PDA

View Full Version : Experience with Hollinger's ULF Envelopes?



Pages : [1] 2

wfwhitaker
09-15-2006, 09:42 AM
Storage of ULF negatives seems to be such a bear. You've got that much more surface area waiting to be scratched, but there are that many fewer storage products on the market for ULF.

Hollinger's Genealogical Storage Products ULF Photographic Envelopes (http://www.genealogicalstorageproducts.com/ullafophen.html) look like a possibility, although they're certainly not inexpensive. But storing a negative directly in a paper envelope without an intermediate polyester or mylar sleeve seems like it might be conducive to scratching. Has anyone here used this product? Can you comment on its performance?

At almost $3 per envelope I'd like to know that this is a viable solution. Don't they know we already spent all our money on the film itself?...

Michael Kadillak
09-15-2006, 11:30 AM
Storage of ULF negatives seems to be such a bear. You've got that much more surface area waiting to be scratched, but there are that many fewer storage products on the market for ULF.

Hollinger's Genealogical Storage Products ULF Photographic Envelopes (http://www.genealogicalstorageproducts.com/ullafophen.html) look like a possibility, although they're certainly not inexpensive. But storing a negative directly in a paper envelope without an intermediate polyester or mylar sleeve seems like it might be conducive to scratching. Has anyone here used this product? Can you comment on its performance?

At almost $3 per envelope I'd like to know that this is a viable solution. Don't they know we already spent all our money on the film itself?...

I feel that they are worth the expense as I saw them at a Michael and Paula seminar first hand. Ditto for their archival drop front print and negative boxes the company sells. I ordered a series of the boxes for several of the formats I shoot and received them. However I must tell you that I have been waiting on these archival negative "folders" for over a year and have not yet got this situation resolved. Catherine Hollinger who I am working with on this issue is the daughter of the owners and there may be an issue with the specific paper manufacturer that provides the paper stock for these items. I am hoping for an answer from Catherine shortly and will keep you posted. The folders have no adhesives or any other components that would add risk to the archival objectives and are a fabulous way to store negatives.

I will re-post when I get an answer on timing.

Cheers!

Dave Wooten
09-15-2006, 12:07 PM
Hello WF,

I have just started using 16 x 20 clear open plastic envelopes for 14 x 17 negs, they are archival, they are folded and the open side-the 20" side seals with a small overlap that seems to work well. I like it because I do not have to slide the neg in....I am hoping to find an envelope to insert the 16 x 12 cover in...possible an xray envelope. I am also using them (the 16 x 20) for 7 x 17. I got them from Fred Newman at the View Camera Store, he is an APUG sponsor.

I am hoping also that I can print through this for gum etc.

RobertP
09-15-2006, 12:25 PM
For my 8x20 negatives I take a sheet of apollo paper and fold it in half. A negative sleeve for about 30 cents. At 3.00 an envelope I woulds have to pass. Apollo or Renaissance paper folded in half makes a great folder.The negative is easy in and easy out with no flaps to drag against. I then place them in an archival 16x20 film box in two stacks. It works out really well. Apollo paper is buffered for use with black and white films. So the negative is surrounded by an archival paper and then placed in an archival box. At 27 cents a film sleeve you can't beat it.

Dave Wooten
09-15-2006, 01:26 PM
For my 8x20 negatives I take a sheet of apollo paper and fold it in half. A negative sleeve for about 30 cents. At 3.00 an envelope I woulds have to pass. Apollo or Renaissance paper folded in half makes a great folder.The negative is easy in and easy out with no flaps to drag against. I then place them in an archival 16x20 film box in two stacks. It works out really well. Apollo paper is buffered for use with black and white films. So the negative is surrounded by an archival paper and then placed in an archival box. At 27 cents a film sleeve you can't beat it.


Robert, that sounds good, I do not know what Apollo paper is, where can one get it? Art store?

RobertP
09-15-2006, 01:37 PM
Dave, Light impressions sells it in 100 sheet packages. I think Hollinger sells a product like it also. I also had a roll of ribbon handy. I don't recall the name of the type of ribbon but it is very much like a marker ribbon you find in Bibles. (Sorry that is the best way to descibe it off the top of my head). By placing two stacks of 8x20 in a 16x20 box I just tie the ribbon around each stack loosely to keep the stacks from nesting.

RobertP
09-15-2006, 01:46 PM
Dave, LI also sells it in rolls so you can cut whatever size you need. A 1000 ft. roll 32" wide is 170.00. That's a lot of film sleeves.

RobertP
09-15-2006, 02:10 PM
This is Apollo tissue I'm referring to. They also make a heavier paper (Apollo paper) With the tissue it comes out to about 21 cents a film sleeve buying it by the 100 sheet packs. The tissue is plenty heavy enough for negative protection. And it is the Apollo tissue that comes in the 1000 ft rolls for 170.00

wfwhitaker
09-15-2006, 02:51 PM
... However I must tell you that I have been waiting on these archival negative "folders" for over a year and have not yet got this situation resolved.
Michael,

To which "folders" do you refer? Are they the same as I linked to above or another product?

When the image costs upwards of $12 for the sheet of film, plus processing plus the expense and effort of getting the image in the first place, then $2.50 - $3 for a storage envelope doesn't sound quite as unreasonable. I'm looking at buying some of the storage bags from Clearbags (http://www.clearbags.com/?category|BAGS4) as a more economical alternative. But the paper envelope offers the possibility of making printing notes which stay with the negative. The ideal would be a paper envelope with a mylar inner sleeve open on three sides to allow handling on the lightbox much like what Light Impressions has offered for smaller formats.

RobertP
09-15-2006, 03:36 PM
Will, Light Impressions also sells a transparent archival grade DuPont polyester film and the tape for it also that you could make your own envelopes with. It also comes in rolls and sheets but I don't know what the cost would amount to. I don't shoot 12.00 a sheet film but my cheaper negatives are just as important to me and I'm plenty comfortable with the Apollo tissue. But what ever makes you feel more secure is the route to take.

wfwhitaker
09-15-2006, 05:56 PM
I don't shoot 12.00 a sheet film but my cheaper negatives are just as important to me and I'm plenty comfortable with the Apollo tissue.
First of all, please don't infer from my film price comment that I think my negatives are more important than anyone else's. My remark grew out of the idea that if you're going to all the trouble and expense of ULF, then don't scrimp with negative storage and risk the entire investment.

Robert, your Light Impressions polyester film suggestion is a good one and I'll raise you. I called Light Impressions and they confirmed (by trying it while I waited on the phone) that the 3 mil polyester will take a hard crease fairly easily. So for 12x20 I could get the 20x24 sheets and fold them in half to get the size I need without having to tape it.

But then I checked their "fold-lock" print sleeves. The 14x18 sleeves are a close fit to 14x17. They could be cut down to 14x17 since the crease and the fold-lock are along the long dimension. For 12x20 negatives if I don't want to use 16x20 sleeve full size, it could also be cut down. But being again as how the fold-lock is along the long dimension, I would loose that function and simply have a 12x20 folder open on 3 sides. But that's what I wanted in the first place! So it looks like this option is going to work for my needs. I plan to cut both sizes down to the actual negative size so I can use Hollinger's ULF envelopes and boxes. Even though I've griped about their cost, it's worth it to me, not only for protecting the negative, but also because I need all the help I can get staying organized. If the envelope cost turns out to be a killer, I can make an outer sleeve out of Apollo paper or similar.

Michael Kadillak
09-15-2006, 11:24 PM
Michael,

To which "folders" do you refer? Are they the same as I linked to above or another product?

I am not exactly sure if we are in fact talking about the same product. I called Catherine this afternoon and was told that she will be back in the office on Monday. When I get an answer I will let you know.

Cheers!

RobertP
09-16-2006, 09:09 AM
First of all, please don't infer from my film price comment that I think my negatives are more important than anyone else's. My remark grew out of the idea that if you're going to all the trouble and expense of ULF, then don't scrimp with negative storage and risk the entire investment.

Robert, your Light Impressions polyester film suggestion is a good one and I'll raise you. I called Light Impressions and they confirmed (by trying it while I waited on the phone) that the 3 mil polyester will take a hard crease fairly easily. So for 12x20 I could get the 20x24 sheets and fold them in half to get the size I need without having to tape it.

But then I checked their "fold-lock" print sleeves. The 14x18 sleeves are a close fit to 14x17. They could be cut down to 14x17 since the crease and the fold-lock are along the long dimension. For 12x20 negatives if I don't want to use 16x20 sleeve full size, it could also be cut down. But being again as how the fold-lock is along the long dimension, I would loose that function and simply have a 12x20 folder open on 3 sides. But that's what I wanted in the first place! So it looks like this option is going to work for my needs. I plan to cut both sizes down to the actual negative size so I can use Hollinger's ULF envelopes and boxes. Even though I've griped about their cost, it's worth it to me, not only for protecting the negative, but also because I need all the help I can get staying organized. If the envelope cost turns out to be a killer, I can make an outer sleeve out of Apollo paper or similar.Will, I wasn't trying to infer that you felt your negatives were any more valuable than anyone else's. My comment was meant to state regardless of film price it is what is on that film is what is of value. Be it a 35mm negative or a sheet of tmax 400 20x24 they all should be afforded the same treatment because it is your vision that is captured and of importance and not the initial investment of film. If film price scared me I would have never got into ULF. So any negative regardless of size or price is an investment. I suggested LI polyester material because it seems you want a clear plastic type material to store your negatives, like what is used in the smaller formats. I find it no more protective or even as protective than Apollo paper which is buffered and P.A.T. tested. I handle my negatives carefully so protective from atmospheric conditions is more important to me than protection from handling. When sliding the negative out of a film type folder you need to be concerned that the coners of the folder don't scratch the negative or any burrs that are on the edges after you cut them to size don't damage the negative also. This is not a problem with the soft Apollo tissue. I suggested the LI polyester film as an alternative for a 3.00 negative sleeve which I think is outrageous if you're exposing around 300 ULF negatives a year. But I was just trying to save you a few pennies so there is no need to "raise" me. A simple thank you would have been suffice but also not necessary.

RobertP
09-16-2006, 09:20 AM
Will, If you go the polyester film route, run your burnishing tool down the edges after you cut them to size.

wfwhitaker
09-16-2006, 09:43 AM
Robert,

Oh, the limitations of electronic text media in expressing the range of human thought!....

I'm going to try the Apollo tissue. I already have some of that on hand. Your comment about plastic sleeve corners scratching negatives is a good point. That's in part why I wanted to find something open on three sides. It can be opened like a book and the negative inserted or removed with little to no sliding as with other sleeves. The clear sleeve allows me to look at the negative on a light box less chance of scratching.

Thanks for the note on burnishing the polyester film. I hadn't thought about it, but it does seem likely that it might need "deburring".

RobertP
09-16-2006, 10:04 AM
Robert,

Oh, the limitations of electronic text media in expressing the range of human thought!....

I'm going to try the Apollo tissue. I already have some of that on hand. Your comment about plastic sleeve corners scratching negatives is a good point. That's in part why I wanted to find something open on three sides. It can be opened like a book and the negative inserted or removed with little to no sliding as with other sleeves. The clear sleeve allows me to look at the negative on a light box less chance of scratching.

Thanks for the note on burnishing the polyester film. I hadn't thought about it, but it does seem likely that it might need "deburring".Will, You just may need to do a check for burrs with each sheet of the polyester film, they may be fine. It depends on how they were cut and finished. Being open on three sides is a good point as it eliminates sliding the negative. You could actually just slide the clear film folder with negative, inside of the Apollo paper folder open end in first and it would give you the best of both worlds. Robert

RobertP
09-16-2006, 10:23 AM
Hello WF,

I have just started using 16 x 20 clear open plastic envelopes for 14 x 17 negs, they are archival, they are folded and the open side-the 20" side seals with a small overlap that seems to work well. I like it because I do not have to slide the neg in....I am hoping to find an envelope to insert the 16 x 12 cover in...possible an xray envelope. I am also using them (the 16 x 20) for 7 x 17. I got them from Fred Newman at the View Camera Store, he is an APUG sponsor.

I am hoping also that I can print through this for gum etc.
Dave, I think it would print through the material just fine. I think the only problem would be with negative registration. Getting an accurate registration for multiple coats of gum may be a little tricky with the negative in a sleeve. Maybe by taping it down inside the sleeve before you use the registration pins on the outside. If it works please let me know how you do it. Thanks, Robert

wfwhitaker
09-18-2006, 11:18 AM
Not to sound brusque, but why would you go to all the trouble and expense of using ULF and then print through the negative sleeve? Am I missing something here?

Dave Wooten
09-18-2006, 03:10 PM
Not to sound brusque, but why would you go to all the trouble and expense of using ULF and then print through the negative sleeve? Am I missing something here?

Will, for adding layers of gum etc it works fine and keeps from damaging the neg...Irving Penn used a similar technique on his platinum portraits-I think- for silver contact-and Pl Pal- usually just straight to the paper..

RobertP
09-18-2006, 05:10 PM
Will, for adding layers of gum etc it works fine and keeps from damaging the neg...Irving Penn used a similar technique on his platinum portraits-I think- for silver contact-and Pl Pal- usually just straight to the paper..Dave, I think if your Gum is properly applied and dry you won't need to worry about damaging the negative. Keep in mind if it is in a sleeve then you are printing through two layers of mylar (or what have you). That's not to say it can't be done. I just like to keep possible variables to a minimum.