Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.

Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
non-commercial.

Thank you for your time.

Regards,
Carl Wegerer

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Carl Wegerer spake thus:

> Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
> Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
> fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.
>
> Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
> so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
> digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
> non-commercial.

Richard Knoppow here would probably be the most knowledgable to comment
on this here. It would help to know, though, what kind of stain it is
exactly. Can you describe it--color, intensity, etc.?


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
( * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan Ellison)

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

The negative arrived today. I wanted to provide an update since you were
all so helpful.

Once again, here is a link to image:
* i20.ebayimg . com /01/i/000/8c/a7/07fc_12.JPG.

> It would help to know, though, what kind of stain it is exactly. Can you
> describe it--color, intensity, etc.?

The stain is yellow and is on the emulsion side. The result can be found on
the right side of the scan.

I also learned who the seller was of this and many other vintage items -
Mark Vieira. Vieira was once Hurrell's assistant. He has also authored
several books. It all makes sense now. Who else in this world would have
such a great collection of other people's work?

His work can be viewed at * thestarlightstudio . com /

I will move forward with getting the negative scanned.

Carl Wegerer, III
Mesquite TX

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Carl Wegerer wrote:
> The negative arrived today. I wanted to provide an update since you were
> all so helpful.
>
> Once again, here is a link to image:
> * i20.ebayimg . com /01/i/000/8c/a7/07fc 12.JPG.
>
>> It would help to know, though, what kind of stain it is exactly. Can you
>> describe it--color, intensity, etc.?
>
> The stain is yellow and is on the emulsion side. The result can be found on
> the right side of the scan.
>
> I also learned who the seller was of this and many other vintage items -
> Mark Vieira. Vieira was once Hurrell's assistant. He has also authored
> several books. It all makes sense now. Who else in this world would have
> such a great collection of other people's work?

Hurrell's family also has a web-site devoted to his work, although I
don't know if they would be willing to sell negatives, even copy negatives.

* hurrellestate . com /

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

In article <tDoEh.2107$8x.1628@newssvr14.news.prodigy . net >,
"Carl Wegerer" <wegerer@swbell . net > wrote:

> Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer made by George E.
> Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The negative was describe as being in
> fair condition with a stain in the middle of the image.
>
> Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the negative restored? If
> so, does anyone have a recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
> digital restoration? The purpose of asking these questions are
> non-commercial.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Regards,
> Carl Wegerer

Shy of printing the image,then having someone paint "hand retouch" the
resulting image - digital is probably the best option if the goal is to
get a beautiful print. If beautiful is the goal as opposed to just doing
an analog fix i think digital beats hand work. I suppose if you have
unlimited funds a chemist can analyze the stain and neutralize it.

Having worked in a Professional photo-lab I am attempting to providing
insight to this process.

Take care!
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative


"Carl Wegerer" <wegerer@swbell . net > wrote in message
news:tDoEh.2107$8x.1628@newssvr14.news.prodigy . net ...
> Yeterday, I won a vintage studio negative of Norma Shearer
> made by George E. Hurrell for the M-G-M film Riptide. The
> negative was describe as being in fair condition with a
> stain in the middle of the image.
>
> Is there any hope of the stain being removed and the
> negative restored? If so, does anyone have a
> recommendations. Or will I be limited to getting a
> digital restoration? The purpose of asking these
> questions are non-commercial.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Regards,
> Carl Wegerer
>


Some types of stains can be removed but there is always
the dange of ruining the negative. Getting it scanned sounds
like a good idea no matter what else you do. You can also
make a duplicate. This will required two steps. Probably the
best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji Acros.
When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength
these films have excedingly fine grain and very good
resolution. You will have to make a positive from the
negative and a duplicate negative from that. If the stain is
yellow use a yellow, orange, or red filter to eliminate it.
No one seem to make panchromatic paper any more but that
would be another option by printing through an orange or red
filter.
Hurrell was famous for doing extensive retouching on his
negatives. Make sure the stain is not actually some sort of
masking.
Note that it may NOT be an original negative but a
duplicate made for mass production printing. Fan pictures
and theater display stills were made by mass contact
printing using duplicate negatives.
If this is an original its likely quite valuable. You
might want to contact a conservator at a library with a
large photo collection like the Getty in Los Angeles or the
Library of Congress.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@ix . net com . com



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from * w w w .teranews . com

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

"Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@ix . net com . com > writes:

> You can also
> make a duplicate. This will required two steps. Probably the
> best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji Acros.
> When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength
> these films have excedingly fine grain and very good
> resolution. You will have to make a positive from the
> negative and a duplicate negative from that.

Could the duplicating process be improved by processing the
positive gained in the first phase into a negative, using
the processes one uses for making positive film out of negative
B/W film? (Going around thinking positives from negatives and
negatives from positives makes my head spin.)

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

On Feb 26, 4:40 am, Toni Nikkanen <t...@morgoth.tuug.fi> wrote:
> "Richard Knoppow" <dickb...@ix . net com . com > writes:
> > You can also
> > make a duplicate. This will required two steps. Probably the
> > best currently available film is 100T-Max or Fuji Acros.
> > When developed in Microdol-X or Perceptol used full strength
> > these films have excedingly fine grain and very good
> > resolution. You will have to make a positive from the
> > negative and a duplicate negative from that.
>
> Could the duplicating process be improved by processing the
> positive gained in the first phase into a negative, using
> the processes one uses for making positive film out of negative
> B/W film? (Going around thinking positives from negatives and
> negatives from positives makes my head spin.)

It is possible to make duplicate negatives by reversal. Such
materials were on the market up to a few years ago. Most reversal
processes are intended to make a positive for projection with a gamma
of about 1.0. Presumably, if the original is a low contrast negative
the duplicate would also be low in contrast but I think it would some
fiddling to be sure. Kodak made a reversal kit for T-Max, I don't know
if its still available.
Making a positive from the original and a negative from that is
not too difficult but this also would require some experimentation to
get the exposures and development right. Scanning is probably a lot
simpler. Its possible to make a negative from the scan. Making
negatives is done commonly for alternative printing processes where a
large size negative, suitable for contact printing, is needed from a
smaller negative. The scanning process also allows adjustment of the
characteristic curve of the resultant negative and, of course, allows
the necessary retouching.
I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
chemical treatment.

--
Richard Knoppow

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Richard Knoppow spake thus:

> I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
> removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
> original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
> chemical treatment.

How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
question if it would do any good. Worth a try?


--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
( * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan Ellison)

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

On Feb 26, 7:36 pm, David Nebenzahl <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote:
> Richard Knoppow spake thus:
>
> > I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
> > removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
> > original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
> > chemical treatment.
>
> How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
> benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
> question if it would do any good. Worth a try?
>
> --
> Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
> forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
> time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
> like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
> variorum text that would be put up on that site.
>
> It is a WASTE OF TIME.
>
> - Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
> ( * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan Ellison)

It is probably a good suggestion after doing the non-damaging steps
already suggested (i.e., scan the negative, copy the negative on film,
copy the negative using filtered light on film, getting more
information about the nature of the stain, even consulting a trained
conservator) and considering any results obtained.

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Not always! There's also damage from molds and etc. that
can change the nature of the gelatin. Some of that could
appear as a stain to the uninitiated. Adding water could
wash the emulsion right off the base!

There's a lot of maybe's here but the first step would be to
make a high quality high resolution scan of the original,
there are ways to make a new negative from the scan, and
then take the original to a conservation specialist, most
"photo restoration" is actually analog airbrush and pencil
technique on a copy print which is then rephotographed or
the digital equivalent. This is not what's required.

You might want to contact R.I.T. Rochester Institute of
Technology or Eastman House for a recommendation.

darkroommike

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> Richard Knoppow spake thus:
>
>> I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
>> removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
>> original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
>> chemical treatment.
>
> How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
> benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
> question if it would do any good. Worth a try?
>
>

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

In article <45e32781$0$6839$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers . com >,
David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>Richard Knoppow spake thus:
>
>> I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
>> removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
>> original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
>> chemical treatment.
>
>How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
>benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
>question if it would do any good. Worth a try?

If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.

You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
that may have been hand-retouched.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

Thor Lancelot Simon spake thus:

> In article <45e32781$0$6839$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers . com >,
> David Nebenzahl <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote:
>
>>Richard Knoppow spake thus:
>>
>>>I suggested making a duplicate negative because it is one way of
>>>removing stains and some other blemishes without damaging the
>>>original. I would be very reluctant to subject this negative to any
>>>chemical treatment.
>>
>>How about just a rinse in plain water? Seems as if that would be a
>>benign process not likely to damage the film, although it's an open
>>question if it would do any good. Worth a try?
>
> If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
> retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.
>
> You want to be pretty careful doing anything to film or even prints
> that may have been hand-retouched.

Yes, that's true, but it should be possible to tell if it has been
retouched by looking at it under a strong light, no? Besides, the O.P.
said it was a copy negative, not likely to have been retouched.



--
Don't talk to me, those of you who must need to be slammed in the
forehead with a maul before you'll GET IT that Wikipedia is a
time-wasting, totality of CRAP...don't talk to me, don't keep bleating
like naifs, that we should somehow waste MORE of our lives writing a
variorum text that would be put up on that site.

It is a WASTE OF TIME.

- Harlan Ellison, writing on the "talk page" of his Wikipedia article
( * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harlan Ellison)

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

In article <es5jg5$adk$1@reader2.panix . com >,
tls@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>
> If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
> retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.
>
> You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
> that may have been hand-retouched.

Most likely, a lot of retoucher's use oils and pastels-both are smudge
producing and some what greasy. They may appear hard because the
retoucher typically applies a photo varnish throughout the work process.
Shy of solvents they probably won't come off and even then as you say
may produce more damage in the attempt.
--
George W. Bush is the President Quayle we never had.

Re: Restoring a stained 8x10 diacetate copy negative

In article <nogo-468D2F.07532001032007@news.isp.giganews . com >,
Gregory Blank <nogo@g-photo . com > wrote:
>In article <es5jg5$adk$1@reader2.panix . com >,
> tls@panix . com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>>
>> If the negative has been retouched, a water rinse may remove the
>> retouching or, worse, cause it to stain adjacent areas of the film.
>>
>> You want to be pretty careful doing _anything_ to film or even prints
>> that may have been hand-retouched.
>
>Most likely, a lot of retoucher's use oils and pastels-both are smudge
>producing and some what greasy. They may appear hard because the
>retoucher typically applies a photo varnish throughout the work process.
>Shy of solvents they probably won't come off and even then as you say
>may produce more damage in the attempt.

This is probably true of print-retouching products. But materials used
to build density on negatives are generally water soluble, at least to
some degree. Some that come to mind are india ink, Kodak Crocein
Scarlet, Spot Tone Dyene, and carbon black in various binders. These
are not things you want floating around a water bath with your
negative!

--
Thor Lancelot Simon tls@rek.tjls . com
"All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all
at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract