negative to negative

[veke]

hi! I´m a newbie here and couldn´t find earlier threads about this theme. I will try to use the "search" tool if nothing comes out of this post.

I have old negatives starting from the 40´s and I would like to duplicate those to make these memories (negatives) last yet another 70-100 years. But how should I start, do I make enlargements as paper copies (rc paper) and then shoot on film material these paper copies to get new negatives? Or should I try shooting the negatives to a film material and develop into positive with reverse development to get a new negative? Other possibilities? Instead of using enlarger in the first place perhaps I could try to make paper copies as contact sheets, any sense there, and then shoot from these paper copies, 6x6cm and 6x9cm mostly.

I really appreciate any advice concerning the process, including films, chemicals, papers.

It is better to ask now before proceeding into practice and then after many weeks notice that I have done something completely wrong. Or some steps could have been easier and faster and better in every way.

How to start?

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Veke,

If the negatives are actually in good condition you should have no need to copy them, just ensure they are stored correctly and archivally ( lots on APUG re this ) they should be good for at least another 100 years.

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Veke,

Simon is correct; using the original negatives is the simplest approach. It may also give the best-quality results, assuming that the negatives are properly exposed and have moderate contrast.

It may, however, be advantageous to make prints first and copy them. 1--The prints can be made with all the usual controls of contrast, exposure, dodging, burning that may be necessary; this will help you in making high-quality copy negatives. 2--Copying prints will give you a separate set of negatives which can be stored separately from the originals. 3--If the original negatives are small or medium format, high-quality 4 x 5 copy negatives of the prints will make for easy and consistent printing when you make any copy prints.

Konical

 

[tkamiya]

I'm not sure if this will help, because it'll end up with a positive image. But I have taken a macro shot of a frame on negative using a macro lens and a light box. There was very little degradation in details, amazingly. Contrast was little lower but I could probably take care of that if I developed it longer. I just printed it with higher contrast.

All it takes is a good macro lens and a light box.

Personally, unless there is a historical importance to the photograph, I would just print the frames and process it very carefully, then store it properly. There are other ways but they aren't analog in nature, and I'd rather not discuss it on APUG.

 

[veke]

thank you very much! I will try first to make the prints to say 18x24 cm to see details and possibly the problems if they already exist. After a very good print I will start to shoot the prints with my film camera.

to tkamiys: yes, it will be a positive like a slide (dia) and I can use bellows to get the job done. But how to get a new negative, there should be a slide film. Are there any?

Would you make the prints on glossy or matt paper? Getting rid of reflections may be a problem as the print should be very carefully lit when duplicating it. No reflections on the surface allowed.

I think a fine-grain slow ISO 100 film. Any recommendations? And the chemicals for that particular film?

Archiving is the final goal but to get a great fresh negative is the first step. The old negs are already 70 years old so this might be the right moment to refresh those into new ones, saving the old ones of course.

Great to notice that many people have read my message and thought about this. More advice and possibly links into interesting tutorials are always welcome.

 

[Michael W]

I have old negatives starting from the 40´s and I would like to duplicate those to make these memories (negatives) last yet another 70-100 years.

They have already lasted this long, which shows how archival film can be.

 

[MattKing]

The only reasons to make copies of those negatives are:

1) If they are on combustible, non-safety film;
2) If as a result of previous poor handling and/or storage, they already show signs of physical deterioration; or
3) If you wish to work with or share the copies, while returning the originals to a few more decades or centuries of careful storage.

If none of the above apply, make a print or two, then return them safely to storage.

 

[veke]

Michael, and they will last for some time still.

Some negatives have been destroyed when scanning, the extreme bright light started some process in the emulsion and the gelatin started to look like the surface of planet Mars. Perhaps those have nitrate emulsion (smell bad these days), I don´t know. And the damages didn´t show up immediately but after some weeks when the person who scanned those in the first place coincidentally checked if there has been any changes in the emulsion, and got scared. Now I will try to find a gentle way to freshen those negatives into new ones via film.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi veke,

If you can handle sheet film, working with larger film... will hold the highest quality.

There isn't really a slide black and white film. You could "reversal process" black and white film, but I think the best idea is to work with negative material as negative material the way it is intended - and arrive at a positive sheet but with high quality.

You can do a lot with that, even if you make another generation to create a negative again, by working with sheet film, you will not lose as much as if you work with a miniature format like 35mm.

 

[veke]

to MattKing: many say that negatives can last 100 years, some of those in the archive are already more than 70 years of age. ANd some have already suffered, the ones with nitrate suffered from the scanning. During the next 50 years the archive will be removed from one place to another say 5 times, something may happen during those. And, occasionally we need paper copies and scans and using the original negatives may not be the best thing to do, we need a working copy that can be sent to others for their need.

Bill Burk: the originals are medium-size, 6x6 and 6x9. And I will use a medium-size camera not, A Bronica that has 6x7 if I remember correctly. I have not made any copies yet but there is that camera ...somewhere.

As a quick conclusion it seems that there is not much sense in this whole project, from negative to negative. Make enlargements on a fiber paper and archiving those? How about RC papers, can you recommend any particular paper and how long will it last archived in good conditions ( the same place where the originals have been most of their time).

 

[tkamiya]

About RC/FB debate....

Ilford is a known quality. I'm sure there are others that's good but I'd go with known quality. FB is a proven long term medium. RC has gotten better and some say they are just as good. Just not proven. My understanding is, well processed FB will last 100 years + and perhaps much much longer.

My method is, to print it to my liking using Ilford MGIV FB Glossy, two stage fix it, archival wash, light to medium selenium tone (or brown if that's the color I want), then store them in archival folders in human comfortable condition.

 

[veke]

hi tkamiya! A very good concretical advice, thank you very much. Tose are what I need the most. What I did not understand is "two stage fix it", can you explain, please. Archival wash means a long procedure using wetting agent, I suppose. Yes, toning helps in long-term archiving but for some reason not allowed in this case. And archivable envelopes are here already. To be precise, the results are not called "archivable" but the process is. Meaning that nobody can check or guarantee a negative but many specialists can study the process how it is made and then accept/deny it as "archivable" and the negative is accepted to museum´s collection. Something like that

 

[Bill Burk]

Two stage fix is simple. Two baths of the same fixer chemistry. But the second one is freshly mixed.

Next time, you dispose (properly) the first bath, make the second bath - today's first bath... And mix a fresh second bath.

That way a little contamination from the developer and stop bath might get in the first bath. But the second one is always fresh.

Improper fixing is a common "mistake" that affects how long negatives and prints can last.

 

[veke]

hi Bill, and thanks for explaining this. Long lasting negatives is the goal and this tow stage fix is a very important detail. I will do so.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Veke,

Couple of things.....if they are still film negatives and are 70 years old they are not on nitrate base.

Scanning or exposure to light does not 'set off' any 'process' in geletin or we would be in trouble as that is what you do with negatives, the eneny of negatives is moisture this is more likely what has happened.

It obviously sounds like you are concerned for the negs, by all means print the images down then copy the prints if you wish to preserve a set of negs, if not, print down onto an FB ( fiber base ) photo
process then and then selenium tone them and they are good for 150 years +

Simon. ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited

 

[Zelph]

Does Kodak still make direct positive film? If so, that is what we used to use to make duplicate negatives. A simple solution that gives an easy way to back up important negatives.

 

[cmacd123]

Back when I worked with Microfilm, the standard process was to make a silver negative and then copy that on Diazo film. Diazo dyes fade very fast when exposed to UV light, but become fairly permanent once developed in AMMONIA.

back in the 1960 era, I used a Diazo machine intended to make overhead transparencies to copy a negative that a friend had that I wanted to make a print of, but he did not want to let out of his sight. I kept the Diazo copy and printed it last year, so it was still in fine shape after 40 years.

The microfilm folks use the Diazo copies as "working Copies" as they are more scratch resistant than Silver negatives and are cheep enough that they can make multiple copies to send arround. If the Microfilm is updated, they can just make a new copy for everyone. (Here I am thinking of FICHE where the 16mm negatives are placed in a "jacket" that looks like a mini Print-file page. You can add a couple of frames to the Jacket and make every office a new Diazo and tell them to destroy the old Diazo. )

The fiche were about 4.5 by 6 or so.

here is some more info pn teh Diazo Film sold by Eastman Park Micrographics.
http://www.epminc.com/products/microfilm/non-silver-duplicating-films

 

[veke]

my comment to comments above. It was either the light or the heat from the table scanner that started to destroy the negatives. Okay, acetate is the base, not nitrate. Only those negs that have been scanned have suffered, others have no visible damage.

I will start making copies of the negs on rc-paper and then shoot those on mediem-side film to get negatives again. Fiber based papers really do last for a very long time but the process takes much longer time than with rc´s. ANd to get glossy prints one has to use a dryer, rc´s will become dry and glossy on the table.

And, Simon, this whole process weill be tested on Ilford materials. If you have any suggestions, please, write me a message or write it here so that everyone can study it. Long-lasting negs is the goal.

And there are ortho-films available, Ilford has one. Unfortunately can´t find it in shops here in Finland.

Thank you all for the comments, they really help. Keep on posting if something comes in mind. Take care!

 

[Steve Smith]

There isn't really a slide black and white film.

Don't Rollei make a direct positive film?


Steve.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear Veke,

ORTHO+ from ILFORD Photo is only available in sheet sizes :

Any film will do, but actually if I do any copying ( especially if I intend to scan ) I use XP2 Super, ( Process is colour C41 ) cannot get the exposure wrong, virtually no grain and I think the best film for scanning.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[veke]

Dear Simon,

sheet size is what I need. I plan to make duplicates by putting the old neg and the sheet "in contact" with each other emulsion sides cheek to cheek. In the first step I get a positivive but when repeating the procedure I will get a new neg. Yes, this takes time and one must be really careful but with ortho film I can use safety light and not wander in the darkness.

I will keep in mind the XP2 and C41, can be useful in the near future. Thank You, Simon.

 

[MartinP]

Veke, if you do that you will have difficulty avoiding an increase in the contrast of the image.

Commercially, many years ago now, I made a lot of prints for reproduction in books or advertisements (before the days of computerised desktop publishing). You may find that you get the most usable results by printing the negs which you have, to at least 40cm size, and having detail all over - nothing too near white or black as copying would push the tones somewhat. Retouch these results if required, and then rephotograph the images onto film and perhaps digitally, to avoid a scanning procedure later if you think someone will ever need a digital version. It is for this stage that Simon recommends medium-format XP2. From those negatives you can make as many prints, or scans, as you require and you can of course make multiple sets for physical security.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear veke,

MartinP is correct, you will build too much contrast, also it would be a very, very expensive way to do it using ORTHO+ sheet.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[DREW WILEY]

Double negative technique is simple in principle, and can still be done well with current films. But above a certain size it just get prohibitively
expensive compared to the scanning alternatives. It is hypothetically possible that there is a stockpile of old graphics ortho copying film somewhere; but whether it would still be any good is another question. If you can sacrifice the ortho characteristic you can work with current pan sheet films like FP4 or TMax.

 

[MartinP]

One thing I just thought of, about the negs which degraded following scanning. Did the person doing the scanning use any sort of neg-cleaner or wetting-solution? Presumably, as they are most common these days, a flatbed scanner was used so temperature changes should not have been a problem for the gelatine but it's good to know.

Contacting a large colour-slide to neg-film can work fine, with a bit of over exposure and pulled development, but for the OP (with limited, but enthusiastic , darkroom experience) I suspect needing to make contacts twice, and to thoroughly test exposures and development, would not be the simplest path.