Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

"Carl Wegerer" wrote in message
news [SNIP]

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.

Beautiful lighting on this one, a nice Hurrell example. Any idea who the
model is?


Peter

"Bandicoot" wrote in
message ...
"Carl Wegerer" wrote in message
news [SNIP]

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.

Beautiful lighting on this one, a nice Hurrell example.
Any idea who the
model is?


Peter

Norma Shearer as mentioned in the original post. She
was married to Irving Thalberg who was in charge of
production at M-G-M before his early death. He is attrbuted
with having a very large influence in the quality of M-G-M
movies and was notorious for making people wait for days to
see him. Norma Shearer's brother, Douglas, was instrumental
in moving M-G-M into sound and ran the sound department for
decades. I consider Norma Shearer a very under-rated
actress.


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




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

In article ,
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?

If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.

You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
that may have been hand-retouched.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

Thor Lancelot Simon spake thus:

In article ,
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?

If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.

You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
that may have been hand-retouched.

Yes, that's true, but it should be possible to tell if it has been
retouched by looking at it under a strong light, no? Besides, the O.P.
said it was a copy negative, not likely to have been retouched.



--
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 ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.

You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
that may have been hand-retouched.

Most likely, a lot of retoucher's use oils and pastels-both are smudge
producing and some what greasy. They may appear hard because the
retoucher typically applies a photo varnish throughout the work process.
Shy of solvents they probably won't come off and even then as you say
may produce more damage in the attempt.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

In article ,
Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.

You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
that may have been hand-retouched.

Most likely, a lot of retoucher's use oils and pastels-both are smudge
producing and some what greasy. They may appear hard because the
retoucher typically applies a photo varnish throughout the work process.
Shy of solvents they probably won't come off and even then as you say
may produce more damage in the attempt.

This is probably true of print-retouching products. But materials used
to build density on negatives are generally water soluble, at least to
some degree. Some that come to mind are india ink, Kodak Crocein
Scarlet, Spot Tone Dyene, and carbon black in various binders. These
are not things you want floating around a water bath with your
negative!

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

"Thor Lancelot Simon" wrote

This is probably true of print-retouching products. But materials used
to build density on negatives are generally water soluble, at least to
some degree. Some that come to mind are india ink, Kodak Crocein
Scarlet, Spot Tone Dyene, and carbon black in various binders. These
are not things you want floating around a water bath with your
negative!

The day-to-day negative retouching I am familiar with used pencils.
Kodak still mentions in the data sheet if the film base has enough
tooth for pencil retouching. I have an ancient bottle of 'Kodak
Retouching Fluid' (still liquid), a matte lacquer that would take a pencil
mark. The fluid was applied to the base side of the negative.
And there is some sort of rubbing compound for reducing negative
emulsion. Cocine/crocein dye comes off, but I think you need
to add ammonia to the water.

As Thor said, these won't take kindly to a good soaking. OTOH,
if it is a production copy negative then the retouching was
done to the master and the copies won't have any retouch.

If you look closely at old prints you can see the pencil marks.
'Adams' retouching machines vibrated the negative so as to blur the
retouching. Still find them on ebay.

I'll be d_m'd, here is a site with all the above:

http://www.leadholder.com/index.html...non-kodak.html

A site devoted to lead holders ... what next - zest graters?


--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

In article . net,
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

And there is some sort of rubbing compound for reducing negative
emulsion.

Kodak Abrasive Reducer! The stuff has always scared me, and I never
learned to use it.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

In article ,
(Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:

Kodak Abrasive Reducer! The stuff has always scared me, and I never
learned to use it.

Pumice in a bottle
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

And that would be http://graters.info/

darkroommike

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
--snip--

A site devoted to lead holders ... what next - zest graters?