using a book for negative storage

[Paul Howell]

A very long time ago, when I was in high school I worked part time for the local photographer, well not worked, there was no pay. He was retired Navy photo mate. One his buddies had a store in another part of town, and I remember going to see him to pick up some chemistry, Vern had run low on. His friend had a bookcase with a varity of books, when I asked what he read he told me he bought used books at the Salvation Army for like nickel, he stored his negatives between the pages. Don't know that triggered that memory, then the question, how archival would a good quality book be? I also thoght that a book would not be dust free. My wife is an published writer, we have a ton of books, some had not been opened in a couple of decades, I found a few, even in the desert no dust. How good of idea was it?

 

[Vaughn]

Good to terrible. Most books' pages are of acidic paper and questionable ink that will mess with one's negatives in the long run.,

 

[AlecF]

In your dry atmosphere you might just get away with it. But acid-free is definitely safer. I stored negs in those special pockets in 1950 and they’re as good as new. Mind you, I was very thorough with my film washing...
Alec.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It sound like a great way to loose lots of negatives.

 

[Vaughn]

It sound like a great way to loose lots of negatives.

Sounds good if one has negative constipation.

And if the negatives are not well washed -- and even if they are -- you could be messing up the books, too. That could be the greater crime, considering some of my negatives and some of my books.

But it does lead to questions about what negatives go into what books...and how that would work into a filing system of sorts.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

From direct experience, it does (or did) work. All of the negatives I stored in books are the same today. None great but they never were. Put them away about 35+ years ago in books 100% NOT made of acid free paper, I am not even sure if my negative washing routine was of "archival" quality. This is no guarantee it's going to work, especially in newer books. While my old books were made of cheap paper, the paper was neither heavily tainted by super chemists trying to save paper mill money in production costs.

 

[MattKing]

Well, your negatives will probably be really flat .....

 

[beemermark]

I've stuck negatives in books just to flatten them. Every now and then I'll find some that are decades old and still looking good. Not a bad idea at all.

 

[Paul Howell]

What I should of asked but at the time was too dumb to understand at the time was how he kept track of his negatives, what kind of filing system did he use. He was pro, must have some means of indexing which negatives, year, subject, name of assignment to keep track of all of them. This was 60s, most of his work would have been large and medium, so in a 600 page book, what 300 negatives. He had a case, did not count no idea how many books he had. The guy I was learning from used numbered negative sleeves with a card catalog, a system he learned in the Navy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Special archival inter-leafing paper is available. But even that can backfire. The same paper that keeps the negs apart in dry conditions tends to be hydroscopic in humid conditions without sufficient air circulation. Then you get mildew. That's why so many old books smell musty. Climate and specific storage location have a lot to do with it. I've seen entire collections ruined that way. Good book paper is just too expensive to be common today. Old books would have to be tested. Pretty much voodoo. I could dig through our own substantial family collection of historical photographs and find both successes and horror stories due to book storage. A set of extremely rare books going clear back to the 16th century was literally eaten full of holes by carpenter ants. Book lice (corrodentia) are particularly fond of both bookbinding glue and gelatin. There are way better ways of storing negs.