PDA

View Full Version : Adhesive Holder Issues



cdavis324
28-Jul-2014, 15:21
I'm shooting 8x10 with some adhesive holders I made with 928 atg tape using the instructions in another thread. The holders worked really well all winter and spring... there was some residue but it all washed off during development. I was in Hawaii a couple months ago, and the film from that trip has some residue from the tape still stuck to it after development. I've shot a few other sheets this summer, and they all have varying amounts of adhesive still stuck to the film. The problem now is that the residue is very difficult to remove from the negs. I was wondering if anyone else who uses adhesive holders has run into this problem, and if there's a good solution - for both removing the adhesive residue and keeping my negs as residue free as possible in the future... The film is portra 160, and I've tried Pec 12 and Prasio film cleaner. A little seems to come off each time I clean especially with the Pec 12, but I don't want to have to rub each neg so many times. Any thoughts?

Thanks,
Chris

vinny
28-Jul-2014, 18:06
I had a friend who was doing the same and had the same issue. His solution was to only load enough holders for that day's shooting and unload when he got home. Maybe Drew will chime in here.

mdarnton
28-Jul-2014, 18:19
If your film were a six or seven-figure $ violin, I would use a bit of toluol, very sparsely, on a Q-tip (the real kind, with the paper stick, not plastic knock-offs) gently. I doubt this would hurt film at all. The rule is always do a sample in a place that doesn't matter, and if nothing happens, try same on the real thing.

Jim Jones
29-Jul-2014, 05:30
Alcohol might help. It's the first substance I use where film cleaner won't work. As for damaging film, it was the old standby for a final rinse where negatives had to be used immediately

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 06:06
I called 3M and they said Heptane or 3M adhesive remover #6041 are the least toxic of the chemicals that will remove the adhesive. I'm not sure I want to go down that road especially because neither has been tested for archival-ness - especially with film. Same thing for toluene. I'll try alcohol, and some other film cleaners - maybe I'll find one that removes the adhesive easily.

Vinny, I think having the film exposed to the adhesive for as little time as possible, and processing asap are the right solutions. I'm shooting long exposures during the day(as long as 1-2 hours), so the film gets really hot in the camera when it's in the sun, and that seems to make the problem worse. I've also though of removing the strips of adhesive and replacing them with an X pattern. That way there will be less adhesive to transfer to the film... but not sure that will hold the film during the winter.

Thanks for all the help!

mdarnton
29-Jul-2014, 06:35
I suspect the adhesive is much more dangerous to the film than solvent cleaners. Most adhesives contain plasticizers which can migrate to other plastics. Solvents evaporate, and then they're gone. The most immediate danger from a solvent is dissolving the film, but there are very very few that would do that. Your timidity in acting, allowing whatever is in the adhesive to migrate into the film base, is probably the most injurious factor here, then.

Sal Santamaura
29-Jul-2014, 07:52
Ditch the tape and instead use Ole's method: a spot of orange marmelade. Should dissolve completely during processing. :)

Harold_4074
29-Jul-2014, 08:07
You might also try "mineral spirits". This is a highly refined mineral oil, light enough to be reasonably volatile. I use it to "de-tackify" things like masking tape residue and the labels on plastic bottles; it doesn't actually dissolve the adhesive, but it allows it to peel off cleanly. Some really stubborn labels need a lacquer thinner treatment (mostly toluene, probably) but any remaining residue comes right off with mineral spirits and a soft cloth.

Unfortunately, most of the local stores now only sell "paint thinner", which turns out to be a complex mixture containing at least some heavy oil (probably to help meet air-quality requirements). It works fine on polyester bottles, but I don't know if I would casually use it on film. An art-supply outfit should be able to supply real mineral spirits.

There is (or, at least, once was) a silicone-based de-tackifier for use in removing surgical adhesives (including tapes, I presume). Maybe we have a surgeon or two in the house who can comment knowledgeably on this.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 08:37
I've never had any kind of problem like this in over twenty five years working with the same holders. There are a couple of ways it could happen. Since the back of
the 928 adhesive is permanent hi-tack (as opposed to the repositionable front), when you put down the adhesive strips in the holder to begin with, you have to be
very thorough about removing any remaining little bit or balls of the aggressive adhesive around the edges of the strips. You can do this with PEC film cleaner or
certain other solvents. Second, you need to be sure the tape came from a source where it wasn't stored for a long time in a hot area. This can affect the quality
of acrylic adhesives. I would be helpful to acquire this kind of products in sheet form rather than strips; but communicating with 3M about small volume custom
products can be like trying to teach a dog to speak Latvian.

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 09:07
I've never had any kind of problem like this in over twenty five years working with the same holders. There are a couple of ways it could happen. Since the back of
the 928 adhesive is permanent hi-tack (as opposed to the repositionable front), when you put down the adhesive strips in the holder to begin with, you have to be
very thorough about removing any remaining little bit or balls of the aggressive adhesive around the edges of the strips. You can do this with PEC film cleaner or
certain other solvents. Second, you need to be sure the tape came from a source where it wasn't stored for a long time in a hot area. This can affect the quality
of acrylic adhesives. I would be helpful to acquire this kind of products in sheet form rather than strips; but communicating with 3M about small volume custom
products can be like trying to teach a dog to speak Latvian.

When I attached the strips to the holder, I didn't notice any adhesive on the edges of the strips... I'll have another look and see if that's the issue. I bought the tape online from findtape.com, so maybe it wasn't stored properly. Do you know of a good source? I can remove what I have and replace it... 7in wide sheets would be perfect, but I imagine the minimum order from 3M would be enough for 10,000 holders!

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 09:08
I suspect the adhesive is much more dangerous to the film than solvent cleaners. Most adhesives contain plasticizers which can migrate to other plastics. Solvents evaporate, and then they're gone. The most immediate danger from a solvent is dissolving the film, but there are very very few that would do that. Your timidity in acting, allowing whatever is in the adhesive to migrate into the film base, is probably the most injurious factor here, then.

Good point - I didn't even think that the adhesive could be doing damage to the film...

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2014, 10:09
With all of the millions of 810 images that have been taken, both commercially in catalog studios, portrait studios, commercial studios, by landscape photographers, architectural photographers, etc.. the vast majorityof these were done with just inserting a sheet of film in a regular holder. The film manufacturers, the camera manufacturers and the lens manufacturers all know/knew that sheet film sags. In fact all film, regardless of size, wants to curl towards the emulsion side as well.
So what is with the adhesive?
Sinar tried this idea and gave it up. Linhof made vacuum holders and gave it up, Schneider made special holders and gave it up.

Are your holders so bad that you get excessive sagging that takes the film out of the Depth of Focus of your lenses? And remember, Depth of Focus increases with the longer focal lengths any way.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Jul-2014, 10:10
928 tape has a different adhesive on each side. Is it possible that you put the wrong side up?
--

vinny
29-Jul-2014, 11:19
With all of the millions of 810 images that have been taken, both commercially in catalog studios, portrait studios, commercial studios, by landscape photographers, architectural photographers, etc.. the vast majorityof these were done with just inserting a sheet of film in a regular holder. The film manufacturers, the camera manufacturers and the lens manufacturers all know/knew that sheet film sags. In fact all film, regardless of size, wants to curl towards the emulsion side as well.
So what is with the adhesive?
Sinar tried this idea and gave it up. Linhof made vacuum holders and gave it up, Schneider made special holders and gave it up.

Are your holders so bad that you get excessive sagging that takes the film out of the Depth of Focus of your lenses? And remember, Depth of Focus increases with the longer focal lengths any way.

I guess you've never lost an 8x10 shot due to the film moving........

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 11:27
928 tape has a different adhesive on each side. Is it possible that you put the wrong side up?
--

I did a few tests to make sure before attaching the tape to the holders - and if I had put it in the wrong way, I'd expect that the film would pull out of the holder with the tape still attached!! The permanent adhesive is that strong!

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 11:35
Bob. You got it wrong this time. The weakest link in any large format system is the film plane. Film sags. Fact. Sinar knew this and made a provision for it, but as
usual wanted an absolutely ridiculous sum of money for a minor ordinary filmholder modification. So people just did it themselves. That's why Sinar gave up selling them, not due to lack of need. In fact, numerous people were using a bit of ATG in ULF holders well before then, or something equivalent. People nitpick MTF lens
stuff, digi vs analog, blah blah blah, but don't control one of the most flagrant variables in the system??? But to cut to the chase, I'll explain my personal strategy. With 4x5, sheet film sagging is generally a minor issue, unless you had one of those insert sleeve systems that bent it on end. With 8x10 and good stiff polyester based films, I just use ordinary modern holders for black and white work, cause I never personally enlarge it bigger than 20X24. But with color 8x10 there are not only certain films out there which might be flimsier (esp acetate base), but I sometimes enlarge those color shots to a greater degree. And it makes
a big visible difference. I can even spot some of the focus issues right on a light table, unenlarged. At fifteen or twenty bucks a pop, do you think I don't want to
optimize what I'm doing? In the lab I take it even a step further and use a vacuum holder. Otherwise, why bother?

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 11:37
I guess you've never lost an 8x10 shot due to the film moving........

I agree. It's not perfect registration and increased sharpness that I'm after(I usually shoot at f64 anyways). It's keeping the film perfectly still during long exposures, sometimes during changing weather and humidity. Even with 4x5 film popping can be a big problem during sunrise/sunset and during weather changes. And from what I've heard a large number of commercial and catalog photographers used some sort of adhesive in their holders - especially when doing long exposures and multiple pops.

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2014, 11:42
I guess you've never lost an 8x10 shot due to the film moving........

Nope. But we had pretty new holders. Then again, I shot 810 in the USAF and in my studio and that was in the early to late 60s. So maybe things have changed. But we have sold a fair number of 810 cameras from Linhof and Wista over the past 30 years and I sold 810 Sinars before that and this was never an issue brought to our attention.

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2014, 12:09
I agree. It's not perfect registration and increased sharpness that I'm after(I usually shoot at f64 anyways). It's keeping the film perfectly still during long exposures, sometimes during changing weather and humidity. Even with 4x5 film popping can be a big problem during sunrise/sunset and during weather changes. And from what I've heard a large number of commercial and catalog photographers used some sort of adhesive in their holders - especially when doing long exposures and multiple pops.

That makes more sense!

There used to be a film manufacturer in Rochester, NY who contacted us to get the film plane position of Linhof 45 cameras. They also contacted all of the other manufacturers and distributors to get theirs as well. And they promised that their engineers would contact us when their project was completed to give us the results of their survey. Since they were THE film manufacturer in Rochester we agreed and had the factory send us all kinds of engineer drawings and specs on where the film plane would lie and included the positioning with Linhof Cut Film Holders and the Linhof Glass Plate/Cut Film Holder (that's the one many people think has a pressure plate).

After the project was complete they contacted us to let us know that of all of the cameras on the market only two had the film plane at the 0 point. And neither was Linhof or Sinar. The ones that were zeroed were very inexpensive ones.

Shortly after this survey they sent us their new instant film holder and some of their new instant film to test in our cameras (this was done at Marflex as they were very close to us physically in the 80s when this occurred. We found that at some angles the images went out of focus. That was because they did not take into consideration the film sag inherent in the view camera. So they did some re-adjustments and out came the Kodak back and instant film.

About this time a company called Dixie Cup in PA had bought a Linhof 810 GTL camera along with the Linhof Heavy Duty Pro Tripod and the largest Linhof studio stand. They had a requirement to photograph each production run's product at this factory on 810 at 1:1. Since many of their products were round they needed to preserve the shape as this photo went into the QC folder for that product run. To maintain the shape they went with a 480mm Rodenstock. That required a massive amount of extension, so much that they needed, besides the regular double extension 810 Linhof bellows they also required two extra extension bellows and two auxiliary standards. But using the standard 810 bellows that fit a 45 front end there was too much of a tunnel effect at full extension and that vignetted too easily with any movements. So Linhof had to manufacture a special 810 to 57 bellows, a 57 bellows auxiliary standard and then they could get what they needed but it required that special 810 bellows, that special 57 aux. standard, a 57 to 45 bellows, a 45 aux standard and a 45 bellows + a custom extension rail for the GTL as well as a special mount in the front of the rail so the back of the camera was mounted to the studio stand and the front to the Heavy Duty Pro tripod.

All of this worked and they were knocking out 1:1 images on 810 of things as large as a dinner plate.

But never did they talk about adding adhesive to their holders. And these images were taken from above and pointing down at an angle.

So I guess it all depends on the job.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 12:11
Nothing has changed. Custom is one thing. Doing things right is another. Kinda like someone buying a Technika then trying to use some sloppy off-brand roll film holder and then scratching their head wondering why they spent so much to begin with for so-so results. To me, most people's 8x10 enlargements look distinctly unsharp. That could just as well be lab sloppiness, but generally it's due to the fact the film was never fully on the correct plane to begin with. Popping during exposure is a different issue and even more blatant, though I've only had that happen to me once. Who ever heard of a process camera without a vac back?

Brian C. Miller
29-Jul-2014, 12:22
One thing that I've found useful for removing adhesive is ... adhesive! Take some tape and press it down on the recalcitrant adhesive, and then lift up. You may need to do this a few times. I've found it to be quite effective.

Another thing you can do is not use tape. I've found that a water-soluble temporary glue stick is just fine for temporarily fixing a sheet of film in place, and of course it comes right off.

Another thing I saw is one photographer modified one of his 8x10 holders to have a suction tube on the back. When he wants to make his exposure, he puts the tube in his mouth and inhales slightly, and the film stays flat for the exposure.

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2014, 12:34
Nothing has changed. Custom is one thing. Doing things right is another. Kinda like someone buying a Technika then trying to use some sloppy off-brand roll film holder and then scratching their head wondering why they spent so much to begin with for so-so results. To me, most people's 8x10 enlargements look distinctly unsharp. That could just as well be lab sloppiness, but generally it's due to the fact the film was never fully on the correct plane to begin with. Popping during exposure is a different issue and even more blatant, though I've only had that happen to me once. Who ever heard of a process camera without a vac back?

We did a pretty good business with Vac. copy board holders from both Kaiser and Linhof for duplicating flat art. The trick with repro work was not just flat film and a hell of a lens. It was also keeping that copy flat.
Unfortunately most, if not all, of the manufacturers of the pumps used for this purpose either went out of business or discontinued the pumps. Although Tarsia may still offer a vac board.

As for the enlargements from 810. What do they enlarge with? Durst? Homerich? Fotar, etc.? or an old Elwood?
Besides a sharp negative that other requirements are a properly aligned enlarger, a glass carrier, a quality enlarging lens used within its optimized range of magnification, at an f stop within its optimized range and a flat piece of paper to enlarge on.
Any of these could easily result in a less then sharp print if the above are not followed.

Ari
29-Jul-2014, 12:46
What about trying scanner mounting fluid to get rid of the residue?
It's safe for film on a scanner, it should be safe for film in a non-scanner situation.

As to film flatness, I standardized on Toyos for all sheet film work, and found them to be the most reliable, consistent, and accurate.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 13:00
Bob - most of the pro labs back in the day used big Durst units, both vertical and horizontal. At an average cost of 75K apiece, you can be pretty sure they got
their paper plane right and knew how to align things. I'm inheriting one of those rigs just as soon as I can clear enough elbow room to get past my other gear to
station it. But my extant 810 color enlarger is even more solid. I cannibalized a huge precision pin-registered vac easel from a 22ft long process camera for that thing. Vac pumps are easy to improvise. You can even take one of these silly little household cordless vacs and stick a tube on it. It takes very little to draw down large sheet of paper or film. What is far more important is the pattern of channels in the easel. The most common mistake is for people to use far too much vac draw or use a peristaltic or diaphragm pump which can vibrate a platen. Good graphics equip is still readily available, but maybe not from photo houses. And old copy cameras in excellent condition can be found for very little to downright free, sometimes even with the lenses.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 13:01
Ari - your Toyo holder might be very nice, but it does zero to solve the kinds of problems described here. You larger sizes of film will still not be flat.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 13:04
Back to Bob - my mantra is that you're only as good as your weakest link. If you don't have a correct film plane to begin with, then don't have a precisely aligned
glass carrier and dependable paper printing plane, I don't even want to talk about lenses.

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2014, 13:20
Bob - most of the pro labs back in the day used big Durst units, both vertical and horizontal. At an average cost of 75K apiece, you can be pretty sure they got
their paper plane right and knew how to align things. I'm inheriting one of those rigs just as soon as I can clear enough elbow room to get past my other gear to
station it. But my extant 810 color enlarger is even more solid. I cannibalized a huge precision pin-registered vac easel from a 22ft long process camera for that thing. Vac pumps are easy to improvise. You can even take one of these silly little household cordless vacs and stick a tube on it. It takes very little to draw down large sheet of paper or film. What is far more important is the pattern of channels in the easel. The most common mistake is for people to use far too much vac draw or use a peristaltic or diaphragm pump which can vibrate a platen. Good graphics equip is still readily available, but maybe not from photo houses. And old copy cameras in excellent condition can be found for very little to downright free, sometimes even with the lenses.

Agreed, but as a wholesaler the pump situation is a problem. We can't sell salvaged or cannabilized pumps. If the pump that we tell them to go get is too strong, too weak, spits or has other problems it is our problem because we recommended it. So the boards that we use to offer are all out of production now.
The vast majority of the boards that we did sell were used in copy work, not enlarging. So these have been replaced with magnetic hold down strips, spray adhesive, glass plates of clear (not green plate glass) glass and, in some cases, good enlarging easels.
Of course none of these will work for books and manuscripts but for those we have a range of book easels from Kaiser and Linhof ranging from about $400.00 retail for a fully manual, but functional one, to over $18,000.00 for a fairly automatic one. The Linhof one is between these two.

And for delicate originals most of the hold down methods, including vacuum boards will not work (imagine trying to put one of the Dead Sea Scrolls on an adhesive surface or under a glass plate).

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 13:22
What about trying scanner mounting fluid to get rid of the residue?
It's safe for film on a scanner, it should be safe for film in a non-scanner situation.

As to film flatness, I standardized on Toyos for all sheet film work, and found them to be the most reliable, consistent, and accurate.

An update on removal of the residue: I removed the residue very easily with PEC 12 today, and what I thought was residue after the initial cleaning is actually in the emulsion. Attached is a photograph of a contact sheet showing what's left after the cleaning. I want these to be darkroom prints, so I think my only option is to try to wetmount in the enlarger like I would for a scan. Otherwise, scan and make digital prints...

I agree that Toyo's are the best holder's I've used. I have a ton of 4x5 toyo's, but my 8x10 holders are plastic lisco or fidelity's. I can't bear the thought of spending so much on holders to cut the guides out!

Thanks for all the help! There are some really good suggestions for how to work with adhesive holders in the future. I guess I could also rub any excessively sticky sheets with PEC 12 after coming out of the holder, and before sending them to the lab.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Jul-2014, 13:23
As for the enlargements from 810. What do they enlarge with? Durst? Homerich? Fotar, etc.? or an old Elwood?

Besides a sharp negative that other requirements are a properly aligned enlarger, a glass carrier, a quality enlarging lens used within its optimized range of magnification, at an f stop within its optimized range and a flat piece of paper to enlarge on.

Saltzman. Even their single-post model is that good.

cdavis324
29-Jul-2014, 13:23
119127

Bob Salomon
29-Jul-2014, 13:34
Saltzman. Even their single-post model is that good.

If you can fit it in your room. Always wanted one of their big ones and their stand. But never had adequate space.

Drew Wiley
29-Jul-2014, 13:37
Saltzman? Never seen one of those in a lab. Big and heavy, yeah, but pretty limited in advanced features. Seen a few Deveres, a few Starlights, lots of Omegas and
Saunders for the casual work stations, but mainly Durst, whichis kinda the standard. But my own homemade enlarger is more massive than a Saltzman. I designed it that way. I'm only three blocks from the infamous Hayward fault.

Jac@stafford.net
29-Jul-2014, 14:07
Saltzman? [...] my own homemade enlarger is more massive than a Saltzman. I designed it that way. I'm only three blocks from the infamous Hayward fault.

Really? More massive than this one (http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/images/2007_0530_S3-02(rw).jpg)?

Harold_4074
29-Jul-2014, 14:11
what I thought was residue after the initial cleaning

Since the beginning of this thread I've been wondering if adhesive residue would preserve an antihalation coating. Could this be what you are seeing? If so, a re-fix and re-wash might be in order.