How long do negatives last?

[eddym]

Cool and dry make a tremendous difference as well as how stored - some "glassine" envelopes, in warm storage conditions, exacerbate the deterioration on nitrate negatives. Cooler and dryer would be better but what we can afford is 67 degrees F and 43-44% humidity.

I'm glad somebody finally mentioned storage conditiions. I live in the tropics, and film and paper must be kept in a cool and dry environment. I use a dehumidifier and air conditioner to get as close as I can afford to the conditions you mention. I can't get to 67 degrees; 75 is the best I can do. Negatives left in the ambient conditions here are covered with fungus in a very short time.

 

[nworth]

The cellulose acetate and polyester bases used with modern films are very stable and should last for hundreds of years with only casual care. (Abuse and really poor storage conditions will do in just about anything.) Certainly the silver itself will last. Even when it deteriorates, it often goes to the sulfide, which is very stable. Still, I have seen silver images fade to the point where they are unprintable. Let's assume very good processing technique. Then the image is still good for over a hundred years. One worry I have is the gelatin. It is a protein material, and it is subject to attack by a variety of chemical and biological agents. We have probably all seen negatives that have been attacked by fungus, which is just one of the dangers. Even with careful storage, it is not practical to protect negatives from everything. We do have some well cared for silver gelatin images that are over 120 years old now and are doing fine. I have some poorly cared for images that are over 50 years old and are still like new. I have some poorly processed images that are about 35 years old and are not doing so well. So there are more factors than just the inherent physical qualities of the medium. Initial processing and care mean a lot.

I don't think digitization is a total cure. Digital images need the intensive care of a good curator and staff to remain readable. Formats change rapidly, and the technology to read them is sufficiently complex that you can not guarantee that the images will be accessible in the future. (Can you read an 8 inch Wang word processor disk of a seven track 256bpi 1/2 inch tape?). Magnetic images can deteriorate due to environmental factors. Without maintenance, the magnetic tapes once used to store text and images often become unreadable and unrecoverable within two years. The instabilities that can occur with CD-ROM and DVD-ROM technology have been discussed extensively, and the longevity of these media is far from well determined.

For the best stability, good ink on good paper seems to work best, and even that can deteriorate if kept poorly.

 

[Jim Noel]

At the least they last many times longer than a digital file. I recently tried to open some files on 4 year old CD's and they were already corrupted. Many couples who had their wedding photos put on CD's and DVD's can no longer view them.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is on on-line database somewhere which gives the support typ for just about every film, and the dates that they were converted from nitrate to modern stock. Just about all Kodak films were converted before the 50s.

The best preservation of color film is indeed to make 3 color separations and store them, recombining them into new prints as needed. Many original nitrate film based original motion pictures are stored at George Eastman House, and they are rather particular about open flames there as you can imagine.

Films from Cape Canaveral were shipped monthly to Wright Patterson AFB in Ohio. For 1 1/2 years, I had that job as one of my extra duties. Recently, I have been contaced by groups trying to reconstruct the early space age, as all of those photographs have vanished from Wright Pat. The University of Central Florida is spearheading one effort in documenting this, and I have been helping to the extent I am able. I have about a dozen or so prints that were given me duing my tour there, and I have done my bit by sharing these with the project.

The lesson learned is that photos can last a long time, as long as they are not disposed of.

PE

 

[DKT]

I use a dehumidifier and air conditioner to get as close as I can afford to the conditions you mention. I can't get to 67 degrees; 75 is the best I can do. Negatives left in the ambient conditions here are covered with fungus in a very short time.

that's because mold can form at above 65% relative humidity. ideally you want your storage to be around 30-50% and under 70 degrees year round. For long term, it needs to be even lower--low temps--freezing. The longest spans of time are below freezing & dry, but it's pretty hard to actually do this, even in a controlled system--since you have physical limitations (size) and, uh, money...the ability to support a storage facility that is temp & rh controlled.

where I work--the controlled storage & exhibit galleries are monitored with dataloggers (hydrothermographs that track the temp & relative humidity real time and record back to a computer--the one I have in our film room is an older model, it uses a circular chart to record both temp & rh with red & blue ink across the span of a week.). The galleries and the storage areas are handled by a system that basically heats & cools are the same time. parts of the controlled areas are open to public access, so you have doors leading to the other rooms that have less control, and ultimately outside--so the system is constantly adjusting itself as the day goes by. with some exhibits, the range is very narrow on what the temp & rh need to be--like less than 5 degrees is the range. It's really kind of impossible--out in the real world--to actually get within these ranges.

our studio & the room we store our working negs is in a lesser controlled area--it swings a little with the seasons. gets pretty dry in the winter--down to about 20% or sometimes even less, and it gets to be around 50-55% in the summer. We hover at 60-70 degrees F though. Today it's 70 degrees, 50% rh--inside the drawers it's 40% rh. It looks like it got down to around 40% in th room a couple of days ago, so that makes sense...it always takes a bit of time for the insides of the drawers to acclimate to the room--so you can suffer these swings in temp/rh and not really have that much of a problem.


There's a lot of info on the IPI site though--you can download the Preservation Calculator and punch in the numbers of your temp & rh and get an idea about the estimated longevity, and what you need to do to get a better handle on it.


http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/


my opinions only/not my employers

 

[DKT]

I don't think digitization is a total cure. .

it's not--I work in a history museum aligned with an archive, and they handle all the microfilm reformatting of gov't records, along newspapers and books in the "brittle books" programs etc. They also have a wing that handles archaeology & preservation (building) surveys for the federal records. The program is so strong on film right now, that they've rebuilt their darkroom, and have purchased new processors along with a special microfilm camera that is like a giant flatbed scanner, only it records to microfilm for output.

but what happens in the conservation end of dealing with the old negatives that have deteriorated? well--the nitrate is either stored in special vaults, but due to limitations here--it's mostly duplicated and then destroyed. Most archives still do that, since you need to be underground more or less, or in a very good vault to safely store the stuff. I believe both the GEH and NARA have had fires due to nitrate storage even with the past 15-20 yrs, within specially designed vaults. If you can get it down to freezing, and you can keep it there, it will last for a long time--longer than we'll be alive probably, but it needs to stay there. And that's the problem--not so much a problem for Wright Pat AFB or Iron Mountain, but it's a problem for smaller institutions and lower operating budgets.

the acetate films--well--it is possible to try to save them. what they do is strip the emulsion off the base, and then they float it back onto a new polyester base. Only this is a salvage technique. The best thing is to get them into decent temp & rh storage early on.

the "reformatting" (copying) is either done by printing & shooting copy negs, or by one or two step duplication onto film. Only now, it's getting into scanning & computer output onto film. Ultimately it probably will be all digital, at some point, or some sort of hybrid, because of simple economics with trying to pay for the overhead of an archive. It's just costly--and it grows every day as we generate more records, and collect more images etc. there just isn't enough money, or time to save everything.

my opinions only/not my employers.

 

[Kilgallb]

When DVDs started to appear a few years ago I went to a paper at a SMPTE conference on the process Lucas Films used to convert the first, or should I say forth, Star Wars episode to DVD. I was astounded to learn that the original print used to make all the copies of this film was improperly stored. The Dolby THX people spent $10,000 to hand clean every frame. Condsidering that billions will be made on this film, you would think the movie studios would spend the money to preserve the films. I wonder how much of our cultural heritage is being lost to improper storage. In retrospect, Lucas films could justify an atmosphere controlled building just to preserve the Star Wars films.

I also question whether improperly stored digital media would be as savagable as film. Probably not.

 

[Louis Nargi]

I found a 4x5 neg of my father, he would be about 89 born in 1917. there is no date but based on other photos I'v seen this neg should be from around 1946, he was 29. That makes this negative 60. I found it in a old shoe box with other photo from the 40s not stored properly. I made a contact print and could have enlarged it with the same result as when the negative was made in 60 years ago.

 

[Kino]

Sorry I missed this thread start; have been away from the computer for a while...

Nitrate will last an incredibly long time; we still have the original negative to the Thomas Edision's "The Great Train Robbery" (1903) and we can still make copies directly from the negative.

Kodak ceased production of nitrate motion picture film in 1951 but some back-stocks were used up until the mid 1950s; in fact, Kubrick's first film, "Fear and Desire", of which we hold and store, has intercut safety and nitrate footage, as he bought shortends in 1953 to make the production.

In fact, we sit upon over 160 million (no typo) feet of nitrate 35mm film prints, negs, sound masters and interpositives here in Dayton, Ohio.

The practice of copying and destroying nitrate was discredited (at least my the majority of archives) for over 30 years; you keep the lowest generation master until it turns to go, then discard.

Nitrate is a very stable base; much more so than diacetate, triacetate or any of the monoacetate bases that were used in teh 70's to "save" motion pictures and we often find that the protection master deteriorates prior to the nitrate IF it were done on an acetate base (not always).

For the most part, Nitrate CAN wait; but acetate is in a hurry!

 

[Kino]

sorry, typed that in a hurry and I can't edit here from work; php is blocked

 

[Uncle Bill]

I have been scanning some family shots taken about 35 to 38 years ago by my dad. He loved Tri-X and Plus-X and they look like they were processed yesterday.

Bill

 

[DKT]

The practice of copying and destroying nitrate was discredited (at least my the majority of archives) for over 30 years; you keep the lowest generation master until it turns to go, then discard.

Nitrate is a very stable base; much more so than diacetate, triacetate or any of the monoacetate bases that were used in teh 70's to "save" motion pictures and we often find that the protection master deteriorates prior to the nitrate IF it were done on an acetate base (not always).

For the most part, Nitrate CAN wait; but acetate is in a hurry!

my point of view on this, is as a photographer working in a museum. I'm not an archivist, conservator or preservation manager. I have through my job, had to deal with other archives--and my impression is that nitrate negs are still duplicated on a pretty regular basis. I think probably it's a continuation of the longterm practice of reformatting, fiscal reality of building off-site storage, and ...well it's not so easy to tell people to abandon what was considered to be s.o.p. for the better part of a half century.

my gut feeling is that it has to do with building codes & insurance. what it takes to store nitrate negs in public buildings that have multiple uses. It requires off-site storage, in specially designed vaults. It could require underground storage in another location, or state even. So--how do you handle getting access to the collections, at that point? there's a certain amount of operational reality that needs to be considered... it gets worse as the collections get larger, or it gets equally worse, in a smaller institution with more limited funding.

it is the same in some ways, as preservation microfilming, which is considered by some to be bad--but then how do you deal with the reality of storing millions of printed items in a fixed amount of space? I don't personally see the necessary evil of duplicating a hazardous material for the sake of the rest of the collection. If the money is not there, for a longterm option--then that is the longterm option.

It's like I said above--you cannot save everything. I'm not trying to be trite or cynical, it's just the way it is. that's just my perspective, albeit somewhat tempered by reality.

my opinions only/not my employers.

 

[ricksplace]

Have a look at some of the pics in my gallery. The pics from India are from negatives shot in 1917. Not archive stored. (Stored in an old shoebox my mother gave me). Absolutely amazing.

 

[gainer]

I have some 5x7 glass negs my grandfather shot before 1905. They were stored in brown paper envelopes in an attic in WV. Some were in great shape, some terrible. I confess, I was a traitor and resorted to moving bits around to get 110 good pictures.

 

[Kino]

(snip)

It's like I said above--you cannot save everything. I'm not trying to be trite or cynical, it's just the way it is. that's just my perspective, albeit somewhat tempered by reality.

my opinions only/not my employers.

Oh, I don't doubt the practice goes on in many places, I just said it was acknowledged by the majority of major archives (read well-funded or relatively well-funded) that it is not the ideal way to preserve film history.

I'd rather see a copy made than none at all, but it is a damned shame when the orginal is discarded for purely monetary reasons when there are National and International archives that would take and store them.

 

[bjorke]

negatives last until I ruin them

 

[Alex Bishop-Thorpe]

Negatives last until I get curious about my new 8mm cine projector and stick a 35mm negative in to have it melt.

Oddly, I'd always wondered about safety film until I looked it up. Honestly I thought it had something to do with paper cuts.

 

[DKT]

Oh, I don't doubt the practice goes on in many places, I just said it was acknowledged by the majority of major archives (read well-funded or relatively well-funded) that it is not the ideal way to preserve film history.

I'd rather see a copy made than none at all, but it is a damned shame when the orginal is discarded for purely monetary reasons when there are National and International archives that would take and store them.

the major archives that you're talking about--and I'm not a yokel--so don't treat me that way....but those archives have had their share of problems as well. same goes with lack of funding for projects. it exists on all levels. talk to some of the hundreds of employees that have been laid off in recent years from some of those big museums and archives. you don't hear much publicly about this stuff--but everyone has a story--so spare me the lecture of how the "major"s work.

 

[Kino]

the major archives that you're talking about--and I'm not a yokel--so don't treat me that way....but those archives have had their share of problems as well. same goes with lack of funding for projects. it exists on all levels. talk to some of the hundreds of employees that have been laid off in recent years from some of those big museums and archives. you don't hear much publicly about this stuff--but everyone has a story--so spare me the lecture of how the "major"s work.

No one's treating you like a yokel, and I never said anything about the larger archives not having problems; you obviously want some sort of fight...

Maybe I phrased it poorly; so I will try again and write it in such a way that it is impossible for all those "injured" parties running around on APUG with their guts hanging out and their feelings on their sleeves, to miss interpret.

In the past, most archives went under the assumption that copying nitrate and then destroying it was a reasonable process, but it has since been determined by the majority of archives who can afford to implement the policies, that keeping the nitrate to the bitter end was the best policy because you never know what technology will develop to allow you to extract new information from the artifact.

While the policy of holding original nitrate material until it decomposes beyond use would be the idea way to store it, it is understandable, but a shame, when archives cannot afford to keep the originals and must copy them and destroy the original due to budgetary and/or zoning problems.

Now, should you ever really want to have a discussion about the subject and not your feelings and how fragile they are, lets have at it.

 

[Kino]

misinterpret

 

[DKT]

well--hell, I dunno...bad day at work=short reply.I understand what you're saying--didn't mistake your reply. I'm not offended or anything, but it seemed like you were preaching to me--so it ticked me off, what can I say?

I don't know--I'm a museum photographer--a photographer--not an archivist or a preservation manager. I'm not defending or cordoning--just saying this is what I've seen. I don't think wholesale duplication & destruction is a good thing--- but most of what I'm talking about has already happened. done deal, so saying that cold storage to the bitter end, is a moot point, because the reformatting is done with. I know it's a problem with some places, and space & storage & money are always problems. There are just too many preservation projects. that's just the way it is.

So I don't honestly know, to what degree the current (as in right now) practice is, other than to say that digital is making some inroads. I would be interested in hearing some objective opinions about that--from people working in the field, but this probably isn't the place for that. At any rate--I'm a photographer, who happens to work with old negs--like I said, I'm no archivist or PM--I work with some and that's about it. I had to look back at your profile to see where you worked--or read between the lines--if you had said so up front, I wouldn't have been so short.

So there you go, what can I say? it was like you were preachin' to me. if you said I work at such & such archive--well, yeah, it would have made more sense. But anonymously, it doesn't always read that way.

happy thanksgiving all the same--KT

 

[DBP]

For what it is worth, we have negatives that my grandfather shot in the Navy in 1918 that are very usable. Storage conditions for a major portion of the life of those negatives were less than ideal, and may have included attics in the southern US.

 

[Paul Goutiere]

"How long do negatives last" This to me is the crux of a whole new question that I have not seen yet addressed on any digital site. With the transition from one technology to another many photographers seem to forget that we do not really know how to archive digital images to last. What format could be used to
keep an image even 25 years?
How should we store important images? Perhaps by transferring them to film.

 

[bdial]

Digital has no good answer for permanence on the scale we like to think of it, anyway.
In my professional life, I work in document imaging. Optical storage media (NOT CD/DVD) is good for 20 - 50 years at best, so far as anyone knows. Obviously the equipment for reading the cartridges has a much shorter lifetime. For consumers, the practical issues of moving between digital file storage media can quickly get overwhelming and expensive.
I've met with our state's archivist on a few occasions, and he is completely unimpressed with a 20 - 50 year lifetime of storage media, let alone all the other mechanics that come into play for storing digitally.
For permanent storage (100 years +), their standard remains B&W microfilm. While I don't completely agree with every argument they have on the film side of the equation, it speaks volumes.

 

[kjsphoto]

Isn't wilhelm-research.com the same people that glorify how archival ink is? If that is the case I wouldn't take anything they say to heart.

In any case, I have negatives of my daughter that is now 18 that I took of her when she was a baby. They print the same today as they did when I photographed her 18 years ago with no loss in density or tonal range or any kind of vinegaring whatsoever.

I even have negs from my uncle that are even older by a long shot. Those negatives are still as good as they day they were created and those were not stored very good either.

In short, roll film and sheet film will out last my lifetime.