 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / September 2004How to clean film negatives?
I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The negatives were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it got small dust stuck on one side of the negatives. How to clean it up? I intend to scan these negatives on a scanner. I don't have any photographic equipment or solvent or whatever, I think I just throw it into water for five minutes, then gently rub it with my hands to get the dust off, then hang-dry them. wouldn't suggest rubbing it at all..this will scratch the neg. if you don't have a neg cleaning cloth, scan it as is and fix it in Photoshop.hold the cleaning until it can be done properly >I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The negatives >were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it got small dust [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I just throw it into water for five minutes, then gently rub it with my >hands to get the dust off, then hang-dry them. Don't wash and rub! Kodak film cleaner and a box of "photo wipes," (sorry, I don't have a box in front of me to give you the mfgr name, but they are widely available, as is the film cleaner, at most larger photo shops), and a very gentle application is best. Next, there are several lintless, treated cloths for this purpose. Be careful, and when using film cleaner, apply to photo wipe, not to the film. Hunt > I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The > negatives were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > think I just throw it into water for five minutes, then gently rub > it with my hands to get the dust off, then hang-dry them. I think you screw it up. -- dadiOH _____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.0... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico ____________________________ > I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The negatives > were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it got small dust [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I just throw it into water for five minutes, then gently rub it with my > hands to get the dust off, then hang-dry them. Don't use one hour labs. Take your negs to a real lab and ask them to dip and dry them for you. Stephan > I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The negatives > were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it got small dust > stuck on one side of the negatives. How to clean it up? I intend to > scan these negatives on a scanner. Some years ago (about 7 IIRC) I noticed several negative strips didn't slide easily out of their envelopes. Look more closely they appeared to be slightly wet in spots, and that's where they 'stuck' to the envelopes. I had never seen this before, and despite having the film developed at several different photo shops/labs the 'wet' look remained. I asked a couple of the employees and some of the shops the reason behind this and they all said the same thing, that it was nothing to worry about, that it was just an oily lubricant designed to allow the negatives to pass more easily through their equipment. I don't know how widespread this is, or whether what I was told was accurate or not, but it's one of the reasons that I've switched to digital, where the only precaution I've noted is that when printing photos (and non-photos as well) my ink-jet printer allows for a short drying time before ejecting the prints. "BillB" posted: "... I asked a couple of the employees and some of the shops the reason behind this and they all said the same thing, that it was nothing to worry about, that it was just an oily lubricant designed to allow the negatives to pass more easily through their equipment. ..." First: That "doesn't sound right" to me ... none of the minilabs I know about need to "lubricate" the film in order to work properly, or in order "to allow the negatives to pass more easily through the(ir) equipment." Second: The first thing I would do ... I would certainly get that cleaned off the negatives ASAP ... PEC-12 would _probably_ handle it. The second thing I would do ... I would complain to the lab *manager,* not the counter person. There is often a BIG difference. The third thing I would do ... I would inform the lab manager that this was unacceptable and that I would find another lab that did not have that problem, and give them all of my film processing business. >> I asked a couple of the employees and some of the >> shops the reason behind this and they all said the same > First: > That "doesn't sound right" to me ... none of the minilabs I > know about need to "lubricate" the film in order to work > properly, or in order "to allow the negatives to pass more > easily through the(ir) equipment." It didn't seem right to me either. A clarification, in case I wasn't clear enough. The employees that told me about the lubricant weren't all working in the same shop. That's what I was told by employees in several different shops. The only other thing that I can recall (and this probably happened about '96 or '97) was that the only shops that used 'lubricant' were the quick 1 hr. shops. I don't recall it happening at any of the places where processing took a day or more. >"BillB" posted: >"... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >another lab that did not have that problem, and give them >all of my film processing business. I don't know about mini-labs, but color sep houses that do drum scans usually apply a very thin coating of an oily substance to chromes to reduce Newton's rings, and fill any scratches. This can create a bit of havoc when the trans is re-sleeved, but film cleaner and photo wipes take care of it easily. Hunt "Hunt" posted: "... I don't know about mini-labs, but color sep houses that do drum scans usually apply a very thin coating of an oily substance to chromes to reduce Newton's rings, and fill any scratches. This can create a bit of havoc when the trans is re-sleeved, but film cleaner and photo wipes take care of it easily. ..." Yes ... that's a totally different thing, and done for a totally different reason. The product often used is Kami Oil, and was available from Aztek. http://www.aztek.com/Products/Aztek%20Imaging%20-%20Scanning %20Supplies(main).htm It has been replaced by KAMI "SMF" (Scanner Mounting Fluid), which is claimed to leave no residue. Both can usually be removed with PEC-12 ... or Aztek / Kami RC 2001 Film Cleaner. > >"BillB" posted: > >"... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Hunt >"Hunt" posted: >"... [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] >> >> Hunt Thanks for the clarification. I never asked the pre-press guys, "what the f___ is this stuff?" I just cleaned it, if necessary. Since I don't use any mini- labs, I could only guess about how they might treat the negs, and the results sounded similar. Hunt Sounds very strange. The only thing that popped into my head that this could be would be a wetting agent, which I know is used on b&w to help the water sheet off the film and dry without streaks,etc. Don't know any reason they'd need to lube your film up to send it through a machine though. Travis Smith > > I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The negatives > > were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it got small dust [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > when printing photos (and non-photos as well) my ink-jet printer > allows for a short drying time before ejecting the prints. > Sounds very strange. The only thing that popped into my head that this > could be would be a wetting agent, which I know is used on b&w to help the > water sheet off the film and dry without streaks,etc. Don't know any > reason they'd need to lube your film up to send it through a machine though. No, I'm quite familiar with wetting agent, and used it in darkrooms back in the early 60's. A little bit goes a looong way, and in that respect reminds me of the Rodinal developer I sometimes used. But even if a trace amount of water remained on the negatives, it would quickly dry and leave no visible trace. The only thing I can think of at this time is based on something that I recall with my Durst enlarger. I preferred using a 'glassless' carrier in it as I didn't like the extra work involved in removing dust from the glass. But dust has nothing to do with my new theory. If the photoprocessing equipment (and this is a wild guess because I know nothing about them) flattened the negative strip between glass, the 'lubricant' might be used not to lubricate, but to ensure better transmission of light by minimizing refraction as it passes through different regions. Even though there wouldn't be much air between the negative and the glass, there might be enough, and the 'lubricant' might have optical properties similar to the negative, so that instead of having light being refracted slightly as it passes between the glass + air + negative + air + glass layers, it might only have to deal with light passing between the glass + lubed negative + glass layers. This theory might be farfetched, but it'll have to do until someone with real information pipes up, or until someone can provide a more plausible guess. :) Well I can say that I work at a professional lab here in Austin and I have watched the printer make machine prints in our Noritsu 2901 (a pretty popular brand of machine printer as far as I can gather) and I know that there is no kindof lube on the negs.... the machine basically grabs 35mm negs by the sprockets but never actually touches the frame on the neg. That's about as much info as I could give from my experience working there, although I've never cracked the machine open and seen exactly how it works. But I know that there is never any kindof lubricant on the film when it comes back out *shrug* Travis Smith Holland Photo > > Sounds very strange. The only thing that popped into my head that this > > could be would be a wetting agent, which I know is used on b&w to help the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > farfetched, but it'll have to do until someone with real information > pipes up, or until someone can provide a more plausible guess. :) In Message-ID:<10lk5u745kl1k79@corp.supernews.com> posted on Tue, 28 Sep 2004 21:02:37 -0500, Travis Smith wrote: >But I know that there is never any kindof lubricant on the film when it >comes back out What, no WD-40? ;-)  SignatureJK > That's about as much info as I could give from my experience working there, > although I've never cracked the machine open and seen exactly how it works. > But I know that there is never any kindof lubricant on the film when it > comes back out *shrug* Well, it's not enough so that the negative appears to be wet. Just that when placed in a negative envelope, trace amounts of whatever was on the negative helped it to slightly adhere to the translucent envelope in a few spots, and those spots could be easily seen. I'm sure you're right that the machine you worked with (and most other too, it seems) let the negatives remain uncoated, but my mystery machines were a bit different and in a way pushed me towards digital photograpy. That, combined with some other photo labs that returned negatives with occasional horizontal scratches that showed up in the pictures made me start getting the pictures placed on Kodak Photo CDs. That led to making my own prints, and a couple of years later, to my first digital camera. Someday I'll dig out the old Nikon SLR and see how it has aged. The most likely reason you were getting horizontal scratches on your negs (if the lab scratched them, that is) was because the lab was using a roller transport type of processor, where your film is pulled through the machine over rollers..... If the particular high school kid working that day didn't feel like cleaning off the rollers that can easily scratch your negs. Any good pro lab should use a dip and dunk processor, were your negs are hung up and dipped into the chemistry. Anyway, sounds like the lab you were using was pretty cheap/poorly managed. Travis Smith > > That's about as much info as I could give from my experience working there, > > although I've never cracked the machine open and seen exactly how it works. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > years later, to my first digital camera. Someday I'll dig out the > old Nikon SLR and see how it has aged. BTW, I didn't mean to say that I thought what they were using was a wetting agent, but it was really the only thing I could imagine.... I see no reason why you would need lubricant because there is no reason ever that your negs should be rubbing up against anything. Travis Smith > > Sounds very strange. The only thing that popped into my head that this > > could be would be a wetting agent, which I know is used on b&w to help the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > farfetched, but it'll have to do until someone with real information > pipes up, or until someone can provide a more plausible guess. :) In Message-ID:<ea1kl0l440eoqm96apnhgvrj3v5ps26fuk@4ax.com> posted on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:10:24 GMT, BillB wrote: >If the photoprocessing equipment (and this is a wild guess >because I know nothing about them) flattened the negative strip [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >farfetched, but it'll have to do until someone with real information >pipes up, or until someone can provide a more plausible guess. :) Sounds like a variation of the old vaseline trick to make scratches"disappear". SignatureJK On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:13:34 -0700, Justín Käse wrote: > Sounds like a variation of the old vaseline trick to make > scratches"disappear". So it does. What was used to remove the vaseline after it did its magic, and don't tell me it was WD-40. :) Or nose grease -- where you rubbed your finger alongside your nose, then into the scratch -- worked pretty well > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:13:34 -0700, Justín Käse wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So it does. What was used to remove the vaseline after it did its > magic, and don't tell me it was WD-40. :) > Or nose grease -- where you rubbed your finger alongside > your nose, then into the scratch -- worked pretty well Works great on guitar strings too. In Message-ID:<pv8kl0hlgk064mugntdodbevsdtqfu14ik@4ax.com> posted on Wed, 29 Sep 2004 03:02:10 GMT, BillB wrote: >On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 19:13:34 -0700, Justín Käse wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So it does. What was used to remove the vaseline after it did its >magic, and don't tell me it was WD-40. :) I never had to use that gimmick, but we were all taught it in Commercial Photography school. Maybe just re-rinse the negative with a drop of detergent in the bath? SignatureJK >>Sounds very strange. The only thing that popped into my head that this >>could be would be a wetting agent, which I know is used on b&w to help the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > farfetched, but it'll have to do until someone with real information > pipes up, or until someone can provide a more plausible guess. :) A LONG time ago someone made an aftermarket negative carrier for Omega and other enlargers that placed the negative in a small chamber of some sort of solution (the solution was held in a sort of bladder alongside the carrier). It evaporated fast, and based on the smell, I suspect a good whiff could get you more than a little high. Don't know what the solution was, theory was that it had the same index of refraction as film base. >I just got some Fuji film negatives from One-Hour Photo. The negatives > were fresh new. It looked wet. By mishandling, now it got small dust [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I just throw it into water for five minutes, then gently rub it with my > hands to get the dust off, then hang-dry them. Acetone is best cleaning solution. "Andy" posted: "... Acetone is best cleaning solution. ..." WRONG. It melts the film base. Use PEC-12 ... or Aztek / Kami RC 2001 Film Cleaner. > Acetone is best cleaning solution. > ..." > > WRONG. It melts the film base. > > Use PEC-12 ... or Aztek / Kami RC 2001 Film Cleaner. But if you use nail polish remover which consists almost entirely of acetone, the glycerine, gelatine, various dimethyl compounds and fragrances leaves the film soft and supple. What's left of it. :) Thanks for mentioning those products. |
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
|
©2008 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.