid fumes. This is particularly true of cine film which is usually stored in its original cans.

 

[BAC1967]

Kodak used to sell acid scavenger packs that you could put in the can with the film and it would absorb the acid gas and help prevent VS from spreading. I have a can of these I use for my cine film. I have Kodachrome film from the 1930's that is still good. It may have some fade (I'm not sure how good Kodachrome was in when it first came out) but it doesn't have VS yet. Like Gerald said, don't keep the film sealed in an air tight container, the acid gas needs to escape so it doesn't spread to the rest of the film. Keep film out of attics, garages, damp basements etc., the heat and moisture will destroy it.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The use of plastic sleeves or binder pages is probably not a good idea either. Glassine sleeves or envelops would allow for better air flow. They can be obtained from sites that sell archival storage materials. Plastic also tends to stick to negatives making removal difficult. Glassine does not have this problem.

 

[Gibran]

The use of plastic sleeves or binder pages is probably not a good idea either. Glassine sleeves or envelops would allow for better air flow. They can be obtained from sites that sell archival storage materials. Plastic also tends to stick to negatives making removal difficult. Glassine does not have this problem.

I have seen glassine stick to both negatives and prints before (most commonly with others work as I work in a museum). I used to use glassine about thirty years ago for my own work (negative sleeves) but did notice some of these earliest negatives ended up sticking to the glassine where negatives stored in "archival" plastic during the same period did not stick. When the glassine sticks, it will leave a bit of itself behind stuck to the print or negative upon removal. My guess is that work which does end up sticking to glassine is not constantly stored under ideal conditions (particularly with regard to humidity) so I'm sure that is a major factor, but it is something to consider (perhaps particularly for those who live in more humid climates). One of the best - and cheapest- materials for interleaving between prints I have found is Tyvek btw. It has the best qualities of both plastic and glassine in that it is breathable yet will not come apart under non ideal storage conditions like glassine. I have never seen negative sleeves made of tyvek but that would be ideal probably.

http://www.materialconcepts.com/tyvek/archival-art-supplies/

 

[Jon Buffington]

The archival properties of polyester film are paramount to me. For that reason I only use polyester films - there are many in sheet film but not so with the roll films. If only Kodak made T-max 400 roll film with the polyester base!

You mean something like this?

Data sheet for it, http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/1c/0900688a802b0c1c/ti1838.pdf

ESTAR base

Just picked this roll up so I will be giving it a thorough testing. Don't know how much of this is floating around though out there. Sample images looked fantastic from seller. He developed stand in Rodinal 1:100 for 1 hr. Low grain, very sharp, nice tonal range. Guessing T grain since the color version of this is T grain. Data sheet says extremely fine grained and high resolving power, later to state resolution at 125 lpmm. Developing times though are different from Tmax 400