How to remove bends from film

I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy of
50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in such a way as
to have bends in it. There on cracks or creases and the film is reasonably
flexable and the bends are about what you would expect if the film was
wrapped half way around a pencil. My question is does anyone have any
ideas how to get it flat. I thought of puting it on a reel and then in a
developing tank with distilled water and a bit of photoflow and let it set
for a day or two. Then take it out and dry it like we used to in the old
days, hanging with a weight on the end. I will use a scanner to recover
the images.

It has some pictures that I really want to recover if possible.

Any ideas?

JakeInHartsel

glenn Jacobs wrote:
I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy of
50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in such a way as
to have bends in it. There on cracks or creases and the film is reasonably
flexable and the bends are about what you would expect if the film was
wrapped half way around a pencil. My question is does anyone have any
ideas how to get it flat. I thought of puting it on a reel and then in a
developing tank with distilled water and a bit of photoflow and let it set
for a day or two. Then take it out and dry it like we used to in the old
days, hanging with a weight on the end. I will use a scanner to recover
the images.

My own idea would also be the soaking process, but only for an hour or
so (soaking for too long can loosen the gelatin).

glenn Jacobs wrote:
I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy of
50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in such a way as
to have bends in it. There on cracks or creases and the film is reasonably
flexable and the bends are about what you would expect if the film was
wrapped half way around a pencil. My question is does anyone have any
ideas how to get it flat. I thought of puting it on a reel and then in a
developing tank with distilled water and a bit of photoflow and let it set
for a day or two. Then take it out and dry it like we used to in the old
days, hanging with a weight on the end. I will use a scanner to recover
the images.

It has some pictures that I really want to recover if possible.

Any ideas?

JakeInHartsel
I don't think wetting it will soften the film substrate, and at that age
could well cause the emulsion to lift off. I would sandwich the film
between two pieces of glass and use a digital camera and a lightbox to
re-photograph the negatives. You will of course get another negative
from the camera, but that can be inverted to a positive in most
image-handling programs.

Also, depending on your scanner, if it handles slides, get some glass
slide mounts (may be hard to find these days), and mount the negs
individually as slides.

Personally, I think a dslr will be plenty good enough, with less work.

Colin D.

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

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...
glenn Jacobs wrote:
I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy of
50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in such a way as
to have bends in it. There on cracks or creases and the film is reasonably
flexable and the bends are about what you would expect if the film was
wrapped half way around a pencil. My question is does anyone have any
ideas how to get it flat. I thought of puting it on a reel and then in a
developing tank with distilled water and a bit of photoflow and let it set
for a day or two. Then take it out and dry it like we used to in the old
days, hanging with a weight on the end. I will use a scanner to recover
the images.

It has some pictures that I really want to recover if possible.

Any ideas?

JakeInHartsel
I don't think wetting it will soften the film substrate, and at that age
could well cause the emulsion to lift off. I would sandwich the film
between two pieces of glass and use a digital camera and a lightbox to
re-photograph the negatives. You will of course get another negative
from the camera, but that can be inverted to a positive in most
image-handling programs.

Also, depending on your scanner, if it handles slides, get some glass
slide mounts (may be hard to find these days), and mount the negs
individually as slides.

Personally, I think a dslr will be plenty good enough, with less work.

Colin D.

Interesting idea, Colin.

In one of my many trades, I was given a homemade slide duplication
device, which is essentially a perspex box with a light inside it and a
place for holding a slide/neg. I belive the guy who made this thing used
it on a copy stand to make duplicates.

I was wondering how doing something like this using a high res DSLR
would compare to scanning the film with a film scanner? I would think
the scanner should be much better, but then...don't they use essentially
the same process to create a result?

--
www.nikongear.com
Share, learn, win.

On Fri, 3 Nov 2006 14:36:11 +0200, DD wrote:
I don't think wetting it will soften the film substrate, and at that age
could well cause the emulsion to lift off. I would sandwich the film
between two pieces of glass and use a digital camera and a lightbox to
re-photograph the negatives. You will of course get another negative
from the camera, but that can be inverted to a positive in most
image-handling programs.

Also, depending on your scanner, if it handles slides, get some glass
slide mounts (may be hard to find these days), and mount the negs
individually as slides.

Personally, I think a dslr will be plenty good enough, with less work.

Colin D.

Interesting idea, Colin.

In one of my many trades, I was given a homemade slide duplication
device, which is essentially a perspex box with a light inside it and a
place for holding a slide/neg. I belive the guy who made this thing used
it on a copy stand to make duplicates.

I was wondering how doing something like this using a high res DSLR
would compare to scanning the film with a film scanner? I would think
the scanner should be much better, but then...don't they use essentially
the same process to create a result?

I have a slide copier (macro Lens, slide film holder and bellows) which
fits on my Nikon d-70. Both work very well the scanner, a Minolta Dimage
3, is easier and faster. The biggest problem I have had using the copy
setup with the Nikon is getting a decent light source. I have just bought
a couple of light sources that seme to be darn close to day light. Having
said that I just realized the film is B & W so why am I concerned about the
light source? Anyway I will try both ways and see what turns out best.

JakeInHartsel

"glenn Jacobs" gjacobs.starband.removethis.net wrote in message
...
I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy
of 50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in
such a way as to have bends in it.

I dunno, two days and no one has suggested a decompression chamber yet. Oh
well, I suppose someone has to...

;-)


Peter

DD wrote:
In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...
glenn Jacobs wrote:
I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy of
50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in such a way as
to have bends in it. There on cracks or creases and the film is reasonably
flexable and the bends are about what you would expect if the film was
wrapped half way around a pencil. My question is does anyone have any
ideas how to get it flat. I thought of puting it on a reel and then in a
developing tank with distilled water and a bit of photoflow and let it set
for a day or two. Then take it out and dry it like we used to in the old
days, hanging with a weight on the end. I will use a scanner to recover
the images.

It has some pictures that I really want to recover if possible.

Any ideas?

JakeInHartsel
I don't think wetting it will soften the film substrate, and at that age
could well cause the emulsion to lift off. I would sandwich the film
between two pieces of glass and use a digital camera and a lightbox to
re-photograph the negatives. You will of course get another negative
from the camera, but that can be inverted to a positive in most
image-handling programs.

Also, depending on your scanner, if it handles slides, get some glass
slide mounts (may be hard to find these days), and mount the negs
individually as slides.

Personally, I think a dslr will be plenty good enough, with less work.

Colin D.

Interesting idea, Colin.

In one of my many trades, I was given a homemade slide duplication
device, which is essentially a perspex box with a light inside it and a
place for holding a slide/neg. I belive the guy who made this thing used
it on a copy stand to make duplicates.

I was wondering how doing something like this using a high res DSLR
would compare to scanning the film with a film scanner? I would think
the scanner should be much better, but then...don't they use essentially
the same process to create a result?

Hi Dallas,

Congrats on your site, btw. Of course, it would be better if it was
Canon, though {:-)

The general consensus seems to be that scanning at 2700 ppi would be
adequate for most 35mm images, except for the high-resolution modern
films, which 50-year-old Tri-X isn't. A 6 megapixel camera will give
about 2,000 ppi which I would think will capture all that's in the
images on that film. If one uses a 10MP camera, then you'll get about
2500 ppi, plenty for most 35mm images, unless you subscribe to the
Minolta 5400 ppi school, which would be complete overkill for Tri-X.

The problem you would have to watch is the color of the light from the
light-box, but I guess custom WB could fix that.

Cheers,

Colin D.

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

Colin_D wrote:


The general consensus seems to be that scanning at 2700 ppi would be
adequate for most 35mm images, except for the high-resolution modern
films, which 50-year-old Tri-X isn't. A 6 megapixel camera will give
about 2,000 ppi which I would think will capture all that's in the
images on that film. If one uses a 10MP camera, then you'll get about
2500 ppi, plenty for most 35mm images, unless you subscribe to the
Minolta 5400 ppi school, which would be complete overkill for Tri-X.

The problem you would have to watch is the color of the light from the
light-box, but I guess custom WB could fix that.

Ignoring the need for a lens which has flatness of field, low distortion
and high resolution at a 1:1 reproduction ration.

You are *not* going to get these with a zoom, or even many otherwise
good primes.

The digital school again thinking that, once you have a sensor involved,
you might as well use a coke bottle for a lens...

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:45:37 -0700, glenn Jacobs wrote:

Path: be02!out02b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com !in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc02.us enetserver.com!STARBAND.NET!not-for-mail
From: glenn Jacobs gjacobs.starband.removethis.net
Subject: How to remove bends from film
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.11.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: "gjacobs.starband.removethis.net"
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:45:37 -0700
Message-ID:
X-Complaints-To:
Organization: UseNetServer.com
Lines: 16
X-Trace: f20c2454a671d31e5849f08582
Xref: usenetserver.com rec.photo.equipment.35mm:899316
X-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 16:45:25 EST (be02)

I have recently found a roll of processed 35 mm Tri-X. It is just shy of
50 years old and has been wrapped around a negative holder in such a way as
to have bends in it. There on cracks or creases and the film is reasonably
flexable and the bends are about what you would expect if the film was
wrapped half way around a pencil. My question is does anyone have any
ideas how to get it flat. I thought of puting it on a reel and then in a
developing tank with distilled water and a bit of photoflow and let it set
for a day or two. Then take it out and dry it like we used to in the old
days, hanging with a weight on the end. I will use a scanner to recover
the images.

It has some pictures that I really want to recover if possible.

Any ideas?

JakeInHartsel

Well I used dilute photoflow for a bit less than two hours, hung the film
up with regular film hangers for 12 hours and the bends are completely
gone. I ran them through my film scanner and I think that I got all the
resolution that was in them. Thanks for the suggestions.

JakeInHartsel