Re: [Rollei] Negatives of one's ancestors

["Richard Knoppow" <dickburk >]

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Aaron Reece" <oboeaaron  >
To: <rollei  
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 6:40 PM
Subject: [Rollei] Negatives of one's ancestors


> That's a great story, Carlos. When I started to do my own
darkroom
> work, my step-grandmother started "discovering" negatives
from my
> grandfather's "archives" (shoeboxes) and passing them my
way. Most were
> 6x9 so it was a simple matter to just make a contact sheet
of 8 at a
> time. There were a few larger ones that must have come
from one of
> those cameras that let you write a little note at the
bottom of each
> negative when you took the picture, which would then get
printed along
> with the rest of the negative. From the dress it is clear
that these
> date from before the war - the Great War, that is. Some of
them were
> taken in places that are still recognizable today (Mill
Mountain and
> Old Southwest in Roanoke, Virginia). Some of the people
are still known
> to us, such as my great-grandmother in her prime. These
must be from
> before the time that film types were encoded along the
edges of the
> frames, but whatever it was, it was capable of phenomenal
density
> range, and it's quite difficult to obtain a print from
them on any but
> the softest paper grades. Given the era I would imagine
that contact
> prints were the norm rather than the exception.
> Anyway, the main body of the negatives were made by my
grandfather
> himself, depicting the daily life of his family and
children (my mother
> and her siblings) growing up on a mountain in rural
Roanoke county
> during the 40s and 50s. It seems that rather than have
prints made, he
> would just have the negatives processed and use the saved
money to buy
> more film, so most of these were never printed until I got
them a few
> years ago.
> In any case, these B&W negatives, having received
processing and
> washing that was probably questionable at best, then
stored in
> conditions of extreme heat and cold, aridity and humidity,
some of them
> for upwards of eighty years, are still in fine condition
and indeed
> they print much as I assume they would have when first
processed.
> Whenever I get bored doing tank inversions I just remind
myself that if
> properly cared for these images could last for centuries.
My
> great-grandcritter may one day take these negatives in
their archival
> sleeves and binders and with ten dollars worth of hardware
and
> chemistry make contact prints that "seemed taken
yesterday." That is
> not going to happen with a CD-ROM.
> Best regards,
> -Aaron
>
> On Friday, July 16, 2004, at 04:58  PM, Carlos Manuel
Freaza wrote:
>

   The camera that allowed writing on the film was the Kodak
Autographic. Several models of these were made. Autographic
film was special, it had a paper backing made so that when
written on with a sharp stylus (supplied with the camera) it
would tear away the opaque backing allowing the writing to
be exposed onto the film underneath. The film was not made
for very long, without looking it up I think less than ten
years, but the size was standard, at least for Kodak, so the
cameras stayed in service even after the Autographic feature
became unusable.
    Before photofinishers had automatic enlargers cameras
tended to be of rather large format because the only
economical prints were contact prints. This was pretty much
the rule until after WW-2. Kodak even made a roll film which
took 4x5 inch images!
    There is a history booklet on Kodak cameras hidden
somewhere on the Kodak web site and Thom Bell of Kodak has a
list of discontinued roll film sizes on his personal web
site.
    As far as processing is concerned, the most important
thing seems to be whether the negatives were completely
fixed or not. Photofinishers sometimes continued to use
fixer until it wouldn't clear any more, long past its
capacity to fix archivally. The number of very old negatives
and prints which have survived in perfect condition despite
lack of special storage conditions suggests that many
photofinishers did a pretty good job. Since it is now known
that a very small residual of fixer in the emulsion helps to
preserve the image its likely that adequate, but not heroic,
washing may have resulted in longer, not shorter, life for
the negatives and especially fro the prints.
   I will also comment that many old negatives are very
dense. This is due to the common practice of photofinishers
of overdeveloping somewhat to insure recovering an image in
case of under exposure, and the typical condition of,
especially box cameras, of overexposing in bright light
conditions. Since film has always had a relatively large
overexposure latitude and little underexposure latitude,
this is a reasonable compromise where it is desired to get
an image, even if not of the best quality, despite poor
exposure conditions.
    I wonder how many current digital images will be around
in eightly years.

- ---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk  

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