There have been a few discussions in other photo groups and forums concerning the archiving of film and the possible degradation over time.
Having worked in photo processing labs for more than 10 years back in the 80's and 90's I came to find that there is/was a huge difference in the manor that a customer’s film was handled or processed.
Regardless of whether you took your film to a 1 hour mini lab, a professional photo lab using a dip and dunk system or one of the many bulk film developing companies around the country that would run miles of film
through a continues film line;
it all comes down to the quality control that each lab implemented
As some of you may recall back in 1989', Kodak tried to implement a Kodak Certified Processing certification associated with a number of labs.
This entailed mixing the chemistry to exacting standards and even checking the specific gravity of each batch for process such as Ciba-Chrome and E-6 or color reversal film.
In addition each film processing machine would have film test strip run every 4 hours.
That lasted for all of 12 months before the photo labs decided that the extra expense of following such a stringent model was not cost effective.
What you could expect from the better photo labs that ran Colenta or Hostert dip and dunk machines was Kodak chemistry that was mixed to specs and added daily to the 50
gallon replenishment reservoir that fed each processors replenishment system,
and were triggered as each new rack of film was loaded into the machine.
When these systems were properly monitored they ran flawlessly and the systems ran a steady line.
Meaning that the test strips run 3 times a day never moved more than 5-7 points above or below the recommended base line,
resulting in perfectly processed film that was theoretically completely archival and as Kodak claimed; would remain stable for more than 100 years.
However there was a not so pretty reality.
If you ran your film in any of the professional photo labs in NYC (and probably most other major cities) it was a complete crap shoot when it came to the people that would be running the machines that ran your film.
In many instances photo school students would take jobs working at film labs in order to get the free film processing.
However, back when film labs used bike messengers to pick up and deliver film to the studios and labs, it was not uncommon for a few of these messengers to on occasion, to get hit by cars.
So when these messengers healed up they were not sent back to the streets, they were sent to learn to run the film processing machines.
With out naming names, it would be safe to say that you had a 75% chance of having a broken down bike messenger running your film if you used any of the “pro” photo labs in NYC.
And yes this is based on first hand knowledge.
So the mixing of the chemistry was not really as accurate as it could have been since Kodak’s mixing instructions were listed in ratios as 1:3 or 1:20 etc.
This for some reason left room for interpretation by those doing the mixing. It’s amazing how many variations people can come up with as to what the numbers in a ratio mean; and the logic they use to justify that reasoning.
But even more troubling are the lab managers that told the film processing departments to dilute the chemistry because it was costing too much money to properly fix the
B&W film and the archival wash even though the lab was already cutting cots by using generic gray market chemistry.
For those that remember film...
Kodak came out with TMAX (with the patented “T” grain technology) which was expected to become the holy grail of B&W film.
The problem was that unless you hand processed it, you would end up getting your film back from the lab looking magenta.
The lab in most instances told you that it was supposed to be that way.
But a simple test of laying a strip of film on a light box for 10-20 minutes would result in a visible change in the color and density of the negative.
The cure was to re-fix and wash each strip of film by hand, and find a new lab that didn't cut their chemistry. And requesting 'hand processing' of your film depended on how busy the lab was.
If the photo lab was short staffed or overwhelmed with work orders, the odds were that your B&W film was probably going to be run +1 on the B&W processor and given extra
time in the fix by having one of the attendants move the rack of film back 1 notch in the dip and dunk fix tank.
One of the problems with pro film labs running E-6 or C-41 film was the amount of film being run on a daily basis.
Only about 40% of the film being run was ever run normal. The rest of the film had push or pull times that went from + or - 1/8th to as much as +or – 4 stops.
And if you processed Steven Merisel’s film you could expect a few +6 stop rolls in every batch sent to the lab.
{Peter Lindbergh had the best and most consistent film [Plus x Pan]} But I digress.
Now all of this pushing and pulling resulted in the film lines chemistry being replenished on a continuous basis.
So regardless of whether there was 1 roll of film on the rack or 12 rolls that same amount of chemistry was replenished with every rack of film that went through the processor.
This too accounted for why a photographer doing a clip test in the morning would see a different result in the final film if he waited until the evening to run the balances of his rolls or sheet film.
The rule of thumb for most labs is that the processing machines are set to automatically start up at 5:00 am so that by 7:30 when the morning shift person
opened the machines to top off the tanks with distilled water from evaporation, turn on the nitrogen tanks that were used for agitation,
and then they would check the temp of the chemistry and run the first test strip of the day.
On each processor that took somewhere around an hour for an E-6 processors. However your film would start getting loaded onto the machines at 8:00am so that by 8:45 when the mornings
first test strip is read your film is already passed the reversal bath. Hence you could be pretty sure that you got film that was run anywhere from +/- 1-2 stops depending on the history of
the machine and the temperature of the chemistry.
Sometimes when the film line started to shift we could make changes to the chemistry by adding sodium hydroxide to a
specific tank to correct small spikes in the process or even do an exchange and replace 2-3 gallons of existing tank chemistry add the equivalent amount of fresh chemistry directly to the tanks.
Inevitably there would be times that sheets of 4x5 or 8x10 sheet film would fall off during the process and sit on the bottom of the processing tanks. After a period of time this would begin
to have an adverse effect on that tanks chemistry.
At other times we would have to dump your entire line which amounted to several hundred gallons from all of the machines processing tanks.
And take apart the processor in order to pull out the film that would accumulate on the bottom of the processing tanks.
The other thing that screwed up film processing lines was when people started running E-6 film through C-41 and C-4q1 through the E-6 process.
That Cross processing phase lasted way too long for a number of art directors. But I know of several photographers that made a good living shooting with just that method.
The cross processing method however played havoc on film lines depending on how much film was going through the machines you would see wild spikes on the film test strips and trying to correct accordingly
would only through the whole process out of whack.
More often than not it was better to just leave well enough alone and recalibrate the replenishment system to accommodate what was to become the new “normal” which could be
as much as 10-20 points below the recommended Kodak base line.
The following are a few helpful tips regarding archiving film or saving what you have.
Storage of negatives:
Don’t assume that the lab put your negatives in acid free glassine paper envelops. Labs rarely spend that kind of money regardless of how good a client you were.
Your best option is to use the archival plastic sleeves for storage in a cool dry, low humidity, temperature consistent place.
Negatives stored in an attic or basement will not age well.
Kodachrome:
This had always been marketed as the most archival of all film processes
as far back as the early 60’s. This was due to the films proprietary developing process. Probably the most impressive film we ever used was the Kodachrome 25.
If you could handle the slow ASA you got the most amazing images that could also be blown up to mural size (9’x12’) with out any grain.
Any film degradation is more than likely due to human error or poor storage conditions.
E-6 / Color reversal film:
In theory E-6 film is said to be 99.999% archival. But as we have seen above this too is entirely dependant upon the quality controls exercised by the processing lab used.
Cross over
This is most prevalent in RA-4 or color print processing.
The cross over appears as a change or color shift that makes it difficult if not impossible to create a final print with a neutral color balance.
This is most apparent by the images tendency to lean to the magenta or green spectrum, or the cyan or red.
This problem is most often due to the quality of the color printing paper being used primarily how it was stored or it signals that contamination exists in the RA-4 processor.
This is usually remedied by taking apart the machine and cleaning the rollers and possibly replacing all of the chemistry.
Other causes are color temperature shifts in studio lighting that can cause the color neg to appear to be the cause of the cross over, or extreme contamination in the C-41 process. Cross over is
less of an issue with E-6 processing done in photo labs, but can appear if the film was process by hand in a 3 bath rather than a 6 development bath process.
This is because the 3 bath process allows for cross contamination of the chemistry.
C-41 / Color negative film and B&W film:
Both of these films are very close in terms of archival stability.
Generally if the film was processed properly there is no reason to believe that it will not last 100 years. (Per Kodak white papers.)
Again storing the negatives in plastic archival sleeves in a temperature control environment is best.
Visible inspection is usually enough to determine the films condition.
B&W negatives can be re-fixed to some degree but this is a process that should only be attempted with great care and by testing with a piece of film that you would consider expendable.
Re-fixing could result in the complete removal of the silver from the emulsions base.
And both B&W and color negatives can be re-washed which can remove any dust that may have found its way onto the negatives, and this re-washing too can be used for negatives that have curled.
After a long wash use a wetting agent or highly diluted PhotoFlo and then use a hand held hair dryer at the lowest setting to dry the negative or hang in a film drying cabinet.
All of the above information is based on legacy Kodak white papers, personal experience in commercial labs, and personal experimentation.
