On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33 -0400 Isaac Crawford ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> . B&W
> film has far better archival qualities than the color stuff.
Oh, you might think so ;) - but see below
Nishimura is based at the Rochester Inst. of Technology Image Permananence
Institute, so appears to kno
Tony wrote:
> It will give anyone who has been taking photos over the past 30yrs the
> heebie-jeebies...
Ah. And I was blaming the non-archival neg sheets on the deterioration
of the films. Sounds like I should send all my films down south to my
parents' place where it's cold and dry!
Rob
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess
that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R
archives vs relying on the permanence of the original negatives and
slides.
Hersch
At 11:47 PM 06/26/2001, you wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:10:33
-0400 Isaac Crawford
tape, etc) archival life
expires.
BK
- Original Message -
From:
Hersch Nitikman
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41
PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base
deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Thanks very much, Tony. That wa
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Hersch
NitikmanSent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 3:41 PMTo:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base
deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has
to be factored into the
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500 laurie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered
> that
> this does not necessarily hold true for contemporary films but only for
> films from around the 1960s and 70s or before for the most part.
It app
laurie wrote:
>
>
> The problem was also recognized with respect to video tapes. The U.S.
> National archives were given video tapes of the various space adventures
> in the 1960s and 70s by NASA, which were recorded on acetate bases; when
> the Archives opened the sealed cannisters wit
Well, two comments,
1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage
2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in
apa
Not to mention, scarey as hell. :-|
--LRA
>From: Hersch Nitikman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 13:41:25 -0700
>
>Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an education. I guess that has to be
>factored into the discussions of the merits of CD-R archives vs relying on
>the permanence
EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
>Shortcomings)
>Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500
>
>Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered that
>this does not necessarily hold
Art wrote:
>Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
stored. The biggest danger is caused by overheated conditions. Film
should never be stored in 90 plus degrees F, as often occurs in
apartments in cities in temperate zones during the summer. Keep it
cool, keep the
, 2001 4:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 19:42:21 -0500 laurie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Before anyone goes off the deep end on this, it should be remembered
> that
> this does not necessarily
8, 2001 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
> Well, two comments,
>
> 1) film on polyester base probably is the best archival storage
>
> 2) Even film on cellulose acetate will keep itself together if properly
> stored. The biggest dan
n
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2001 1:41
PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base
deterioration (was Digital Shortcomings)
Thanks very much, Tony. That was quite an
education. I guess that has to be factored into the discussions of the merits
of CD-R archives
Lynn Allen wrote:
> *Stone* is good (particularly granite, basalt, and combinations of the
> two), providing you don't leave them out in the sun, rain, or sandstorms
> for more than 10,000 years. ;-)
>
> At one time, Scribes laboriously re-recorded all the World's Wisdom, and
> placed it i
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 14:31:49 -0500 Laurie Solomon ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> While all films today may not be Estar, they are not acetate from what I
> understand - may be Mylar or someother plastic base - but I could be
> wrong
> about that.
You may be right, but I thought all that were no
l neg
storage *and* systematic digital archiving & rearchiving as
we can be bothered with.
Regards to all,
Alan T.
- Original Message -
From: Laurie Solomon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 8:31 PM
Subject: RE: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was
Digital Shortcomings)
Tony Sleep wrote:
> You may be right, but I thought all that were not Estar were plain old
> cellulose acetate, ever since the even more exciting nitrate stock was
> phased out.
Yeah, don't you miss that old Nitrate based stuff. now, those were the
good old days! None of this namby-pamby sh
- Original Message -
From: Alan Tyson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:21 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
> BTW, all this discussion on longevity brings me to the same
> conclusi
At 15:25 29-06-01 -0500, Robert Kehl wrote:
> > BTW, all this discussion on longevity brings me to the same
> > conclusion as last time we had a prolonged archiving
> > discussion here - we need as much of *both* careful neg
> > storage *and* systematic digital archiving & rearchiving as
> > we ca
- Original Message -
From: Enoch's Vision, Inc. (Cary Enoch R...) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Film base deterioration (was Digital
Shortcomings)
> >
> >I agree with you here Al
At 19:29 29-06-01 -0500, you wrote:
> > This discussion has led me to one conclusion that seems inescapable.
> > Clearly it's important to refresh our media assets every few years to keep
> > pace with technology. Perhaps the archival method with the greatest
> > longevity and 'universality' today
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:19:52 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Well since the film I have from HS is some 30yrs old, and has been =
> treated awfully for the most part, and still hasn't shown film-base =
> deterioration,
I haven't seen it either, on film of up to similar ag
At 07:46 AM 6/30/01 +0100, you wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 16:19:52 -0700 Karl Schulmeisters
>([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>> Well since the film I have from HS is some 30yrs old, and has been =
>> treated awfully for the most part, and still hasn't shown film-base =
>> deterioration,
>
>I have
"rafeb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a number of C41 films dating back from when I
> was yearbook photographer in high school... in the
> late 1960s. None of them are showing any significant
> signs of deterioration.
And I have some negs from about 1982 where the emulsion has virtually
di
25 matches
Mail list logo
