Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.

Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
non-commercial.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Carl Wegerer

Carl Wegerer spake thus:

Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.

Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
non-commercial.

Richard Knoppow here would probably be the most knowledgable to comment
on this here. It would help to know, though, what kind of stain it is
exactly. Can you describe it--color, intensity, etc.?


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

In article ,
"Carl Wegerer" wrote:

Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.

Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
non-commercial.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Carl Wegerer

Shy of printing the image,then having someone paint "hand retouch" the
resulting image - digital is probably the best option if the goal is to
get a beautiful print. If beautiful is the goal as opposed to just doing
an analog fix i think digital beats hand work. I suppose if you have
unlimited funds a chemist can analyze the stain and neutralize it.

Having worked in a Professional photo-lab I am attempting to providing
insight to this process.

Take care!
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

"Carl Wegerer" wrote in message
...
Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer
made by George E. Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The
negative was describe as being in fair condition with a
stain in the middle of the image.

Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the
negative restored? If so, does anyone have a
recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
digital restoration? The purpose of asking these
questions are non-commercial.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Carl Wegerer



Some types of stains can be removed but there is always
the dange of ruining the negative. Getting it scanned sounds
like a good idea no matter what else you do. You can also
make a duplicate. This will required two steps. Probably the
best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji Acros.
When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength
these films have excedingly fine grain and very good
resolution. You will have to make a positive from the
negative and a duplicate negative from that. If the stain is
yellow use a yellow, orange, or red filter to eliminate it.
No one seem to make panchromatic paper any more but that
would be another option by printing through an orange or red
filter.
Hurrell was famous for doing extensive retouching on his
negatives. Make sure the stain is not actually some sort of
masking.
Note that it may NOT be an original negative but a
duplicate made for mass production printing. Fan pictures
and theater display stills were made by mass contact
printing using duplicate negatives.
If this is an original its likely quite valuable. You
might want to contact a conservator at a library with a
large photo collection like the Getty in Los Angeles or the
Library of Congress.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Richard Knoppow" writes:

You can also
make a duplicate. This will required two steps. Probably the
best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji Acros.
When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength
these films have excedingly fine grain and very good
resolution. You will have to make a positive from the
negative and a duplicate negative from that.

Could the duplicating process be improved by processing the
positive gained in the first phase into a negative, using
the processes one uses for making positive film out of negative
B/W film? (Going around thinking positives from negatives and
negatives from positives makes my head spin.)

On Feb 26, 4:40 am, Toni Nikkanen wrote:
"Richard Knoppow" writes:
You can also
make a duplicate. This will required two steps. Probably the
best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji Acros.
When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength
these films have excedingly fine grain and very good
resolution. You will have to make a positive from the
negative and a duplicate negative from that.

Could the duplicating process be improved by processing the
positive gained in the first phase into a negative, using
the processes one uses for making positive film out of negative
B/W film? (Going around thinking positives from negatives and
negatives from positives makes my head spin.)

It _is_ possible to make duplicate negatives by reversal. Such
materials were on the market up to a few years ago. Most reversal
processes are intended to make a positive for projection with a gamma
of about 1.0. Presumably, if the original is a low contrast negative
the duplicate would also be low in contrast but I think it would some
fiddling to be sure. Kodak made a reversal kit for T-Max, I don't know
if its still available.
Making a positive from the original and a negative from that is
not too difficult but this also would require some experimentation to
get the exposures and development right. Scanning is probably a lot
simpler. Its possible to make a negative from the scan. Making
negatives is done commonly for alternative printing processes where a
large size negative, suitable for contact printing, is needed from a
smaller negative. The scanning process also allows adjustment of the
characteristic curve of the resultant negative and, of course, allows
the necessary retouching.
I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
chemical treatment.

--
Richard Knoppow

Richard Knoppow spake thus:

I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
chemical treatment.

How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
question if it would do any good. Worth a try?


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan_Ellison)

Not always! There's also damage from molds and etc. that
can change the nature of the gelatin. Some of that could
appear as a stain to the uninitiated. Adding water could
wash the emulsion right off the base!

There's a lot of maybe's here but the first step would be to
make a high quality high resolution scan of the original,
there are ways to make a new negative from the scan, and
then take the original to a conservation specialist, most
"photo restoration" is actually analog airbrush and pencil
technique on a copy print which is then rephotographed or
the digital equivalent. This is not what's required.

You might want to contact R.I.T. Rochester Institute of
Technology or Eastman House for a recommendation.

darkroommike

David Nebenzahl wrote:
Richard Knoppow spake thus:

I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
chemical treatment.

How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
question if it would do any good. Worth a try?

Some types of stains can be removed but there is always the dange of
ruining the negative. Getting it scanned sounds like a good idea no matter
what else you do. You can also make a duplicate. This will required two
steps. Probably the best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji
Acros. When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength these
films have excedingly fine grain and very good resolution. You will have
to make a positive from the negative and a duplicate negative from that.
If the stain is yellow use a yellow, orange, or red filter to eliminate
it.
No one seem to make panchromatic paper any more but that would be
another option by printing through an orange or red filter.
Hurrell was famous for doing extensive retouching on his negatives. Make
sure the stain is not actually some sort of masking.
Note that it may NOT be an original negative but a duplicate made for
mass production printing. Fan pictures and theater display stills were
made by mass contact printing using duplicate negatives.
If this is an original its likely quite valuable. You might want to
contact a conservator at a library with a large photo collection like the
Getty in Los Angeles or the Library of Congress.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA


I left out the word "copy". It is a copy negative, so it does not have any
retouching.

I won it Sunday morning, so it has not yet arrived.

Here is a link to image: http://i20.ebayimg.com/01/i/000/8c/a7/07fc_12.JPG.

The seller has been selling vintage prints and negatives for some time. A
great deal of the items are from Hurrell. I think I know who is reaping the
rewards, but have never asked. Prices range from several hundred dollars to
thousands I was shocked when I learned that I actually won. I think we all
know why I won now- not idea condition.

There are a couple regular bidders for these items. In some cases, I see
images pop up later on eBay. My goal is to have just one print made for my
own collection.

Carl Wegerer

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 23:06:01 GMT, "Carl
Wegerer" wrote:

Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.

Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
non-commercial.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Carl Wegerer




February 27, 2007, from Lloyd Erlick,

After looking at the image you put online,
I'd say you should make straight prints from
the negative as it stands. I think a lot of
the charm of the image comes from its
condition. The dinged up edges and stained
central area add their own story.

I also think a good darkroom worker who has
lived with this negative for a significant
length of time (i.e., has made enough prints
from it) could make a beautiful,
pristine-looking display print. Maybe by
selectively dodging with pieces of variable
contrast filter material. It would be a
challenge...

I find the expression of the negative as it
survives at present much more interesting
than the quest for the grail of the print as
it might have been when the negative was new.

For reference, look at the prints (from
1860s) of Julia Margaret Cameron. I had a
look at them when they visited Toronto; the
edges of the sheets tell the story of
long-term storage. So do the creases where
they had been folded. My personal reaction is
that those marks are an important part of the
history of the work.

I also think Richard Knoppow is exactly
correct when he suggests avoiding chemical
treatments. This negative should be kept
clean and dry, at least until specific good
reasons to wet it are understood.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
website: www.heylloyd.com
telephone: 416-686-0326
email:
________________________________
--