How to make prints from 40 year old 'Kodak Safety Film'?

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Aaron, Oct 4, 2004.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron Guest

    Hello,
    I have some old negatives, from about 1970 that I have found in my
    grandparents home. I would like to create prints from these negatives.
    The film does not look like other negatives that I am familiar with,
    the holes are only along one side and it says 'Kodak Safety Film' on
    the edges. I brought these to one photo shop and they said that their
    machines could not print these. Do you have any recommendations as to
    how I can create prints from these negatives? I am in the NY area.
    This website seems to think that the film is "Ektachrome MS 7256"
    http://www.film-center.com/stock.html

    Can anyone help me figure out what this is and where I can get them
    printed?
    Thanks for your help, in advance,
    Aaron
     
    Aaron, Oct 4, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Aaron

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Sounds like you probably went to a minilab. Try a custom lab.
    Well you're not clear as to what type of film this is. Color or b&w,
    negative or transparency. The web site you cite appears to be about
    motion picture films. Ektachrome is a transparency film, not negative.

    Any good custom lab should be able to make custom prints from any
    negatives regardless of format. They can also scan the film and
    output as prints.
     
    Tom Phillips, Oct 4, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Let me guess. They lack the orange coloration that most color negatives
    have, and instead, the unexposed areas are clear?

    This is slide film that has been cross-processed in color negative
    chemistry. (Some people still do that.) It can be printed with heavy
    orange filtration or by using a digital scanner.

    Normally, 40-year-old color negatives are about like modern ones, and
    printable with the same equipment.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 5, 2004
    #3
  4. That sounds like instamatic film which was 35mm wide and perforated only on
    one edge. The image size was different than traditional 35mm which is 24mm x
    36mm. I believe that the instamatic was 26mm x 26mm so it could not be
    printed with a regular 35mm negative holder and at best it would have 2mm
    cut off if used in a regular 35mm negative holder. This was a problem even
    at the height of this films popularity. Most people did not notice that
    something had been cut off unless it was a head and they examined the
    negative and saw the head was there. Even now lots of places do not print
    the whole 35mm negative.
    Michael Creem
     
    Michael Creem, Oct 5, 2004
    #4
  5. There were two almost identical formats that sound like what you have. Since
    you don't specify the size, I'm guessing. If they are about 1.5 inches (35mm)
    high, then they probably are either 828 or 126 (Instamatic).

    If the negatives are 1 inch by 1 1/2 inch (24mmx36mm) then they are 828,
    if they are an inch (24mm) square they are 126.

    If they are smaller than that they probably are 110, but I thought that
    that format came later. If they are really small they may be from a
    Minox camera.

    Judging by the age of the film, if they are color they are Kodacolor II.
    Ektachrome is a positive film, they would be slides.

    The biggest problem with printing them is that the modern color printing
    machines would have to be adjusted to produce the correct colors. This
    beyond the capability of the operator of the average one hour lab.

    Any professional lab that prints to order would be able to print them.

    The most cost effective way of dealing with them would be to have them
    scanned into a computer. Just about any film scanner can do them if the are
    828 or 126.

    If they are bigger or smaller, then you would need to find someone with
    a scanner that can scan them. Look for a professional lab in your area,
    they probably can do it for you.

    You could also post a note on one of the digital groups with the dimensions
    of the negatives and how many are in one strip of film. You probably can
    find someone who would scan them for you.

    Geoff.
     
    Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Oct 5, 2004
    #5
  6. In the message quoted below, I may be on a completely false trail. You
    mentioned perforations along only one side of the film.

    If you have:

    - normal orange-colored color negatives
    - square pictures on the film
    - one perforation per picture (I think) along just one side

    and the film is the same width as 35 mm film, then these are Instamatic
    (126) negatives, which were extremely popular around 1970. As others have
    mentioned, basically you're looking for a lab that has a film holder of the
    right size and shape. If run through an ordinary 35mm film holder, the
    pictures won't match the frame -- they'll be partly cut off, and on the ends
    the frame will extend into the previous and next pictures.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 5, 2004
    #6
  7. I have some old negatives,
    It sounds like 126 Instamatic. The film is still made (?),
    I think I saw some at the grocery store ...

    In any case, here is a list of a few of the labs that
    handle 126:

    http://www.frugalphotographer.com/processing_instructions.htm

    Any reasonably good lab or any good photography store should be
    able to print it. Don't bother with Ritz or any place in a shopping
    mall.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Oct 5, 2004
    #7
  8. I partly agree with this; if the film is the same width as 35 mm, it's
    either 126 (square images, but they're 28x28 mm IIRC) or 828 Bantam (but
    those were 28x40 mm, not 24x36). Both are decentered toward one side of
    the strip by a few mm to accomodate the frame size, and have a single
    perforation per frame, which was used in many/most cameras in those
    formats by a film advance feeler -- and neither can be full frame
    printed in conventional mini-lab equipment. If you find a pro lab,
    however, or a photo supply shop that does their printing in house, you
    should be able to get "custom" prints (at significantly higher price per
    frame) that will be correctly framed from either format. There are also
    a number of mail order firms that still process 126 (you can still buy
    126 film, if you have one of those cameras), and should be able to
    reprint square negatives without difficulty.
    Clarification: Minox film (9.5 mm wide, frame size 8x11 mm) is
    unperforated. The 110 format is 13x17 mm, decentered on a 16 mm strip,
    with a single perforation per frame. There were also a number of other
    16 mm formats predating 110 that mostly used single-perf 16 mm movie
    film (Rollei 16, Minolta 16, Mamiya 16, etc.); these would have
    continuous perforations (like one side of a 35 mm strip, but finer
    pitch) and the frames of various sizes from 10x14 mm up to 13x17 or
    12x18 possibly decentered to clear the sprocket holes. It's still
    possible to find mail order service for Minox and 110, but most of the
    other 16 mm formats would require custom handling and will be costly --
    again, seek a pro lab if your film is single-perf 16 mm movie stock.
    Minolta, at least, continued support of their format through the 1980s
    with respooled 110 film, but the frame format was different from that of
    110, and the frames won't match up with the perforations on the 110
    respooled film; Minolta and Mamiya films were also often unperforated
    (the cameras neither needed nor used the perforations), but that doesn't
    apply to your description.
    Assuming they're negatives, Kodacolor negatives of any age should print
    fine in terms of color and filtration -- it's the film and frame format
    that's causing your problem, and you just need to find a better lab and
    be willing to pay for custom printing.
    Unfortunately, also incorrect -- many film scanners are preset, either
    in software or due to the film carrier design, to handle only 24x36 mm
    centered frames, the standard 35 mm format, and will be unable to fully
    scan the frames for 126 or 828; mine, for example, can't scan into the
    sprocket hole region of the 35 mm strip, which would mean cutting 2-3 mm
    from one edge of 828 or 126. If all else fails, a flatbed scanner with
    transparency lid should be able to scan those negatives on the glass,
    though dust problems and Newton rings will almost certainly mar the
    results (been there, done that).

    --
    I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

    Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
    Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
    Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

    Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
    and don't expect them to be perfect.
     
    Donald Qualls, Oct 5, 2004
    #8
  9. We should add that 126 (Instamatic) format was very, very popular in 1970,
    whereas 828 was already quite rare by then.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Oct 5, 2004
    #9
  10. "Safety film" was the designation that Kodak first put on films that did
    not have a cellulose nitrate base to them. Cellulose nitrate films can
    erupt in flames under certain conditions creating real hazards for their
    owners. About 1951 the last cellulose nitrate film was produced. Kodak
    had been bringing in acetate based films that dominated the market
    thereafter. (There are some polyester based films more recently.)
    After a period of time, when the market understood that all films were
    now "safety films", the designation was dropped.

    So, from the information given, all we can say is that the film is
    acetate based. On the other hand, once a negative has been developed,
    any photographic printer can make a positive image from it.


    Francis A. Miniter
     
    Francis A. Miniter, Oct 5, 2004
    #10
  11. Very true, 828 film was discontinued not long after 1970, if not that
    very year.

    --
    I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

    Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
    Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
    Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

    Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
    and don't expect them to be perfect.
     
    Donald Qualls, Oct 5, 2004
    #11
  12. Aaron

    Peter Chant Guest

    Hmm, if usenet had been around how many 'film is dead' threads would
    have been started?
     
    Peter Chant, Oct 6, 2004
    #12
  13. Probably not many, considering Kodak was still making and selling 620
    and 127 (not to mention 135, 126, 120, 116 and/or 616, though the latter
    pair, along with 122 if it wasn't already gone, were on the short list,
    and a full range of sheet films) -- it was only people with those
    antiquated Bantam cameras who were losing out, and it was happening
    because sales of Bantam film had really fallen off... ;)

    --
    I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

    Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
    Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
    Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

    Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
    and don't expect them to be perfect.
     
    Donald Qualls, Oct 6, 2004
    #13
  14. Aaron

    Peter Irwin Guest

    According to <http://www.nwmangum.com/Kodak/FilmHist.html>:

    828 was discontinued in March 1985
    122 was discontinued in April 1971
    116 was discontinued in April 1984
    616 was discontinued in May 1984.

    Peter.
     
    Peter Irwin, Oct 6, 2004
    #14
  15. Wow, those hung on a lot longer than I'd thought. I knew someone who
    had a 616 folder around 1970 -- he was the summer camp photography
    instructor where I first developed film. I didn't realize he could
    still get film for it at that time.

    --
    I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
    -- E. J. Fudd, 1954

    Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
    Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
    Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

    Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
    and don't expect them to be perfect.
     
    Donald Qualls, Oct 6, 2004
    #15
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.