Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,202   Posts: 1,531,616   Online: 1137
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26
  1. #11
    hdeyong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central Canada and Southern France
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    279
    Thanks a lot, folks.
    Looks like Printfile has the majority vote, and since they're an advertiser, that clinches it.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    33

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Escondido, California, USA
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    654
    I have a complaint about the Printfile sheets for 35mm film (product # 35-7B, seven 5-frame strips per sheet). Due to vertical space used by the title-area on top, the strips fit so tightly that it's difficult to get them to slide in and out. The resulting high sliding-friction causes scratches if any microscopic bits of dust are present. I wish Printfile would eliminate the title-area, and spread the extra vertical space among the seven strips so they'll slide in/out more easily.

    I bought a big roll of 4-frame strips of the kind used by minilabs. They have plenty of space above/below the strips, so they can slide with almost no friction. Problem solved. Pakor sells rolls (and sheets) for both 35mm and 120: http://www.pakor.com/Category/Sleeving_Products.cfm

    Mark Overton

  4. #14
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    From my notes (a text on APUG I posted some time ago, shortened version below):

    Glassine products: generally very good. There can be problems with "seems" in conditions of high humidity and when pressure is applied to the sheets. Otherwise give good protection for decades. 135 stripes are never in touch with the seems. Not really "museal" though. Glassine is not compliant with ANSI IT9.2 - 1991. If you want something really good, you should look for something complying with that norm. Current version ANSI IT9.16 actually.

    Uncoated transparent polyester (such as Mylar) is probably the best, but it's not the cheapest, as you'd guess.
    Uncoated polypropylene such as ClearFile is also good.
    High-density polyethylene is also "probably" good and it is one of the cheapest solutions. (Not convinced about that, see prices below).

    ALL those plastic solutions struggle with static electricity problems (they attract dust) whereas paper-based product (such as glassine) do not. Besides, you can write with a pencil or a pen on a paper or glassine sheet.

    Anything containing PVC or chloride compounds must be avoided.
    Low-density polyethylene is also to be avoided.

    From what I gather, the devil is in the details, any coating or glue has the potential for damaging film, more than the material itself are the "accessory" substances that cause problems.

    Sometimes the material is certified as being standard-X compliant, but the final product (which includes coatings and glues) is not. Watch for the certification of the photographic sheets, not the certification of the material.

    I am satisfied with my glassine sheets. I only do 135 and don't have any humidity problem in my house. I like being able to write on the sheet and I like not being bother by static electricity.

    Anyway I've seen archival polyethylene satisfying the PAT test (Photographic Activity Test ISO 14523 e ISO 18916 Image Permanence Institute, RIT, Rochester NY), 100 sheets for €30,00. Not the cheapest, but acceptable at 30 €cents per sheet.

    ClearFile are polypropylene and also satisfy PAT test, seen 100 sheets for €24,00.

    I have no idea about "Mylar" products availability and cost. Besides those, polyethylene or polypropylene products should be good provided they have some certification regarding the entire photographic product.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 10-26-2012 at 05:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,066
    Print File for me too - but I like an option that many folks do not use - I use the page that has 6 strips of 6 each, which avoids the issue mentioned by albada. I also make "contact" sheets by placing 3 strips side by side in a 4x5 holder, making a print that has 9 images about wallet size. Then shift the strips and print the other half, so 4 prints for a 36 exposure roll (and you don't have that extra 36th frame hanging out). BTW, I believe Reinhold (last - or first, name escapes), an APUG member sells a device for this, or used to).
    The only thing is that they don't fit in a normal letter size binder, but Print File makes them for this. It's a nice system.

  6. #16
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    Actually the system I use has 7 strips of 6 each (135). That's necessary for 135 as one easily has more than 36 exposure on a roll.

    The product I use is Kaiser number 2510, 100 sheets. "Glassine" is Pergamino in Italian, Pergamin in German, and Papier cristal in French.

    I also bought the specific binder, which protects from dust from all sides: when closed it is like a box. Probably the sheets would fit those large file archivers with a double cover.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    10
    I prefer the Plastine type of polyethylene sleeve for my negatives. These are held in groups of six or seven by old computer punch cards, folded over! They are stored in a file cabinet formerly used for bank checks! Description of the subjects are written on the folded card. This is primitive, but I probably have 15,000 negatives stored this way.

    Does anyone have any 35mm "Plastine" negative sleeves they want to get rid of? I have plenty of 2-1/2" X 2-1/4" sleeves, but NO 35mm ones. The importer said no more 35mm are imported from Japan. Of course, the 2-1/4 size are still available. Thanks!

    A.T.

  8. #18
    ozphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Bangkok, Thailand
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,113
    Images
    1
    I actually use both Printfile and Glassine. (Also had the unfortunate experience of using some "non-archival" plastic ones - ouch! They started to eat into my B&W negs something awful!)

    Printfile were extremely difficult to lay my hands on (20 years ago) and quite expensive to import, hence my using Glassine as well. But I give two thumbs up for either - they are both great products.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Peterborough, ON
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    18
    I'm another user of the Printfile sheets with 6 rows of 6 - seem to be a great option. The only drawback is that I usually get 37 exposures on a 36 exp roll, like Diapositivo says. My workaround is to have an "overflow" sheet with the loose frame from 12 rolls, which is a bit inefficient but works well enough for me.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Half Moon Bay, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    46
    Another Printfile 6 strips of 6 user here. My camera won't shoot more that 36 frames anyway, so I don't have any overflow problems.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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