Re: [photo-3d] Vision Redux

["John A. Rupkalvis" <stereoscope@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Archival life of images certainly is a concern.   Usually the negatives are
more stable than the slides.  You might want to have new slides printed from
your original negatives.

Also, Kodak claims that the stability of these films has been improved
considerably in the last few years.  Older films were notorious for the
fading problem.

Several factors contribute to the life of films.  For example, I have some
Kodachromes that are about 20 years old that have turned magenta (not blue),
but I also have some that are 30 years old that look like new.  Go figure.

As you mentioned, storage conditions are very important.  Kodak publishes a
very good pamphlet on that.

Light is the worst enemy.   But, temperature, humidity (or even lack of it;
a film can dry out cracking the base), and exposure to chemical vapors can
affect it.  Some of the plastic sleeves designed to protect films actually
emit chemical vapors that accelerate fading!  I have been told that the old
style translucent plasticine sleeves were safer than the newer transparent
ones, but I don't know that for sure.  Maybe someone has some input on this.

Choice of processing lab, again, is important.  Ask the lab if they use a
"hypo clearing agent" or "Kodak Image Stabilizer" as a final step in their
processing.

Some labs offer a lacquering service for transparencies (usually for a
nominal added cost).  This extra coating mainly protects against scratches,
but since it absorbs some wavelengths of UV, it helps to reduce (but not
totally eliminate) fading from sunlight or other high UV sources.

The most stable of all color films is Dye Transfer (including color
Vectographs), dye bleach films a very close second, and Kodachrome third.

But, even Dye Transfer slides and prints will fade if left in the sun long
enough.
One advantage of Dye Transfer is that part of the process requires color
separations, which are made on silver halide black & white film.  These,
again if properly processed and stored can last a very long time.  Kodak
claims that they will last as long as the substrate, which could be several
hundred years as it is not biodegradable (Kodak has already had run-ins with
the EPA!).

Anyway, score one for Kodachrome.  All things being equal, it PROBABLY will
outlive the MP transparencies.

JR

--
From: "Ron Beck" <rbeck@xxxxxxxx>
To: <photo-3d@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 11:57 AM
Subject: Re: [photo-3d] Vision Redux


> Rory,
> >From personal experiences, the 5247 slides I shot in college have
> degraded to a bluish cast with virtually no color left.  Now, I don't
> know if this is due to my means of storage (a box) or how I had them
> developed (tungsten vs fluorescent vs daylight) but they have not stood
> the test of time over the 21 years I've been out of college.
>
> The stereo slides my grandfather took in 1956, '57 and '58 on
> Kodachrome, however, still have good color contrast and are quite
> pleasant to view even after storage in a hot Texas attic for those same
> 21 years plus storage in a hot Ohio attic for approximately 12 years
> before that.
>
> Anyway, that's my experience with the motion picture films.  And, it's
> been a while since I've looked through _ALL_ my slides.  It could be I'm
> remembering something that was shot under fluorescent and processed as
> tungsten or vice versa.
>
> Just a "heads up" from someone who's been there.
>
> Ron
>
> Rory Hinnen wrote:
> >
> > Herbert C Maxey wrote:
> > >
> > > I want to thank you very much, for saving me lots of money. With the
> > > money I will now save, I plan to purchase another motorcycle and take
a
> > > long trip. I will now forget Kodachrome film, that most inferior of
films
> > > and do all my photography using re-spooled motion picture film.
> >
> > So, call me a fool, but what is the problem using movie film stock? If
> > other people are bored with this, I invite you to respond personally.
> >
> > Little background, I work with movie film stock every day. I understand
> > it, and haven't really seen a problem using it for still work (half my
> > day is spent looking at stills from movie stock on a light box - okay, a
> > little hyperbole there, maybe a quarter). I'm personally planning on
> > using 5245 in my realist, not because I'm looking for a cheaper
> > solution, but I want more experience with that particular stock (it is
> > sort of my stock in trade, so to speak).
> >
> > .r.
>
>
>
>