Archived negatives have excessive shift. Ideas? Help?

[MattKing]

If I read the OP correctly, in at least some instances the colour shift is uneven across individual frames.

 

[Down Under]

If I read the OP correctly, in at least some instances the colour shift is uneven across individual frames.

This may be due to bad processing. Even then the jury is out - many of my 1970s color negatives were processed by cheap labs in Sydney (Australia) and show uneven color shifts, which is annoying as my post-processing work after scanning is endless and fiddly. In the 1980s my then partner worked for Kodak Australasia. I shot many hundreds of rolls of (sfaff discount price) Kodak C41 and E6 and had almost all of my color processing done by their Melbourne lab. These have remained almost perfect with little or no fading. However, all my C41 films processed by Kodak-affiliated color labs in Southeast Asia show considerable color shifts. The worst were done in Indonesia and show up to 50% fading. My current partner's family in Malaysia also shot C41 in the '80s and '90s. Oddly, theirs are still in very good to fine condition altho not what I consider to be archivally perfect. Anecdotal, yes. Significant, surely.

In my case, 60% (three in five images) of the color shifts and fading in my photo archives can be undone or at least minimized by post-processing Results aren't what I would call satisfying, but sufficient for my needs and to pass on to family.

Someone in this thread criticizes our "anecdotal" comments. To that I will say - is this not a way for us to tackle problem-solving? We are not academcs or professionals, but photographers trying to get the information out there. To this end, any information we post is valuable.

I will repeat one comment I made in an earlier post. If an image valuable to you shows significant fading or color shift, you should make a black-and-white scan of it. You then have the image secured against the day the colors and details in your negative or slide will have extinguished itself.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I criticized "anecdotal" comments. People throw out this or that hard-nosed generic opinion based on a tidbit of personal experience, which might be valid as far as their limited perspective goes; but this kind of topic has indeed been highly researched. And to the extent you don't dig deeper than a handful of such opinions and take advantage of those professional results widely available to just about anyone these days, you're leaving yourself open to misinformation. I've seen owners of very pricy photo galleries go from rich to outright bankrupt with multiple pending lawsuits because they followed anecdotal opinions and didn't do their homework. How would you feel buying a $7000 print, and opening the portfolio box a few month later, saw just an antique piece of paper with no image left on it! - all because the gallery owner was so cheap he used particle board shelving in the back room, which outgasses formaldehyde glue. On a different forum someone recommended that same material for building a print cabinet, and even left his unsealed! Now multiply that $7000 gallery complaint by about a 100 times as many irreplaceable historically important prints and it no longer becomes anecdotal, but legal. Yes, the gallery owner consulted a professional art conservator first - but one who was expert in restoring marble statues, and obviously didn't know a darn thing about photographs. He cussed at me for recommending plated wire shelving with air circulation, so he couldn't claim he wasn't warned by someone.

 

[GBS]

Since the color shifts are likely due to different dyes fading at different rates, the easiest way to color-correct the scans is to use software with a "levels" control. By adjusting the back and white points for each of the three color channels (red, green, and blue), I have found that decent color balance can usually be obtained. I have done this so often that I can use the keyboard shortcuts without thinking. Although the RGB channels may not completely match the negative dyes, they are fairly similar.

Thanks for the suggestion. As you can see in example #2, the shift is not always even (maybe 50% of the time). I'm somewhat capable of correction on evenly shifted negatives. What I'm seeking is someone with experience with this specific blue shift. It appears on more than one film type, from more than one lab, over 5 (or more) year span, and all stored in Printfile sleeves in more than one binder. The temp and humidity was what you would expect inside an average home. No smoking. The one unifying factor is that if there are any shifted frames on a roll, usually the entire roll shows some shift. The degree varies frame-to-frame, but usually attacks entire rolls.

 

[GBS]

Someone in this thread criticizes our "anecdotal" comments. To that I will say - is this not a way for us to tackle problem-solving? We are not academcs or professionals, but photographers trying to get the information out there. To this end, any information we post is valuable.

I'm thankful for everyone's input. I'm new to the forum and am finding it difficult to sort through the replies because of various "maybes" and personal stories. I absolutely appreciate all the input, and maybe wandering is part of the process, which I accept.

As a non-chemist, I'm hoping someone has seen this particular issue, but I'm not critical of any suggestions that are relative to a massive blue shift on negatives from ~20 years ago. Considering the other variables (different stocks, different labs, different storage binders), I have to assume it was environmental. Which is odd, because they were in a climate controlled environment. I know that doesn't count for proper "archival storage" but we all know 20 years for Kodak negatives kept in average conditions shouldn't show the kind of shift I'm seeing.

all because the gallery owner was so cheap he used particle board shelving in the back room, which outgasses formaldehyde glue.

This alone makes me curious as to what was in that closet. From my recollection it was CDs, books, vinyl albums, 16mm reels, and some cassette tapes. I don't think there was any new construction material in there, but there could've been a particle board shelf. Oh S**T. I didn't even think about my original 16mm negatives until now. SMH

 

[DREW WILEY]

Vinyl outgasses plasticizers over long periods. Our houses are full of the stuff. Just look at the endless smudges on the inside of your car windshield above a vinyl dashboard. We breathe that too. Such plasticizers are known to be very bad for photographs. Vinyl photo album sleeves were infamous for ruining film and prints; but a buildup of such vapors trapped inside a closet would probably have a similar bad effect too. Also think about house paints and whether or not they're fully outgassed prior to photos being in proximity. Some paints and varnishes take a couple weeks to fully outgas, some many years. I've equipped museum display and fixture shops, and it's amazing just how nitpicky they need to be before they feel secure handling valuable collections.

 

[Down Under]

How would you feel buying a $7000 print, and opening the portfolio box a few month later, saw just an antique piece of paper with no image left on it! - all because the gallery owner was so cheap he used particle board shelving in the back room, which outgasses formaldehyde glue.

Is this not "anecdotal"?

...am finding it difficult to sort through the replies because of various "maybes" and personal stories.

With respect, the "maybes" and "personal stories" are the direct experiences we have had in the same problem area as you and were offered as ideas to guide you (and the rest of us) to possible solutions to the problems, which are not only one but many and admittedly complex issues. It is really up to all of us to read the posts and make our own decisions as to what applies and what doesn't.

If you prefer to wade through more technical information, the following web site will provide you with all the data you will ever need or want -

http://wilhelm-research.com/

There is nothing "anecdotal" in here to annoy black-or-white thinkers and it will be a massive learning experience for you as it was for me. the problem i encountered with all this knowledge is that I came up with many probable reasons to my problems but no practical or easily applicable solutions other than what I had already realized, the application of many long hours of tedious post-processing after the scanning. This said, read and enjoy!!

 

[DREW WILEY]

No, it's not anecdotal, but a highly researched topic and standard information to the art conservation trade. To the fool that didn't want to double-check those facts, it was more like a "school of hard knocks" learning curve with a big lump on the head. I guess if a brick hits someone on the head when they're napping below a decrepit chimney during an earthquake it becomes an "anecdote". But it's predictable.

 

[Down Under]

No, it's not anecdotal, but a highly researched topic and standard information to the art conservation trade. To the fool that didn't want to double-check those facts, it was more like a "school of hard knocks" learning curve with a big lump on the head. I guess if a brick hits someone on the head when they're napping below a decrepit chimney during an earthquake it becomes an "anecdote". But it's predictable.

Drew, you have more than adequately identified the problems. What solutions do you offer??

 

[DREW WILEY]

Given the fact that most of us aren't a museum, here's a few things I've done in my own home : Measure the humidity in various parts of the house over the seasons, either with a meter or little humidity pieces of paper analogous to litmus paper, to scout for the best storage locations. Ideally these would be near a perimeter wall rather than an external wall unless you have exceptionally good insulation. Make sure any repainting outgasses well. Remove anything nearby made of vinyl or with a "plasticky" smell. Storage racks should ideally have good air circulation around them. This can be assisted using a little circulating air cleaner. Hopefully, your spouse won't pile her stuff in front of your collection (I speak from experience). Do a little homework with a serious archival box and sleeve supplier like Archival Methods for the best storage options. Frequently air out the room when weather permits. As per shelving and so forth : Chrome plated or stainless wire racks are best, but if wood or plywood, let the material air out well. Then the best form of sealant is either shellac primer prior to painting or clear shellac. Don't confuse real shellac with varnish or lacquer or polyurethane. If you use any of those as a top coat, make sure they cure well (curing time is substantially longer than drying time). Steady moderately low humidity is better than wide swings. There's obviously way more to it than this brief list; but I don't want to overcomplicate it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Drew these sound like solutions to prevent it happening again whereas the OP I think is looking for things that will rectify his current negs. I can think of no chemical means of restoration. Skilled scanning looks like the only solution and even that may be a second best solution only.

pentaxuser

 

[DREW WILEY]

That's the idea. Stop things from degrading further and hopefully protect the remaining negs for awhile longer. Any "restoration" is realistically going to have to be digital.

 

[Down Under]

(...)Any "restoration" is realistically going to have to be digital.

YES!!! As some of us have been saying all along.

Now that we are back on track...

 

[GBS]

Thanks everyone! Hoping someday someone who's seen this can put the OCD part of my brain to rest with the "why" part, but it must've been environmental. That said, The closet was in an older home and the paint wasn't new at all. Who knows what type it was, though. And who knows what else was in there, including the storage box material. Seems like it was pretty inert stuff, but I can't say. And I wasn't measuring humidity and I'm int he south. Still...My grandparent's negatives are in better shape, and they were also in the south. The bottom line: who knows?

I did download Wilhelm's book and will take my time with that.

I believe I've got them in a good location as of now, and hope it doesn't spread much in the coming year. I should have them all proof-scanned by then and can proceed with digital restoration as (and if) needed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, we aren't exactly on track. Someone is going to have to shift rails over onto the Digital subsection, or buy a book on digital restoration. If the negs were black and white and not color, it can often be done completely in a darkroom. But as much as certain procedures have been simplified via scanning, it still involves time and work, so when a quantity of photos is involved, prolonging them as long as possible through improved storage is a good idea.

 

[GBS]

I'm not terribly concerned about the restoration part now. I can cross that bridge after I asses the full extent of the damage. I was hoping for a clear answer from someone who had experience with the extreme blue shift for my own peace of mind. In general, I already knew what I was afraid to hear confirmed: there's no reversing the damage, physically.

I believe the storage conditions were fair, at the very least, and should not have caused such drastic shift. But alas, they shifted and they shifted for a reason. I have to let go of pinpointing it, especially since nothing will bring hem back.

They are currently in an open closet with materials that likely out-gassed long ago, if they even did at all. An overhead fan in the main room helps circulate air through the closet. I may as well swap them to open binders or hanging files, vs enclosed "archival" binders, as I don't see the value of having the sleeves boxed in, save for putting silica packets inside if they ever have to go back into a more long-term, out-of-reach storage.

I'll revisit this as I make new discoveries and post some success stories for salvaged important frames for any future readers.

Thanks again for the input. At the very least, it reminded me to be thorough and hawkish with my storage moving forward. I don't understand why some of these degraded so much, some did not, all while many negatives that others have kept in "worse" conditions are fine. But therein lies the issue: my conditions weren't good. Why, exactly, I'll never know as I've moved from that house and can't recreate the scenario. I can only do better moving forward!

 

[Paul Howell]

I have the same issues, going back to the mid 60s, high school and later college, I shot Kodak when I could afford the higher cost of film, or shot Kodachrome. When lean on cash, most of the time, I used Kmart and Sears branded film which was GAF. The GAF negatives have all shifted, slide film also faded. GAF 500 is the worse, I will likely toss them, useless. Kodak has held up better, but like you some negatives are shifted while others are in pretty good shape and can be printed. I was trying to think when Kodak C22 became C 41, the C22 seem to have held up better than the later C41. GAF held on to there ANSCO processes until the bitter end.

 

[pentaxuser]

If it is any consolation and I doubt it but I had the same problem with colour negatives taken in the 1970s and developed by various labs. Once I received the negs and print back I simply stored the negs in a neg binder which I reasonably assumed was fit for the job and yet a lot of the negs have got a serious magenta cast but not all.

Some say that in those days and they may be right, the whole process was waterless in terms of not washing and we paid the price in lack of longevity. Others say that colour neg films have improved considerably and this is much less likely to happen with colour neg film nowadays .

I hope it is the latter because if not, then few of us can be sure or even make sure that we have gallery/museum storage conditions in our houses. I fear that if a negative album where the nags are kept at normal room temp and in the dark is not good enough then many of the new film users that have allegedly generated the revival of film in the last 2-3 years will then question why they were ever tempted to use film

Now here's the strange thing or maybe not, the prints from those negs made in the 1970s all look fine and are kept in similar albums

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

I was trying to think when Kodak C22 became C 41, the C22 seem to have held up better than the later C41. GAF held on to there ANSCO processes until the bitter end.

1972
By the time I was working in camera stores - the late 1970s - even our house brand manufactured by GAF print film was C-41.

 

[wiltw]

I have the same issues, going back to the mid 60s, high school and later college, I shot Kodak when I could afford the higher cost of film, or shot Kodachrome. When lean on cash, most of the time, I used Kmart and Sears branded film which was GAF. The GAF negatives have all shifted, slide film also faded. GAF 500 is the worse, I will likely toss them, useless. Kodak has held up better, but like you some negatives are shifted while others are in pretty good shape and can be printed. I was trying to think when Kodak C22 became C 41, the C22 seem to have held up better than the later C41. GAF held on to there ANSCO processes until the bitter end.

Kodakk C-22 was used from 1956 - 1974...was used starting in 1972 for 110 format.

 

[Paul Howell]

1972
By the time I was working in camera stores - the late 1970s - even our house brand manufactured by GAF print film was C-41.

By that time I had enough money to shoot Kodak, if in bind maybe 3M, the last GAF I used was slide film GAF 400 for speed, developed it myself, not E6, more like a E4 process, GAF Photo bellied up in 1977 or so I thought their negative film was still the older process.

 

[MattKing]

When I think of it, our house brand probably came from 3M, not GAF

 

[GBS]

Apart from ensuring that storage conditions are optimal, there may be benefit in rewashing the film and treating it with a stabilizer bath, preferably an old fashioned type with formalin.

@koraks I've been thinking about this a lot, as I come to understand more about the old vs. new stabilizers. My local lab also suggested the same thing.

I often shot discount film (which, I'm assuming, was probably close to expired). So I'm curious if I had 'old' film that was processed with 'new' stabilizer. To get a sense of this can you, or anyone, definitively answer:

1) What year did C41 film manufacturing change to the 'new' stabilizer method? Was that date uniform across all manufacturers?
2) What year was the 'new' stabilizer method introduced to labs? Was the changeover date uniform across all labs (within reason, of course)?
OR
Was the changeover in lab formulas gradual and somewhat arbitrary?

It seems like the old stabilizer would have had to stay in machines for a few years after the 'new' film was made to account for 'old' film still out in the world. Maybe that's the case, but I can't find specific date info on the changeovers.

Some of my yellowing rolls start in '95 and so far I've seen it in '97 and '00. These are development dates. I don't have notes for when the film was made.

 

[pentaxuser]

One thing that many people may not be aware of is the fact that some labs use(d) washless C41 processors. The process goes CD, Bleach, Fix, and then usually 3x stab baths. I'm not sure how stable/unstable this will render C41 films. But I'd be surprised if it had no effect at all...

It might depend on the stab baths. So in a time is money lab and if it is stab alone then it may be that there it was inadequate but if the stab is mixed in j large quantities of water and several washes were used then it might be OK

There was a long thread on the Bellini home user C41 kit over which we declared WWIII over whether the claim it did not need any water rinse prior to stab was a correct statement. Once we had buried our dead we signed an armistice that appeared to declare that it was in fact a water-stab bath that the Bellini kit used and in its case quite a lot of water was involved

I don't wish to re-start the hostilities. I am simply pointing out that if stab does involve water but is still referred to as stab then it may be OK

pentaxuser

 

[GBS]

It might depend on the stab baths. So in a time is money lab and if it is stab alone then it may be that there it was inadequate but if the stab is mixed in j large quantities of water and several washes were used then it might be OK

@pentaxuser Thank you for this input. Beyond environmental factors, I'm starting to wonder about the stabilizers used and yours is helpful information. That said, there's no way to tell what the labs in question used since I don't have a record of where each roll was developed. Unfortunately, I'm unable to track down the integrity of the stabilizer(s) used on my rolls in question.

On that note, one thing I can continue to research is the changeover timeframe from formalin stabilizer to formalin-free stabilizer.

I'll reask my last question:

Preface: I often shot discount film (which, I'm assuming, was probably close to expired). So, I'm curious if my rolls in question were older, and meant for formalin, but were processed with formalin-free stabilizer. To get a sense of this can you, or anyone, definitively answer:

1) What year did C41 film manufacturing change to formalin-free stabilizer? Was that date uniform across all manufacturers?
2) What year was the formalin-free stabilizer method introduced to labs? Was the changeover date uniform across all labs?
OR
Did labs change from formalin to formalin-free stabilizers gradual and somewhat arbitrarily?

It seems like formalin stabilizer would have had to stay in use for a few years after the formalin-free film was made to account for 'old' formalin film that was still out in the world. Maybe that's the case, but I can't find specific date info on the changeovers.

Footnote: I have not assessed the entirety of the damage, but so far the yellowing rolls start in '95 and I've seen it in '97 and '00. These are development dates. I don't have notes for when the film was made.