Mailinglist Archives:
Infrared
Panorama
Photo-3D
Tech-3D
Sell-3D
MF3D

Notice
This mailinglist archive is frozen since May 2001, i.e. it will stay online but will not be updated.
<-- Date Index --> <-- Thread Index --> [Author Index]

Re: Cleaning of Stereoviews


  • From: P3D Sam Smith <3dhacker@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: Cleaning of Stereoviews
  • Date: Thu, 29 May 1997 04:24:18 -0600

At 01:38 PM 29/5/97 -0500, you wrote:
>Bert van Dijk asked about cleaning of stereoviews.
>
>One response suggested he not attempt it unless 
>he knows what he is doing.  My question is 
>
>How can he learn to do it if he doesn't try?  I know
>there are professional restoration experts, but I 
>would imagine they had to try it before they could become experts.


Most of the people who have stereo cards are indeed collectors. This usually
means they want to maintain their collection, not damage it.

I stated specifically in my post that there was no problem with practicing
on junk prints, but you apparently missed that point.

I'm glad you were successful in be able to clean your own stereo cards, but
why assume that everyone will be able to be as talented as yourself in this
process? It can be like giving someone advice on how to do their own brain
surgery.

It was mentioned that "saliva" and "ammonia" could be used as cleaners. I
dispute both of these. Saliva is a cesspool of bacteria. Photo emulsions are
organic in nature. Anyone who thinks the two go well together for print
permanence may need a little biology lesson. As for ammonia, know one
mentioned removing it. Again, introducing a chemical into the emulsion can
accelerate deterioration of the image and its components. If you use
ammonia, it must also be removed, something that's a little tricky with a
photo already mounted on card stock, as you can't wash these like a regular
photo.

>So I decided to clean it and see if I could make it view a little better.
>I practiced on some "pieces of junk" until I felt more or less 
>comfortable to attempt the cleaning.  It took a long time and was made 
>more difficult by a piece of the emulsion missing in the left image.
>But it turned out pretty good, I think.  I sent it in the SSA folios as 
>a "Then and Now" and no one made any adverse comments (And
>you can believe if there is something wrong you will hear about it)

Yes, but how will it look a few years from now? Sometimes an instant fix is
not the best solution. You can clean a print with pond sludge if you want
to, but that does not mean your actions will not come back to haunt you as
the print keeps aging. The results will not be readily known in many cases,
and seldom visible upon inspection.



Most of us know the story of the famous daguerreotype that an eager Kodak
employee decided to try to clean. The image disappeared! It wasn't until a
new process was discovered decades later that the image was recovered.

So I ask again, it is worth the risk? If it is, then GO FOR IT!!!

Sam


------------------------------