 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / November 2006How 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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). > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > 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.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > 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? Signaturewww.nikongear.com Share, learn, win. >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 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 >>> 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 [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > 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. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > The general consensus seems to be that scanning at 2700 ppi would be > adequate for most 35mm images, except for the high-resolution modern [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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... > 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 > Path: be02!out02b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!uns-out.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!pc02.usenetserver.com!STARBAND.NET!not-for-mail > From: glenn Jacobs <gjacobs.starband.removethis.net> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > 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 |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.