Oh Sugar!

markbarendt · Jun 18, 2011

Alright I have more film developed than Print-Files to put them in.

How big an issue is stacking some negs in a single slot for a week or so until I can get more delivered?

Ottrdaemmerung · Jun 18, 2011

Why not simply roll them up until you get new Print-Files? If you insert more than one neg into a slot, you run the risk of scratching them.

Ian Grant · Jun 18, 2011

As long as you're careful it's fine I often have to do it.

I thought you were going to add sugar to your developer It was used in some Super Fine Grain developers !

Ian

markbarendt · Jun 18, 2011

Thank you gents.

I'll be careful.

Worker 11811 · Jun 18, 2011

Save the cans and/or cores that your bulk film comes in. They are the perfect thing for emergency film storage.

Use Permacel film tape to fasten a short length of junk film to the core then overlap that with the "good" film while you wrap it onto the core. When all your film is on the core, lap another piece of junk film onto the outside then tape the end down with Permacel.

Put that whole thing inside a film can and your pictures should be protected against almost anything short of a tornado.

markbarendt · Jun 18, 2011

In this case it's 220 film so I don't have a can but I can see doing that on 35mm.

Rick A · Jun 18, 2011

Why not rewrap the full length strip in the backing paper and secure with a rubber band until the sleeves arrive.

markbarendt · Jun 18, 2011

I'd prefer to keep them flat, fewer issues in the enlarger.

The concern I really had about stacking, was more about sticking.

Re-rolling doesn't address the scratching issue anyway because the surfaces will have a tendency to rub as the roll is spooled or unspooled.

Worker 11811 · Jun 18, 2011

markbarendt said:
Re-rolling doesn't address the scratching issue anyway because the surfaces will have a tendency to rub as the roll is spooled or unspooled.

This is not a problem if you don't cinch the film. Roll the film on and off the spool. Don't pull on the ends.

If (careful) rolling of film caused scratches you wouldn't be able to put 2,000 feet of film on a reel and project it on a screen without getting scratches but good operators have been doing just that for 100 years.

markbarendt · Jun 18, 2011

Worker 11811 said:
This is not a problem if you don't cinch the film. Roll the film on and off the spool. Don't pull on the ends.

If (careful) rolling of film caused scratches you wouldn't be able to put 2,000 feet of film on a reel and project it on a screen without getting scratches but good operators have been doing just that for 100 years.

With the movie film it is normally kept at a constant tension with no slack so there is no slippage. I can't replicate that on a 220 spool, it will either spin on or spin off unless I'm incredibly lucky and cafeful.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 18, 2011

Ian Grant said:
As long as you're careful it's fine I often have to do it.

I thought you were going to add sugar to your developer It was used in some Super Fine Grain developers !

Ian

Ian, I thought exactly the same thing. Kodak used sugar in two divided developers to suppress development in the first bath.

Ian Grant · Jun 18, 2011

Jerry, Ilford used sugar in an early extra fine grain developer, as did Harry Champlin.

Ian

Rick A · Jun 18, 2011

markbarendt said:
I'd prefer to keep them flat, fewer issues in the enlarger.

The concern I really had about stacking, was more about sticking.

Re-rolling doesn't address the scratching issue anyway because the surfaces will have a tendency to rub as the roll is spooled or unspooled.

I have a couple dozen rolls fo film stored this way, no scratches. As for curling, not really a prioblem. I use a negatrans which I love dearly, I haven't cut a roll of film up in quite a while. I eventually will cut my negs into strips, I'll still be able to use the negatrans with them, but first printing with one is sooo much easier than a regular carrier.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 18, 2011

Ian, is there anything that Champlin didn't try? I have a copy of Champlin On Fine Grain that I reread when I need a good laugh. Lots of bad science there. Dr Edmond Lowe once said that Champlin's book read like a childrens story where the dragon Grain was tracked to its lair and smothered with clouds of nickel ammonium salfate.

Ian Grant · Jun 18, 2011

Jerry, I agree about the Champlin book, it's a bit out on a limb, however Ilford's ID-44 was not to dissimilar to some of his developers. Edmund Lowe pays him some grudging respect

Ian

Worker 11811 · Jun 18, 2011

markbarendt said:
With the movie film it is normally kept at a constant tension with no slack so there is no slippage. I can't replicate that on a 220 spool, it will either spin on or spin off unless I'm incredibly lucky and cafeful.

Yes, I understand your point. Even in the projection booth with equipment designed for the purpose you still have to be careful but it can be done.

I wouldn't wrap film on a small core. The smaller the diameter, the harder it is to wind it evenly. Standard movie film cores are usually 4 or 5 inches in diameter.

I suppose a piece of PVC pipe would work but, then, you're getting into a lot of monkeying around just for a temporary fix.

What about just carefully letting the film coil up, loosely, by its own natural curl, letting it stand on edge then simply seal it inside a plastic Tupperware container or something similar? If you are careful not to disturb it, you could certainly keep film safe for the short term until you can buy more sleeves.

I think putting two pieces of film into one sleeve would be much riskier.

markbarendt · Jun 18, 2011

The film no longer has a natural curve.

Gerald C Koch · Jun 18, 2011

Ian Grant said:
Jerry, I agree about the Champlin book, it's a bit out on a limb, however Ilford's ID-44 was not to dissimilar to some of his developers. Edmund Lowe pays him some grudging respect

Ian

Lowe did like a couple of the formulas. There is #16 which Lowe quoted in his book. Of all the formulas #16 seems to be one based on sound principles. Unfortunately it uses an "orphan" chemical chlorhydroquinone for which there is no real substitute. I really wish someone would find a good use for this chemical so that it would be cheaply available again. Many good developers used it.

Ian Grant · Jun 18, 2011

Chlorquinonol (Chlorhydroquinone) is available but it's not high enough purity for developers, the last commercial use was by May & Baker (their Photo chemistry is now Champion) but they were a manufacturer of organic chemicals themselves that wouldn't have been an issue.

My copy of Champlin is a 4 hour flight away

Ian

Smudger · Jun 18, 2011

There is Absolutely No Risk in putting multiple strips in an enclosure -as long as you are careful.
Stack the cut strips and slide them in together.When you want access,slide them out as a unit. Removing or replacing individual strips is a recipe for disaster.
Rolling is also risky,and takes up more storage space to boot.

jeffreyg · Jun 18, 2011

Review old negatives and discard strips that you have no use for (if there are any) you will find you probably have a decent supply of storage to tide you over. I have not run into any problems stacking negatives in mylar/polyester sleeves that flap open and keep them in negative file folders. With the flap type sleeve you don't have to slide the film. I use 120 and 4x5 storage materials and the negatives B&W are fine even after 30+ years.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

Oh Sugar!

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency