Toning and Permanence

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is not a problem unique to the gelatin silver world, either. If you print with pt/pd, do you have ANY assurance that there will not be some trace contaminant in the paper or in the reagents you use, which will adversely affect the lifespan of the print? I think not.

Actually Paul, yes I do. This is in fact is the difference between being a chemist and a photographer and a wedding/printing tech with little knowledge. I have had conversations with B&S regarding their quality assurance. Nevertheless I order in big quantities both chemicals and papers and do some tests when I receive them to assure they are free of chemical agents other than those already specified. Even so, there is a curious similarity when you process a pt/pt print to one that is commonly used in industry and is called to "pasivate." In this process you "stabilize" a pipe for example by flushing it with an alkali first and then an acidic solution. As it happens pt/pd prints benefit from a slightly acidic environment when brushing in the emulsion, but given the current state of affairs with paper manufacturers most include alkali buffers to enhance preservation. The act of removing the buffer by introducing the paper in an mild acid bath in fact not only removes the buffer, but at the same time "degreases" and removes contaminants from the paper. If you then clear the print in a slightly alkaline solution, you are in fact neutralizing the paper and bringing it back to the best possible archival state.

Now, the obvious response to your statment is that this is a red herring as you cannot have the same assurances in the paper you use either. Furthermore, it is my understanding that ink jet poster papers have many organic fasteners for the inks, this cannot be good for the print even if you choose to ignore it. Even if it is not the case and as it was put the paper is 100% rag (which I doubt very much since it was expressly created for ink jet which benefits from ink fasteners) the fact that you guys do not process your paper and use it as is, it is more likely to include contaminats than a pt/pd print that has been processed.

Your 103 year old example once again it does not apply, if we are going to use examples like this, then we know that the pyramids have been around for thousands of years, the straw huts made at the same time are long gone. This is exactly the same difference between talking about a mineral/metallic compounds (silver, pt, pd) and an organic compounds (carbon). While as some beleive carbon does not "oxidize" (not stricly true but for the purposes of this discussion good enough) it is far more suceptible to other kinds of attacks to which metals, even silver are imprevious.

I think much of the reason why you read little about fungus and other biological problems is that they can be largely controlled by rigid environmental controls - that is, control over humidity, etc.

Sorry Paul, I am talking about the prints in the houses of photographers in Houston. I know my house was neither humidity or temperature regulated at least not so that it could be considered a preservation place. As I said, I doubt you could treat an ink jet poster the same way I treated some of my prints while I was moving around the country.

[paulr]

Kthompson, i'm curious ... what kind of museum department are you talking about? I'm assuming it's the in-house photo department, charged with cataloging, publicity, catalogs, etc. etc., and not the Department of Prints and Photographs, or whatever the department that manages the collection is called. For this kind of work, everything you say makes perfect sense. It's about efficiency, speed, price, etc... It seems you're not creating an archive, because the collection you're documenting IS the archive.

"the thought that there's a "rich institution" looking to collect the average joe' s work is a pipe dream. that rich institution will be a stock agency, not a public one."

It depends a bit on the kind of work you do and who you show it to. Maybe the average joe isn't going to do well getting anyone to part with their money, but if your work is good, and it's what the curator is looking for, you may well sell it. And if it's fine art work, you'll probably do better with a public (or corporate) art collection than with a stock shop. Those basement flat files in the major museums are filled with work by plenty of people that you and i have never heard of.

[Paul Butzi]

Nevertheless I order in big quantities both chemicals and papers and do some tests when I receive them to assure they are free of chemical agents other than those already specified.

Ah, well, that's rather my point. In the case of using Kodak RST, it was actually the contaminants that were doing to work to sulfide the image silver and thus stabilize the image. When the contaminants were no longer present, the toning no longer had the desired effect.

Eliminating contaminants is NOT the path to duplicating the process that resulted in that much vaunted platinum print with the 100+ year demonstrated lifetime. You need to duplicate the contaminants, too, not eliminate them.

[paulr]

"As I said, I doubt you could treat an ink jet poster the same way I treated some of my prints while I was moving around the country."

Easy to test. Look at the preservation history of any works on paper in similar environments. Unlike silver prints, which have a gelatin emulsion that makes a delicious medium for fungus, inkjet prints* are essentially ink on paper, which as a physical medium predates photography by thousands of years. Any environment damp enough to promote mold on rag paper would likely be a hazardous environment for any print. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that any ink on paper print would do better than a silver print, and as well as a platinum print, when it comes to resisting biological hazards. This is only speculation, of course. I haven't seen it tested.

I'm curious about your idea that certain toners act as fungicides. It would be interesting to see this studied. I wonder how it would make a difference at the surface of the emulsion. And I assume the level of protection would be in proportion to image density (there wouldn't be much in the way of fungicidal compounds in the bright highlights or the borders of the print).

*can we act like grown ups and call them this? you seem to be the only one using the derogatory term poster. you made your point long ago that you think they're inferior.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paul, I dont plan to get into an argument with you over something you have little experience, I found some inconsistencies in this response, you choose to beleive this person fine with me. OTOH it would be nice if you made up your mind, on one hand you argue about contaminats present that can be bad for the print, and when I told you I remove those you say I need to have them which is it? also apparently you did not pay attention there is no mention of pt/pd prints in the response, you do not need to tone pt/pd prints, nor do you need to fumigate them, lacquer them, or any of the other stuff you guys do to preserve your posters... ;-)

The weak link in a pt/pd print is the paper, and if that is processed correctly, nothing will last longer. In the end as I said, I am comfortable with the notion that time will tell.....OTOH you can make your little experiment, I will gladly send you a pt/pd work print and you can place it in a humid hot place preferably with a lot of sunlight hitting it, and place one of your ink jet posters right next to it....go back a month later and see which one fared better....As I keep saying, talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words......

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

can we act like grown ups and call them this? you seem to be the only one using the derogatory term poster. you made your point long ago that you think they're inferior.

LOL....dont let it bug you both Pauls, I do it to goad one specific person that I know it chaps his hide.... :-)

are essentially ink on paper, which as a physical medium predates photography by thousands of years

Aww jeezz Paul, I hope you are not using the "there are books written with pigments that are a thousand years old" defense....cause let me tell you this is way off the mark... ;-)

Actually you are mistaken, I dont think they are inferior, but at the same time I dont think they have the many vaunted properties that I read here.

I'm curious about your idea that certain toners act as fungicides

I cant help you with a "study" but when I was working in the water treatment industry I was in charge of decontaminating a storage pond. Said contamination was selenium, and let me tell you, not a single plant, algae, moss, nothing grew in there...... :-) Given the contaminat levels in a regular hosehold I am speculating this is a good likelyhood. Who knows? as you say it might be an interesting study, but I rather go take pictures... :-)

[paulr]

"Aww jeezz Paul, I hope you are not using the "there are books written with pigments that are a thousand years old" defense"

No defense at all ... just pointing out that the physical objects we're talking about are simply pieces of paper with ink on them. The world has a lot of experience with conserving works on paper. When we're talking about the stability of the image, that comes down to the particular ink, as it always has. But the fungus is likely more interested in the paper itself (or in the emulsion of a silver print) than in the dye/pigment/metal that makes up the image.

"as you say it might be an interesting study, but I rather go take pictures... :-)"

i never said I wanted to do the study! i want someone else to do it so i can read about it. do you know happen to know any chemists?

actually, i'm not surprised by your experience with selenium killing stuff. it's used as a fungicide in some forms (selenium sulphide in dandruff shampoos, for example). but as you know, you can't always assume characteristics like toxicity in one compound will translate to another compound containing that same element. we eat off of metalic silver, for example, but silver thiosulfate in the waste water kills every organism in its path.

i'm not doubting the possibility that some forms of toned silver might have fungicidal properties in prints. but i'm concluding with the stock ending you scientists seem to tack onto all the published papers: " ... it appears further research is warranted." *

*translation: give me another grant!

[David Luttmann]

Jorge,

Rather big talk from someone who has sold a total of 8 prints on ebay.

And as far as deriding those of us earning our income from photography and printing work....I believe you have stated your a chemist....not a photographer. So according to your definition, we shouldn't listen to you.....you're just background noise. You put down those who do professional printing work as part of their income. You being someone who hasn't tested any of the products or methods you put down, and based on the many emails I've received finding your arguments circular in logic and pathetic....I don't think those of us wedding/portrait photographers/print techs have anything to worry about. You don't goad me as others and myself have seen right through you based on your posts.

Go play with your brown little prints and leave those of us doing real enlargements alone.

[Paul Butzi]

Paul,
Of course people think the pt/pd prints don't age.....they look yellowed right from the start;-)

Sure, you're cracking wise.

But, in fact, that's quite a bit of it. Why do the conservators urge us to use paper bases that are free of OBAs? Because the effectiveness of the OBAs diminishes over time, and the print slowly yellows. Eventually, the OBA's are completely ineffective, and you end up with the base appearing to be the color it started before they added the brighteners.

So maybe we should view the decay of OBA's as a 'fail-safe' failure?

And, of course, there's another issue. Suppose you take your OBA laden print, put it in a frame, behind glazing that is UV opaque - like Acrilyte OP-3 UV, or UV Denglas. No UV light, there's nothing for the optical brighteners to absorb, and thus they can't fluoresce, and the print looks... yellow.

Bummer.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

we eat off of metalic silver, for example, but silver thiosulfate in the waste water kills every organism in its path.

This is true Paul, but you fail to take into account doses. A bacteria sized organism is far more suceptible to minute amounts than what we would be. A better example is the bacteria found in your septic tank. We know that even very dilute solutions of fixer will mess it up. To put is simply IMO a selenium toned print will most likely not be the optimum growth media for fungi or other pesky creatures.

i never said I wanted to do the study! i want someone else to do it so i can read about it. do you know happen to know any chemists?

I think you should, designing a little experiment is not hard and it will if anything give YOU some experiences to draw your own conclusion. If you are really curious about this, grab a selenium toned print, an untoned print and an ink jet poster. place them in a wooden box on a shelf about 2 feet from the ground and place the box in your yard, hopefully you have some grass. Make sure you have holes in the box and a small water tray to mantain humidity. Let the prints and poster sit there for a week ( this should be ample time for the colonies to grow.) Check the results and let us know..... :-)

As for knowing someone who could do it, I do know some people, but none of them are going to undertake something like this without being paid, so the best we can do is try and make personal projects.