The durability of film (scan example)

Well, this has nothing to do with anything, but I thought I'd post it as an
example of film's durability. This is a scan of a kodacolor (I think...)
shot from 1955. It's a house on the beach in Seabrook, NH (USA) long before
that beach became a claostrophobic mess. the film was slightly faded, but
the Epson V750 had no trouble scanning it with pretty good colors afterthe
first pass. A little touch up in PS, and we have a usable image from a 53
year old color neg. Of course the Kodachromes from that year are still
perfect, but negs? I didn't expect this much, really.

That's me right above the Caddy's tail fin...

http://www.manzi.org/pix/seabrook1955.jpg

"That Rich" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Mar 2009 21:38:48 -0400, "Bowser" wrote:

Well, this has nothing to do with anything, but I thought I'd post it as
an
example of film's durability. This is a scan of a kodacolor (I think...)
shot from 1955. It's a house on the beach in Seabrook, NH (USA) long
before
that beach became a claostrophobic mess. the film was slightly faded, but
the Epson V750 had no trouble scanning it with pretty good colors afterthe
first pass. A little touch up in PS, and we have a usable image from a 53
year old color neg. Of course the Kodachromes from that year are still
perfect, but negs? I didn't expect this much, really.

That's me right above the Caddy's tail fin...

http://www.manzi.org/pix/seabrook1955.jpg

No surprise here, about what is expected.
Don't know what claostrophobic is, but I'll guess it means it's
trashed. Shame, what a great ole house.

It was a great house, but around the mid 1960s, the rich discovered
Seabrook, and built bigger and bigger houses that nearly touched on the lot
line. They also erected high fences to prevent anyone from seeing them. For
no good reason, since nobody cared. The result is a beach community composed
of big houses crammed in against each other where people can't interact with
each other. That house I lived with, with the nice open yard and open spaces
no longer exists. It's not in the family any more, and is surrounded by a
high fence, tons of vegetation, and has become another hostage house of
Seabrook. Damned shame.

All my stuff over 40 years old is slide film which is still darn near
perfect. I have many negatives that date back 30 years which are also
remarkably well preserved.

I expected less than you, I guess, since some of my old negs are nearly
transparent. The Kodak stuff lives the longest, and the other brands, which
are tough to ID, have pretty much gone white. The slides, either Kodachrome
or Ektachrome, are still perfect. The worst film ever was a couple of rolls
of that damned "movie film" I tried in the 70s. It's dark purple, and
unusable. Love that Kodachrome, but it's a tough film to scan.

Of course now, with the thousands of digital images I have, I've just
resigned myself to store on whatever the current optical format is, and a
couple of magnetic devices (hard drives). And every so often I copy from the
hard drives to new optical. No big deal. What used to be dozens of CDs is
now just a few blu-ray discs. It's getting a lot easier, not harder. And
with a recent PC upgrade the two mirrored 1.5TB drives are working nicely
and have enough room for a few years. Onward and upward...

Bowser wrote:
Well, this has nothing to do with anything, but I thought I'd post it as
an example of film's durability. This is a scan of a kodacolor (I
think...) shot from 1955. It's a house on the beach in Seabrook, NH
(USA) long before that beach became a claostrophobic mess. the film was
slightly faded, but the Epson V750 had no trouble scanning it with
pretty good colors afterthe first pass. A little touch up in PS, and we
have a usable image from a 53 year old color neg. Of course the
Kodachromes from that year are still perfect, but negs? I didn't expect
this much, really.

That's me right above the Caddy's tail fin...

http://www.manzi.org/pix/seabrook1955.jpg

I've done similar scans from the late 50's / early 60's (family photo
stuff) but mainly slide, few negs.

I'm not surprised at the quality - just at the low number of surviving
(eg: not lost) photos.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

"Bowser" wrote in message
. com...
Well, this has nothing to do with anything, but I thought I'd post it as
an example of film's durability. This is a scan of a kodacolor (I
think...) shot from 1955. It's a house on the beach in Seabrook, NH (USA)
long before that beach became a claostrophobic mess. the film was slightly
faded, but the Epson V750 had no trouble scanning it with pretty good
colors afterthe first pass. A little touch up in PS, and we have a usable
image from a 53 year old color neg. Of course the Kodachromes from that
year are still perfect, but negs? I didn't expect this much, really.

That's me right above the Caddy's tail fin...

http://www.manzi.org/pix/seabrook1955.jpg

Now how about something that is a mere 20 years old. Something from the
"Mini-mart processor"? For the record, I have no doubts about the long-term
life of properly processed and stored films. I do have doubts as to whether
they were properly processed and will be properly stored... For that matter
I have doubts that C41 film can be properly processed, ever.

-Jim

On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:52:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

snip


I'm not surprised at the quality - just at the low number of surviving
(eg: not lost) photos.

I recently asked my mother for all the old 620 negatives she had from
the 50s to the early 70s. My intention was to scan them. I couldn't
believe it when she told me she'd thrown them all out years ago since
she had all the prints she wanted.

Now I've got qwerty face, from banging my head on the
keyboard. What a tragedy.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"rwalker" wrote in message
...

I recently asked my mother for all the old 620 negatives she
had from
the 50s to the early 70s. My intention was to scan them. I
couldn't
believe it when she told me she'd thrown them all out years
ago since
she had all the prints she wanted.

"jimkramer" wrote in message
...
"Bowser" wrote in message
. com...
Well, this has nothing to do with anything, but I thought I'd post it as
an example of film's durability. This is a scan of a kodacolor (I
think...) shot from 1955. It's a house on the beach in Seabrook, NH (USA)
long before that beach became a claostrophobic mess. the film was
slightly faded, but the Epson V750 had no trouble scanning it with pretty
good colors afterthe first pass. A little touch up in PS, and we have a
usable image from a 53 year old color neg. Of course the Kodachromes from
that year are still perfect, but negs? I didn't expect this much, really.

That's me right above the Caddy's tail fin...

http://www.manzi.org/pix/seabrook1955.jpg

Now how about something that is a mere 20 years old. Something from the
"Mini-mart processor"? For the record, I have no doubts about the
long-term life of properly processed and stored films. I do have doubts
as to whether they were properly processed and will be properly stored...
For that matter I have doubts that C41 film can be properly processed,
ever.

I'll get to them. I"ve got quite a few to get through from the 50s and 60s,
first. Some classic family shots, too. For me, this is a gold mine since I'm
first and foremost a "family journalist" type shooter. I enjoy shooting
sports, landscapes, etc, but it's the family shots I really love.

"rwalker" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:52:35 -0400, Alan Browne
wrote:

snip


I'm not surprised at the quality - just at the low number of surviving
(eg: not lost) photos.

I recently asked my mother for all the old 620 negatives she had from
the 50s to the early 70s. My intention was to scan them. I couldn't
believe it when she told me she'd thrown them all out years ago since
she had all the prints she wanted.

I've seen this quite a bit from my relatives. Damned shame, too. Some
priceless shots lost.

On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:52:54 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Now I've got qwerty face, from banging my head on the
keyboard. What a tragedy.

My thought exactly.

Hi All,

Now how about something that is a mere 20 years old. Something from the
"Mini-mart processor"? For the record, I have no doubts about the long-term
I'm currently scanning some 'mini mart' rolls about 15 years old, brand
unknown but suspected to be Konica. Most of the rolls are still perfect,
but some suffer from strange inclusions which show up like water drops
on the scans. If you have a bunch of old film to scan, I'd say better
make a survey of the lot and scan the bad ones asap.

-- Hans

life of properly processed and stored films. I do have doubts as to whether
they were properly processed and will be properly stored... For that matter
I have doubts that C41 film can be properly processed, ever.
Don't know about that...