Subject: Archival properties and graininess of photographic films
Andrew Lyne, This is a rather simple response to your questions,to get you started. I have been working in conservation for only a year and a half. However, I worked as a medical photographer for 3 years prior to this position. We worked with some of the same situations as you seem to. First the archival question. It is very important and simple. Black and white film is fairly equal in archival potential, what changes this is the processing a couple of extra steps in film or paper processing will secure a lasting image. As far as I know, Kodachrome is the only available archival quality colour film. The images are sharper, and the processing is more 'archival' than E6 --because Kodachrome is a dye transfer process on b&w emulsion. If you compare old E6 images to Kodachrome it is easy to see the archival limits. E6 images seem to keep exposing over time, 'bleaching' out. I don't recommend them for any professional work. In the US there is only one place, in California, that will process medium format Kodachrome! It was an expensive hassle for me with my personal work. Anyway, I think you could successfully work with 35mm and maintain the quality to which you are accustomed. I assume you are using a studio for most of your work. We used Kodachrome 25 with great results. We needed retina images for arterial,etc., information that could also be slide-projected, or printed for medical journals. The grain is tight, and the image holds detail. For copy-stand type work a 1:1, 55mm macro lens from Nikon, Zeiss, or Leica (in ascending order of personal preference) along with Kodachrome 25 should maintain your high quality standards with little compromise. I hope this is helpful, it is sad to find medium format work forced further into the corner. Good luck. Monica Hoskin *** Conservation DistList Instance 7:11 Distributed: Tuesday, July 13, 1993 Message Id: cdl-7-11-004 ***Received on Tuesday, 13 July, 1993