Allen wrote: > ChrisGW wrote: >> I have a lot of old photo albums from my parents. All at least 50+ >> years. Acid is starting to get to them and I would like to know if >> there is a solution that I can use to slow down the process? I have >> taken them off of the paper they were mounted on, but would like to do >> more if possible. >> >> Thanks >> Chris >> > I assume these are so-called "snapshots" and are black and white, not > studio photographs. If so, your problem may be more than the acid paper > in the albums. It might be (and probably is) caused by insufficient > washing at the end of the printing process. The last step in processing > b/w before final washing is "fixing" in a solution of sodium > thiosulfate. The fixing bath removes the part of the print emulsion that > was not processed by the developer (i. e., the parts that weren't fully > exposed), which would soon make the print useless if left in place. > Unfortunately, the thiosulfate that is left on the print will eventually > destroy the image; thus, a fairly long washing period is required as > the final step. If this is your problem, you can wash the prints in tap > water at normal room temperature for at least a half hour, changing the > water every five minutes. The downside of rewashing is that, if the > prints were glossy they are going to dry to a matte finish. Early > Polaroid prints right from the camera were especially known for fading, > but reprints made by Polaroid were, as far as my experience goes, very > stable. Now, if you are talking about _color_ prints, that is a > different issue that I can't help you with; perhaps someone else will > have advice about those. > > I don't know how many prints you have, but you really should investigate > getting them copied; if you have just a few, it would probably be > better to have them copied commercially, but for a large number you > might want to buy a good scanner and editing software for your computer. > If you take the DIY option, you could either make prints yourself or > have them printed by one of the many shops that do this sort of work; > places like Costco do pretty good work and would probably be cheaper and > longer lasting than printing at home. > > As you may have gathered,I've been in the same place you are in, but soe > of mine were around 100 years old. I hope that you can salvage as least > the most important images before it's too late. Good luck! > > Allen Thanks for your reply. I have about 500 pics and have been scanning them. The prints from 1900 to about 1935 are in great shape. The ones from the 1940's are going quickly. I really do not want to was them as you suggest, but I am going to take the really bad ones to a shop and have them copied. Thanks again Chris

ChrisGW wrote: > Allen wrote: >> ChrisGW wrote: >>> I have a lot of old photo albums from my parents. All at least 50+ >>> years. Acid is starting to get to them and I would like to know if >>> there is a solution that I can use to slow down the process? I have >>> taken them off of the paper they were mounted on, but would like to >>> do more if possible. >>> >>> Thanks >>> Chris >>> >> I assume these are so-called "snapshots" and are black and white, not >> studio photographs. If so, your problem may be more than the acid >> paper in the albums. It might be (and probably is) caused by >> insufficient washing at the end of the printing process. The last step >> in processing b/w before final washing is "fixing" in a solution of >> sodium thiosulfate. The fixing bath removes the part of the print >> emulsion that was not processed by the developer (i. e., the parts >> that weren't fully exposed), which would soon make the print useless >> if left in place. Unfortunately, the thiosulfate that is left on the >> print will eventually destroy the image; thus, a fairly long washing >> period is required as the final step. If this is your problem, you can >> wash the prints in tap water at normal room temperature for at least a >> half hour, changing the water every five minutes. The downside of >> rewashing is that, if the prints were glossy they are going to dry to >> a matte finish. Early Polaroid prints right from the camera were >> especially known for fading, but reprints made by Polaroid were, as >> far as my experience goes, very stable. Now, if you are talking about >> _color_ prints, that is a different issue that I can't help you with; >> perhaps someone else will have advice about those. >> >> I don't know how many prints you have, but you really should >> investigate getting them copied; if you have just a few, it would >> probably be better to have them copied commercially, but for a large >> number you might want to buy a good scanner and editing software for >> your computer. If you take the DIY option, you could either make >> prints yourself or have them printed by one of the many shops that do >> this sort of work; places like Costco do pretty good work and would >> probably be cheaper and longer lasting than printing at home. >> >> As you may have gathered,I've been in the same place you are in, but >> soe of mine were around 100 years old. I hope that you can salvage as >> least the most important images before it's too late. Good luck! >> >> Allen > Thanks for your reply. I have about 500 pics and have been scanning > them. The prints from 1900 to about 1935 are in great shape. The ones > from the 1940's are going quickly. I really do not want to was them as > you suggest, but I am going to take the really bad ones to a shop and > have them copied. > > Thanks again > > Chris Sounds like insufficient washing is the culprit, as commercial processing tended to get a little bit sloppy in mid-century. Another thing: I hope someone in your family looked to the future (now, that is) and identified all the people. There usually are a few cousins, great aunts, etc that are hard to give names to after a couple of generations have gone by. One side of my family (my mother's side), took photos like crazy and I have hundreds and hundreds of pictures of them, mostly showing people relaxed and having fun; my father's side never got the bug, so I have only two very small images of my paternal grandfather, who died six years before I was born. Strangely, that gf owned the local weekly newspaper, and when he died they ran a picture of him that was blown up, grainy and fuzzy, from a snapshot. Allen

Allen wrote: > Sounds like insufficient washing is the culprit, as commercial > processing tended to get a little bit sloppy in mid-century. Another > thing: I hope someone in your family looked to the future (now, that is) > and identified all the people. There usually are a few cousins, great > aunts, etc that are hard to give names to after a couple of generations > have gone by. One side of my family (my mother's side), took photos like > crazy and I have hundreds and hundreds of pictures of them, mostly > showing people relaxed and having fun; my father's side never got the > bug, so I have only two very small images of my paternal grandfather, > who died six years before I was born. Strangely, that gf owned the local > weekly newspaper, and when he died they ran a picture of him that was > blown up, grainy and fuzzy, from a snapshot. > Allen Several years ago I sat with my mother and went through each album and she identified who she could. The one who I do not have a picture of is my Grand Aunt. I never met her. My grandfather stopped talking to her around 1930 and he would never talk about it. My father did not know why either, nor did he know where she lived or who she married. I just recently learned both and that she lived 3 blocks from my grandfather in Bellerose, NY and pasted away 1 year after my grandfather. Just printed out some pics and they came out really well. Chris