# storing negatives; possible in A4 ring binder?



## whistule (May 27, 2008)

I am looking for a clever way of storing negatives and thought maybe some sort of poly pockets for negs.  Apologies if this has been answered before but couldn't find anything obvious with the search.


----------



## nealjpage (May 27, 2008)

I store all mine in a 3-ring binder and use negative sleeves from Freestyle.


----------



## Helen B (May 27, 2008)

You can get acid-free boxes with ring binders, and that's what I've been using for the last few decades. If you go to www.silverprint.co.uk you will find the boxes and file sheets to go with them, under Storage>Archive Ringbinder Boxes.

Best,
Helen


----------



## christopher walrath (May 27, 2008)

Same here.  3 ring binder and acid free sheets.  35mm and MF.  Easy to flip through and find the neg I want.  I also have them logged by page.  Camera, location, film type, subject, lens, additional notes, all info that I had recorded or could recall.


----------



## whistule (May 28, 2008)

that's absolutely brilliant.  thanks!!


----------



## jwkwd (May 28, 2008)

http://www.archivalusa.com/negative-storage-pages.html


----------



## KevinDks (May 28, 2008)

Whistule, I use PrintFile filing pages for negatives and mounted slides, which I get from Silverprint, but I have lots of filing pages and albums from Arrowfile as well, especially for prints. 

The PrintFile pages fit in the Arrowfile albums just fine, and they have all kinds of refills, including some which have index card inserts:

http://www.arrowfile.com/category.asp?cat_id=RENEGST

The filing boxes are a great idea - what I find with the ordinary ring binders is that dust gets in between the pages, and some inevitably gets into the pockets.

Kevin


----------



## whistule (May 28, 2008)

I just ordered some of the filing boxes and files from silverprint. Thanks for all the help.


----------



## Alpha (May 28, 2008)

I don't quite understand the advantage of using an archival box or whatever versus a normal three-ring binder. Okay, the binder itself isn't archival but it's not like chemicals will leech out of the plastic, pass through the sleeves, and onto the negs.


----------



## christopher walrath (May 28, 2008)

Personal preference.  I've always just been kinda personal to a Trapper Keeper.  I like the colors.


----------



## Alpha (May 28, 2008)

LOL @ trapper keepers.


----------



## Helen B (May 29, 2008)

Alpha said:


> I don't quite understand the advantage of using an archival box or whatever versus a normal three-ring binder. Okay, the binder itself isn't archival but it's not like chemicals will leech out of the plastic, pass through the sleeves, and onto the negs.



I find that there are a few practical advantages in using a box in preference to a simple binder. The main one is dust, and the secondary one is ease of use such as the ability to keep loose sheets contained in the open lid or closed box.

I agree that the archival issue may not be significant, so long as you avoid PVC and you have a reasonable knowledge that there are no glues or inks that may cause long term problems. As far as I'm concerned, it is easy enough to get acid-free boxes and they are cheap enough that the cost is insignificant in comparison to the personal value I place on the images therein. Following ISO recommendations for film storage (as I do) is an easy cop-out sort of a way of having a fair idea that my inconsequential snaps have a reasonable chance of a long life.

If anyone wants, I will happily summarise the current recommendations of the various ISO standards on the storage of photographic materials. Kodak have a basic document on their website: E-30, Storage and Care of Kodak Photographic Materials Before and After Processing.

Another link:

Image Permanence Institute Storage Guide for Acetate Film

Best,
Helen


----------

