Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,276   Posts: 1,660,906   Online: 809
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,253

    Recently posted

    http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1282439

    http://www.largeformatphotography.in...42&postcount=8

    I should append to the second link (which is in a thread specifically related to Kodak discontinuations) that Fuji 120 and sheet film, Kodak 120 film and Ilford 120 film also come from the factory in vapor-seal inner packaging that's safe for placement into freezers.

    Anyone wanting more information about cold storage should read Wilhelm's opus:

    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/book_toc.html

    Chapters 16, 19 and 20 are most relevant if you'd like to minimize download size.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,696
    Images
    15
    There are more than 10 pages of extant threads on APUG dealing with freezer storage of film.

  3. #23
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Again, the anecdotal evidence is very strong that freezers are a safe place to store film.


    Until you've had some film ruined in the freezer. That would be actual physical evidence contradicting your hypothesis.

    One counter example disproves the hypothesis (period, end of story).

  4. #24
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Until you've had some film ruined in the freezer. That would be actual physical evidence contradicting your hypothesis.

    One counter example disproves the hypothesis (period, end of story).
    Not true. A single data point is itself a variable and could be a contraindication based on an uncontrolled event.

    Basic stats.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,693
    Twinkies ARE the source of cosmic rays.

    When I was in school our beta counter was surrounded by 6 inches of lead. While this amount of lead reduced background radiation it had no effect on reducing cosmic rays. For that you you would need a thickness of many meters of lead shielding.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 01-12-2012 at 08:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #26
    BradS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    S.F. Bay Area, California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,092
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    Not true. A single data point is itself a variable and could be a contraindication based on an uncontrolled event.

    Basic stats.
    nice try....I'm not taking the bait.

    (PhD. Stats.)

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Albuquerque, NM
    Posts
    608
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    Waste Isolation (Plant/Project/?) New Mexico or Nevada. Store atomic waste in a salt mine. This was maybe 10 years ago, possibly more. I'm sure someone will correct me. (Oh, and I do remember "Wip Inflation Now!". Just wish I had kept my lapel pin.)

    s-a
    It's actually WIPP, located outside of Carlsbad, NM. And, yes, they are storing nuclear waste on a daily basis.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by BradS View Post
    Until you've had some film ruined in the freezer...
    Have you had any ruined that way? If so, what film was it, i.e. how was it packaged while in a freezer?

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    San Clemente, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,253

    Another reference

    Quote Originally Posted by Sal Santamaura View Post
    ...Anyone wanting more information about cold storage should read Wilhelm's opus...
    I forgot to include this one, also on Wilhelm's site, that provides additional relevant information:

    http://www.wilhelm-research.com/subz...emp_and_RH.pdf

  10. #30
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,471
    Images
    65
    Sal;

    That reference has some good conclusions but uses a false premise. The glass transition temperature (TG here) is 20C for unhardened gelatin but is different and higher for hardened gelatins and varies with each hardener and level of hardener. This fact invalidates some of his premises and part of his conclusions.

    Remember that only unhardened gelatin has a TG of 20 C (not 22 as he reports). This is why early films and papers were processed at 68F (Because the TG is taken to be 20 C but is really 68 Photographers, go figure!). Anyhow, the purpose of hardening a photo product is to raise the TG so that you can process at a higher temperature with acceptable results or at a lower temperature with better results than unhardened film or paper.

    The fact that hardening can affect TG and thus keeping has not been shown at EK. Keeping is more dependant on heat and humidity than it is on TG. In fact, a hardening series can have the same keeping but vary with addenda or emulsion. Therefore I would use this paper with great reservation.

    PE

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin