Cleaning Old Prints & Negs

[George Collier]

I am scanning a large number of old (back to early 20th century, and possibly earier) negs and prints of family and ancestors. Most of the prints are not mounted, and many of them are not clean - anything from tape residue to peanut butter, I suppose. I am doing well with the negs cleaning with a graphic arts cleaner called Film Kleen. When I was in the army, I saw contemporary prints cleaned occasionally with something like this. I have some prints I don't want to take a chance with, and haven't tried cleaning them yet.

I also have a gallon of Isopropyl Alcohol that is 100% (or nearly so, purchased from a druggist), so I could use that too.

Anyone know what is best - for the negs and the prints?

 

[Bob Carnie]

George all I can say is to be careful , and I will be watching this thread with interest. I do a lot of this kind of work and presently I do not clean the originals.

 

[Ian C]

Don’t touch them with alcohol. The water content can do bad things to the gelatin.

Instead use naphtha in small amounts applied with a Q-tip or small piece of freshly laundered cotton cloth and be GENTLE.

I found that lighter fuel like Ronsonal works well and has a dispensing spout that allows as little as one or two drops at a time. Since this is lighter fuel you must be careful. There can be no source of spark or flame anywhere near.

I and many others have used this for cleaning oily or gummy residue from negatives, slides, and prints for years without harming emulsions or the support or paper below. I’ve used this regularly since 1985.

I have removed lipstik and even ballpoint pen ink (an oil-based ink) from prints that were to be copied using naphtha.

Alcohol almost always contains water. Even anhydrous alcohol readily absorbs water vapor from the air above it in any less than full container because alcohol and water are perfectly soluble in each other.

 

[George Collier]

Thanks, Bob and Ian for the comments. Let's see if anyone else weighs in.
I'm kind of hoping for a comment from PE.
I'll post my own observations when I do something.

 

[chimneyfinder]

Hello George. I used to work in museums and I now do digital photo restoration for a shop. My experience is that older prints and negatives are usually not receptive to general cleaning techniques that can make much difference. Restoration is largely confined to major museums who would have the knowledge to undertake this with the purpose of archiving and it is my understanding that photo materials aren't cleaned so much as stabilised to retard further decay. I suggest you try contacting a museum curator in this field for sound advice - although someone on the forum may have more direct knowledge.
There's probably nothing wrong with a surface clean using a dry lint free cloth (a moistened one won't necessarily be kind if the emulsion is cracked). Others may suggest naptha dampened cotton buds testing a small area for obvious surface dirt on negatives, but don't drag if it feels soft and don't try on split or cracked materials as uneven application could worsen the condition: I suggest researching this a little more. Personally, I would refrain from the 'Film Kleen' on old materials as the long term effects aren't known to me, despite the immediate results- for example the effect of the propellant/gas/alchohol mixture and pH of the moisture being absorbed into a sensitive layer. Don't forget, photo materials absorb moisture and gases they come into contact with.
The question a restorer has in mind is exactly what is the nature of the problem, and unless you can identify the make up of the stains/dirt/fungus then any well intentioned remedy could be plain wrong in the long term. The key is to sympathetically extend the life of the material and storing them in acid free archival tissue and boxes would be a kindness. Many an old oil painting has been lovingly 'restored' to then blister and crack years later.
Sorry to go on and not offer a solution, but I'm speaking with my museum 'hat' on.
Finally, carry on taking advantage of restoring copies digitally, (Ctein has produced an excellent book - 'Digital Restoration from Start to Finish' ), and seek some museum guidance from someone who has actually done it if you want to pursue further.

Regards, Mark Walker.

 

[Bob Carnie]

be very careful, I have seen a disastor.

You can also wash them as you would any print and let them air dry afterward. The Kodak book "Conservation of Photographs" has quite a bit of information about doing this kind of work and may help.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Read Mark's post very carefully. Valuble prints/negatives are best left to the care of a professional restorer

 

[chimneyfinder]

Hello again, George. The age of your prints,etc. (upto a 100 years or more) would suggest that re-washing them would not be good idea as they may well disintegrate, or delaminate, or cause swelling and uneven drying or possibly create new problems. Washing would only be advisable for later robust materials that had been reasonably well produced in the first place and with particular identifiable issues that a wash could resolve, not necessarily for antiquities. Again, anything you apply in terms of restoration is a change and unless you know the results that change will bring about for the long term then 'don't try this at home.' Sympathetic (acid free) storage and even handling with cotton gloves would be something you can put into practice.
I'm no expert, but just applying the general 'rules' of conservation from my academic and work related experience.
Regards, Mark Walker
(Sorry,if I repeated myself)

 

[jeffreyg]

I second the advice given by Greg Davis. Since these materials have survived up to 100 years already and cannot be replaced, copy them and correct the copies. Store the originals in acid free storage containers and possibly with some desiccant material (not in contact with the photos). We came across a 100 year old print of my mother's family including her grand father. I photographed it with 4x5 film and printed on warm tone matte paper achieving a very close likeness of the original. I also scanned the new negative to make some repair corrections and to make some digital copies on heavy weight cotton fiber paper for the family. It was not difficult to produce what appeared to be an original old photograph.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[George Collier]

Thanks, all, for your replies. I'm not sturdy enough of heart to rewash prints, or negs, for that matter. I'm aware of the cotton glove mentality and do follow this procedure. All of these prints came from cousins (you wouldn't believe what they have been keeping them in - including those Walmart albums that hold them in place with sticky stuff on the back, under a hinged poly cover of unknown composition). I am transferring everything to printfile pages of some size, to fit the original - or glassine folders for the larger ones, to be returned to the owners. I think I'll try the naphtha suggestion (thanks, Ian) on the negs, and maybe verrry carefully (edges first) on prints if necessary.
These are all being scanned (really what the project is about), and I'm quite competent in Pshop, just trying to reduce the cloning, healing, etc.
Check back, I'll post a couple.

 

[MattKing]

Actually those Walmart albums aren't as bad as you might think.

They keep the prints dry and away from the light, and they offer a combination of accessibility and physical protection that is far better than a lot of shoe boxes.

 

[tkamiya]

I have done small number of these jobs. Other than puff of air and maybe a gentle rub (almost no pressure) with clean microfiber cloth, I don't do anything. If I see any defect that's bother some, I correct them digitally post scan.

Once I damage the original, the damage is permanent and there are no replacements.