Are All Archival Plastic Binders Basically The Same?

[DF]

I need more binders for my l sheets of negatives. There's some real bargains out there, as well as a wide array of $$prices.
My concern is the fold which seems thin on all of them reguardless of price.- that it tares eventually if opened and closed frequently.

 

[wiltw]

After some investigation, I would have more concern about the true 'archival' characteristics than about binder durability!
Library of Congress states this about photo storage:

"Materials
Many commercially available enclosures are labeled "archival" or "acid-free". However, some of these same items may contain lignin, dyes, sizing agents, coatings, plasticizers, or other harmful additives. Never use enclosures made from unprocessed woodpulp paper, glassine, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to house or store photographs."​

Yet in all of the dozen or so 'archival biner' products that I read product descriptions, only ONE mentioned the nature of the carboard used (acid fee) and NONE mentioned the nature of the plastic binder material! Most ordinary binders are made from PVC, which outgasses to attach organic dyes, Unadressed in the product descriptions:

• Are 'archival' binders made from polyethelene rather than PVC?! dunno.
• And while cardboard may be 'acid free', do they contain Lignin, which also outgasses fumes which attack organic dyes?! dunno

Sadly, the warnings posted in decades past have disappeared from the internet...warnings are harder to find. What we do not know will not harm us, right?! no.

I know from first hand experience what vinyl sheet protectors can do to photocopies (the image sticks and transfers to the sleeve) and to dye sublimation prints produced by a Sony medical printer (resulting in fade/color shift). That was only after testing done due to a Kodak tech bulletin I had read in the 1980's, leading to my tests.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Some binders have flaps that seal the binder to keep out dirt and dust. I also would get ones with the D ring rather than a round ring. You can put in more sheets, they lay flatter, and you can turn the pages easier.

 

[Pieter12]

Some binders have flaps that seal the binder to keep out dirt and dust. I also would get ones with the D ring rather than a round ring. You can put in more sheets, they lay flatter, and you can turn the pages easier.

Does anyone make the D ring binders anymore?

 

[Robert Maxey]

Does anyone make the D ring binders anymore?

Mr. Google says yes.

Bob

 

[Robert Maxey]

Sadly, the warnings posted in decades past have disappeared from the internet...warnings are harder to find. What we do not know will not harm us, right?! no.

I know from first hand experience what vinyl sheet protectors can do to photocopies (the image sticks and transfers to the sleeve) and to dye sublimation prints produced by a Sony medical printer (resulting in fade/color shift). That was only after testing done due to a Kodak tech bulletin I had read in the 1980's, leading to my tests.

I once bought tons of archival slide file pages from a well known and now long gone specialist most here remember. They turned oily after a few years. So the experts are not very expert. I have stored negs in glassine and Kraft for decades, with no issues. I worked with a large company collection of negatives and plates going back to 1890, no problems. Dye Transfer Prints retain acids with few issues.

The issue with things sticking, it is common practice to use a mat to keep the images from touching the glass.

Bob, on the fence, seeking knowledge.

 

[Pieter12]

Mr. Google says yes.

Bob

I don't see any of the clamshell type with D rings.

 

[wiltw]

I don't see any of the clamshell type with D rings.

Googled 'archival D-ring binder' ...

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...ch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=

...and this resulted from that
https://www.archivalmethods.com/product/ring-folio-binder-box

 

[wiltw]

I once bought tons of archival slide file pages from a well known and now long gone specialist most here remember. They turned oily after a few years. So the experts are not very expert. I have stored negs in glassine and Kraft for decades, with no issues. I worked with a large company collection of negatives and plates going back to 1890, no problems. Dye Transfer Prints retain acids with few issues.

The issue with things sticking, it is common practice to use a mat to keep the images from touching the glass.
.

My point was that if you put negatives and unmounted slides into sleeves, there is no spacer to keep things from sticking to a sleeve made from the wrong plastic (vinyls); and even if there is a spacer, the plasticizer attacks the organic dyes of anything inside. Or if you insert an 8x10 print into that size sleeve, there is no spacer either.

 

[Pieter12]

Googled 'archival D-ring binder' ...

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en...ch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&tbs=

...and this resulted from that
https://www.archivalmethods.com/product/ring-folio-binder-box

Yeah. 50 bucks vs 10 for an O ring plastic clamshell binder. I'm not about to shell out that much when I can spend it on film & paper.

 

[wiltw]

Yeah. 50 bucks vs 10 for an O ring plastic clamshell binder. I'm not about to shell out that much when I can spend it on film & paper.

That is not the only D-ring binder, I merely offered it as ONE of several different offerings on the market, which resulted from a Google search.
I am quite accustomed to premium pricing in anything labled 'archival' over the decades; you risk damage to images just buying the stuff without 'archival' claim, but you have to be cautious in questioning the claim 'archival'.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Do not put negatives that are still damp or wet into negative pages.
I have used three ring binders and boxes that snap shut. I prefer the boxes since they also protect from dust. If those do not meet your binder needs, try boiled rice or Kaopectake.

 

[warden]

I need more binders for my l sheets of negatives. There's some real bargains out there, as well as a wide array of $$prices.
My concern is the fold which seems thin on all of them reguardless of price.- that it tares eventually if opened and closed frequently.

I don't like those living hinges either but haven't had one fail so far.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here's the one I use for my 4x5", 4 to a plastic page. It's an oversize binder with 1 1/2" silver D rings. $25. Size 11.125 x 13.375" Slip case extra.
Print File Grand Premium Archival Oversized Album Binder (bhphotovideo.com)

 

[fgorga]

My take on archival anything...

Presumably one is considering archival storage because one values whatever you want to store.

Therefore it is unwise to skimp in this area.

When I buy archival materials I tend to stick with the known brands that have a good reputation in archival storage. These folks have put many resources and much time into earning their reputation and want to protect that reputation. Therefore they generally provide wares of well defined characteristics made from quality materials suitable for archival storage. Furthermore, the products they provide are consistent over even fairly long periods of time.

You give up most of these desirable attributes when you purchase stuff from random vendors based mainly on price. There may be good stuff out at bargain prices, but the odds are not working for you.

In my view buying archival materials from random vendors just to save a few bucks is a risky proposition... a risk I am not willing to take.

Regards,

 

[Pieter12]

I use PrintFile archival pages and archival clamshell boxes from Besfile (Beseler) and Vue-All. These are reputable, established companies and I can only go by their claim that the pages and boxes are archival. And 5 times the price is not an unsubstantial amount when you have accumulated a fair amount of negative pages over the years.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

After some investigation, I would have more concern about the true 'archival' characteristics than about binder durability!
Library of Congress states this about photo storage:

"Materials​

Many commercially available enclosures are labeled "archival" or "acid-free". However, some of these same items may contain lignin, dyes, sizing agents, coatings, plasticizers, or other harmful additives. Never use enclosures made from unprocessed woodpulp paper, glassine, or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to house or store photographs."​

Yet in all of the dozen or so 'archival biner' products that I read product descriptions, only ONE mentioned the nature of the carboard used (acid fee) and NONE mentioned the nature of the plastic binder material! Most ordinary binders are made from PVC, which outgasses to attach organic dyes, Unadressed in the product descriptions:

• Are 'archival' binders made from polyethelene rather than PVC?! dunno.
• And while cardboard may be 'acid free', do they contain Lignin, which also outgasses fumes which attack organic dyes?! dunno

Sadly, the warnings posted in decades past have disappeared from the internet...warnings are harder to find. What we do not know will not harm us, right?! no.

I know from first hand experience what vinyl sheet protectors can do to photocopies (the image sticks and transfers to the sleeve) and to dye sublimation prints produced by a Sony medical printer (resulting in fade/color shift). That was only after testing done due to a Kodak tech bulletin I had read in the 1980's, leading to my tests.

I know this is almost a year old, but here are mi dos centavos: I have hundreds of slides in PVC holders dating back forty years. They are just fine. PVC outgasses only so long.

"Archival" processing and desires seems to be a knee jerk, "gotta do it," effort in photography. No one asks, "Why do we want these prints or slides to last 'forever'?" WHO exactly will be grateful of your efforts? Just tossing that in.

 

[Sirius Glass]

There are different size, shapes and thickness binders. I like the ones that are a case which keeps out dust.