Is there any justification for this annoying approach to packaging 35mm negatives?

The older negatives in our family collection were packaged by the labs in the usual way - a flexible plastic sleeve with separate compartments for groups of six frames. That was fine.

But at some point things changed, and a very large percentage of our negatives were packaged in individual plastic 'wraps' with an attached paper label.

The wrap is actually glued to the sprocket hole area on both edges of the emulsion side, and on one edge of the base side.


Emulsion side with plastic wrap glued along both edges


Backing side with one glued edge and one free edge

Also, the glue line extends into the lower part of the frame, completely ruining that area:


Glue line

To make matters worse, the evidence indicates that this was done prior to the production of the prints because the images in all prints are cropped such that the ruined lower area of the negative has been eliminated. That in turn suggests that the printing was done through two extra layers of plastic.

This seems insane to me. What was the point? Was it just to ensure that fumble-fingered lab workers didn't get dust or oil or scratches on the negatives?

It's a good thing I don't plan to scan these (I'm using an autofeeding print scanner instead) ... but if I did I'd have to pull the wraps off and buy normal negative sleeves to replace them. And the lower area would always be marred by glue residue. Quite a PITA.

Does anyone else have negatives packaged this way?

I had some negatives mounted that way without the wrap, but they were only when the negatives had gone back to the lab to have reprints made. Taking the paper off mine was easy and the glue was really easy to remove, but YMMV, as mine were just for reprints and there was no wrap, just the paper

Photofinishing was big business in the latter half of the 20th century. I was technical manager for 7 giant photofinishing labs, each sized to process and print 20,000 rolls of color film a day. To accomplish, automation was designed especially for this task.

The rolls of film were spliced together and then fed into a continuous film developing machine. After developing a drying, they were sent to automated printing machines. These were giant computer driven high speed enlarging printers.

Now color film from amateur sources all over the map when it comes to age, exposure correctness and color of exposing light. Each frame was scanned and custom printed by adjusting color and intensity of the exposing light. Additionally, the spacing of the frames on the roll varies from overlap to draw out.

How to automatically position each frame in the film gate for printing? How to automatically cut the film into strips without cutting into frames? Various methods of simi-automation and later computer driven frame location equipment. How to thread and drive a high-speed film web through these machines without damaging the film?

One method used for a while, glue a paper strip down one side and use this and the sprocket holes to advance the film. Keep in mind, some percentage of damaged sprocket holes will be the norm. The paper strip was one successful method.

Film that needed to be reprinted and film that came back from the customer for additional prints had the paper strip applied because the film had already been cut into strips. the automation was thus thwarted. Note the notches on each frame. This identified the location of the frame. An automated high-speed scanner using fuzzy logic to determine frame location even if the fames are haphazard with overlap or large expanse of under-expose or blank space plus working with sprocket hole tears. All this to align the film in the printing gate and then cut the film into strips without harming the treasured film.

This automated process evolved from machines built in the late 19th century. We did our best to process and print with high-speed plus applying great care to composing, exposure and color balancing. And yes, we kept the chemistry to specifications.

sybersitizen said:

The older negatives in our family collection were packaged by the labs in the usual way - a flexible plastic sleeve with separate compartments for groups of six frames. That was fine.

But at some point things changed, and a very large percentage of our negatives were packaged in individual plastic 'wraps' with an attached paper label.

The wrap is actually glued to the sprocket hole area on both edges of the emulsion side, and on one edge of the base side.


Emulsion side with plastic wrap glued along both edges


Backing side with one glued edge and one free edge

Also, the glue line extends into the lower part of the frame, completely ruining that area:


Glue line

To make matters worse, the evidence indicates that this was done prior to the production of the prints because the images in all prints are cropped such that the ruined lower area of the negative has been eliminated. That in turn suggests that the printing was done through two extra layers of plastic.

This seems insane to me. What was the point? Was it just to ensure that fumble-fingered lab workers didn't get dust or oil or scratches on the negatives?

It's a good thing I don't plan to scan these (I'm using an autofeeding print scanner instead) ... but if I did I'd have to pull the wraps off and buy normal negative sleeves to replace them. And the lower area would always be marred by glue residue. Quite a PITA.

Does anyone else have negatives packaged this way?

Click to expand...

I don't know when they were processed but nowadays most film is digitised and digitally printed and not optically printed like they used to do.

Maybe they need this strip.

--
No life without a camera.

PieterB said:

sybersitizen said:

... Does anyone else have negatives packaged this way?

Click to expand...

I don't know when they were processed but nowadays most film is digitised and digitally printed and not optically printed like they used to do.

Maybe they need this strip.

Click to expand...

These negatives are newer than the ones that were packaged in simple sleeves, but they're still old. They're from the early 2000s, and the prints are chemical prints on photo paper. Nobody in my family shoots film anymore*, and I haven't had a print made from film in the last 15 years.

* I just remembered that my daughter has an instant camera that she likes, so let's say nobody in my family shoots non-instant film anymore.