Making prints from nitrate based film

[Marco Buonocore]

I have some negatives that were shot circa 1888 - from before Dakota was a state. Maybe 40 individual 2.5" x 2.5" negs. They are definitely nitrate based, and have not been stored in any manner that would be deemed proper. Shoebox in a basement sort of storage. With that said, by and large, they are in good shape and only a few are brittle. The negatives are currently being stored in a freezer.

I would like to make enlargements of some of the better images. I have not worked with film this old before. The plan will be to do this in autumn or winter when the darkroom is cooler and the humidity is down.

What precautions should I take?

I have a heat absorbing filter for my Durst 138, and would be using a PH211 bulb. I have a glass carrier. Before I do this, I will use a laser thermometer and measure the temp of the glass after the bulb has been on for a three or four minutes. I figure that would be a worst case scenario. I expect normal printing times to be much less than that. I would plan to have a steel bucket on hand in case anything went wrong, and I could chuck the whole negative carrier in there. I have fire extinguishers and a fire blanket on hand.

If anyone has any practical experience making enlargements from historic negatives like this, I would love to hear your thoughts on the idea.

Thank you!

 

[pdeeh]

once nitrate film ignites, it is incredibly difficult to extinguish - it generates it's own oxygen and will even continue to burn under water.

the ignition fumes are also deadly.


so ... care required. or perhaps think again?

 

[GRHazelton]

How about scanning them? There would be very little heat involved, and you could take the scanner outside.

I recall my Father, who was a chemical engineer, found a roll of nitrate film. Knowing the flammability of the film, he tacked each end to a board, then he lit it. The strip was gone almost instantaneously.... Very impressive.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I've printed film-pack nitrate negs from the early 30s - used a DeVere 504 with an MG500 head which is pretty well cooled & a glass carrier. Noticed no significant issues of any sort. Longest exposure was in the 60s range on to Fomatone, if that's of any use. Key thing is making sure they're not degrading into goo. Remember that you're not talking a roll of hundreds/ thousands of feet of cinema film, nor the heat & power of a carbon arc projector.

I also scanned them on a Hasselblad X5, but that falls outside the remit of this forum.

 

[Jim Noel]

I made copies on Direct Copy Film.I doubt it is still available. In that case I would make copy positives on either lith film, if you are familiar working with this, or TMax 100. Then make new negatives from the positives. I definitely would not put the nitrate negs in an enlarger.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

I'm quite sure there will be very little heat on the carrier - I've never noticed any in the past, even after minute plus long exposures for lith or large prints. Next time I'm working, I will measure the temp.

I suppose my follow up question to this is, how on earth did people make enlargements from these negatives between 1889 and 1940 or whenever they switched to safety film? None of my peers were printing back then, so I don't have a source of first hand information.

Scanning would be the 2nd option. I have access to an Imacon, but it's no good for odd film sizes. These negs are hand cut, odd little things. The way it bends the film when it scans doesn't seem like a great idea. Drum scanning, right now, is out of my budget.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

We'll keep the scanning talk out of this thread I guess. The intention is to make silver gelatin prints.

If I could find someone to make dupes, I would do it in a flash. In Toronto, I know of no one offering this service anymore.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I'm quite sure there will be very little heat on the carrier - I've never noticed any in the past, even after minute plus long exposures for lith or large prints. Next time I'm working, I will measure the temp.

I suppose my follow up question to this is, how on earth did people make enlargements from these negatives between 1889 and 1940 or whenever they switched to safety film? None of my peers were printing back then, so I don't have a source of first hand information.

Scanning would be the 2nd option. I have access to an Imacon, but it's no good for odd film sizes. These negs are hand cut, odd little things. The way it bends the film when it scans doesn't seem like a great idea. Drum scanning, right now, is out of my budget.

The negs I worked with were still perfectly flexible & for what it's worth, were cooler after I took them out of the enlarger than out of the scanner...

I'd be a little concerned as to whether the drum scanner fluid acts as a solvent on the nitrate base - never tested it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

We'll keep the scanning talk out of this thread I guess. The intention is to make silver gelatin prints.

If I could find someone to make dupes, I would do it in a flash. In Toronto, I know of no one offering this service anymore.

Contact print on Ilford Ortho+ & reversal process would be the fastest, but tricky to control - a two step process would be better, but invites dust.

If you're not comfortable doing this sort of thing, ask Bob Carnie - he's local to you & has a lot of experience of making copy negs for various processes.

 

[pdeeh]

as it happens, I have got quite a lot of nitrate film which I have printed in the enlarger perfectly successfully.

do your research and make a risk assessment. just be aware that if there is a problem, the consequences for life and property can be utterly dreadful.


there are docs readily available on the Web about how to recognise nitrate stock and the hazards thereof. I have given links in other similar threads to them.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

We'll keep the scanning talk out of this thread I guess. The intention is to make silver gelatin prints.

If I could find someone to make dupes, I would do it in a flash. In Toronto, I know of no one offering this service anymore.

Have you contacted Bob Carnie about working with these? He's in Toronto, and runs a world-class photo lab including a wide range of wet-darkroom services. He's also here on APUG.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

AFAIK the only two remaining uses for cellulose nitrate are as gun powder and for ping pong balls. Only cellulose nitrate gave the balls the proper bounce. It was fun to take a broken ball and set it on fire. It burns very rapidly. Even this use is being lost. The ITTF has authorized the use of another plastic to slow the game down. Sounds dumb to me.

 

[AgX]

Cellulose-Nitrate film base becoming brittle but showing no other signs is no indicator of it decomposing in the actual meaning.

It is an indicator of its plastizer being evaporated.

 

[AgX]

the ignition fumes are also deadly.

Single sheets burning in open space produce gases that are not even poisonous.

 

[RauschenOderKorn]

Wow, negatives which are 130 years old. That is a catch!

I would make (or get them made) some contact copies of the negatives to work with and else be VERY careful about it.

This film will eventually become unstable and might ignite without any external cause needed. If you can, store the negatives in a fireproof box. I know that for storage it might be impossible, but at least try during handling to separate the negative and only work one negative at a time with the others stored away safely.

If you print, a fire extinguisher is a good idea (for your enlarger). The film itself, once on fire, cannot be extinguished any more. It will have disappeared before you can react in any way. Fumes are toxic, too, but if you are talking about one negative, just don´t smell them for too long.

I do not know if there is a method to stabilize and thus make this film safe. If I am not wrong, a organic ignition inhibitor was used on these films, which degrades over time. This, as it seems, depends on the environmental condition of storage . I am not sure if in the long run, the freezer is the right place to store this type of film.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I'm quite sure there will be very little heat on the carrier - I've never noticed any in the past, even after minute plus long exposures for lith or large prints. Next time I'm working, I will measure the temp.

I suppose my follow up question to this is, how on earth did people make enlargements from these negatives between 1889 and 1940 or whenever they switched to safety film? None of my peers were printing back then, so I don't have a source of first hand information.

Scanning would be the 2nd option. I have access to an Imacon, but it's no good for odd film sizes. These negs are hand cut, odd little things. The way it bends the film when it scans doesn't seem like a great idea. Drum scanning, right now, is out of my budget.

Marco you can come up here and use my Supreme for this paticular job, be quick as the offer may not go into September.
Bob

 

[darkroommike]

I would suggest only one negative in the darkroom at a time and a fire extinguisher on hand to address your concerns. And oven mitts. The fire extinguisher will not put of the film fire but is there for any secondary ignitions. The film would be gone in a flash.

 

[Marco Buonocore]

Marco you can come up here and use my Supreme for this paticular job, be quick as the offer may not go into September.
Bob

Hey Bob, thanks for the kind offer. I gotta ask : what the heck is a Supreme? I've never heard of one!

Back to the thread : I took some measurements with a laser thermometer, and even after the bulb was on for many minutes, the temperature on the glass carrier was only 2 degrees more than room temperature. And that was without the heat absorbing glass for the durst 138. I think once the ambient room temperature gets lower things will be OK. Definitely negs 1 at a time, and definitely fire extinguisher on hand.

I don't think I'd fuss about if these images weren't so interesting. I'll upload one once I get home.

 

[pdeeh]

This film ... might ignite without any external cause needed

No, it won't do that.
It needs an external source of ignition, and won't spontaneously combust.

Two good documents to read:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/corp/environment/kes/pubs/pdfs/H182.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/indg469.pdf

Combustion produces Nitrogen dioxide. VERY toxic, and in an enclosed place (such as a darkroom) "just don't sniff it" isn't sufficient advice.

@Marco - most things are safe so long as you understand the risks and take proper precautions. After all, as you implied in an earlier post, people used these films in enlargers for decades and there wasn't a disaster every time. (although there was a large-scale disaster in the 1930s I think when a storage room full of nitrate stock caught fire)

 

[flavio81]

We'll keep the scanning talk out of this thread I guess. The intention is to make silver gelatin prints.

If I could find someone to make dupes, I would do it in a flash. In Toronto, I know of no one offering this service anymore.

I think you unintentionally have come up with the answer!! Exposing with an electronic flash instead of the common enlarger bulb. I know, there are reciprocity failure problems. But it can be a viable alternative.

 

[AgX]

I think you unintentionally have come up with the answer!! Exposing with an electronic flash instead of the common enlarger bulb. I know, there are reciprocity failure problems. But it can be a viable alternative.

Electronic flashes too emitt infrared radiation. (Ever put your hand in front of the reflector?)

But yes, mucgh less in share than incandescant lamps.


Best way to avoid trouble is a forced cooling of the carrier stage. If that got openenings súch cooling could be achieved with houshold means at likely no costs.

But as said above: there is no hint at all that the film in question is more heat sensitive than in its virgin state.

 

[removed account4]

I'm quite sure there will be very little heat on the carrier - I've never noticed any in the past, even after minute plus long exposures for lith or large prints. Next time I'm working, I will measure the temp.

hey marco

the cleveland clinic fire was ignited by xray flm that had a light bulb too close to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Clinic_fire_of_1929

i'd skkan the stuff. even if the enlarger doesn't get too hot, its not worth
the potential risk involved especially when there are other ways to reproduce the negative.
i know this is apug and i am not supposed to suggest that other stuff but ...
and after the negatives are "converted" i'd figure out who to deliver them to for proper disposal.
years ago a friend had a liquor box full of nitrate film in his apt outside his front door in the hall,
and was advised by people who knew about and did things with non-safety film to get them away from his apt...
its not quite like linseed oil rags self combusting but it isn't best thing to be hanging onto.

 

[AgX]

Autoignition temperature of Nitrocellolose is above 160° C.

You hardly reach such temperature with a household incandescant lamp, other than burying the lamp in a heap of film.

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Proper fire extinguisher. I would not mess with it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Hey Bob, thanks for the kind offer. I gotta ask : what the heck is a Supreme? I've never heard of one!

Back to the thread : I took some measurements with a laser thermometer, and even after the bulb was on for many minutes, the temperature on the glass carrier was only 2 degrees more than room temperature. And that was without the heat absorbing glass for the durst 138. I think once the ambient room temperature gets lower things will be OK. Definitely negs 1 at a time, and definitely fire extinguisher on hand.

I don't think I'd fuss about if these images weren't so interesting. I'll upload one once I get home.

The Eversmart Supreme is a high end flatbed - similar quality-wise to the Imacon (outside the scope of this forum)

You'll be fine printing them in the enlarger - there are a lot of people with little real-world experience of nitrate negs making massive mountains out of molehills. Take reasonable precautions and you'll be fine. Don't forget that there are plenty of tintypists/ wet platers who manage to use similar materials perfectly safely.