If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
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) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
"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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
"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.) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
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) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
On Feb 26, 7:36 pm, 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? -- 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) It is probably a good suggestion after doing the non-damaging steps already suggested (i.e., scan the negative, copy the negative on film, copy the negative using filtered light on film, getting more information about the nature of the stain, even consulting a trained conservator) and considering any results obtained. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
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? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative | Carl Wegerer | In The Darkroom | 22 | March 21st 07 07:08 AM |
Making Stained Glass at home, help | Frank in UK | Digital Photography | 1 | February 8th 05 12:58 PM |
Making Stained Glass at home, help | Glassman | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | February 6th 05 03:27 PM |
FS: Kodak Professionbal Copy Film 4x5 & 8x10 | Joe McCary | Darkroom Equipment For Sale | 1 | January 16th 05 03:14 PM |