Processed to "Museum Archival Standards"

[Paul Butzi]

Unfortunately ISO standard 18901 is for processing of film. Bummer.

One particular problem I have when searching for this stuff is that apparently, from a conservator's point of view, the word "archival" is applied to processes and techniques used to care for and store an item, and not to the creation of the item itself.

In other words, there are many references to 'archival standards for storage materials', but few references to 'archival processing" with the very notable exception of microfilm.

I have sent off email to a handful of the photographers who claim to process to 'museum archival standards' enquiring about which museum, which standard, and what process they use.

I am with Oren - there is vastly more solid data from testing on color materials (ra-4, ilfochrome, etc.) and inkjet prints than there is on gelatin silver prints. Vastly more.

I also agree wholeheartedly that the longevity of prints (silver prints, chromogenic prints, inkjet prints, any prints) is highly dependent on a set of variables that are essentially uncontrolled or uncontrollable (e.g. chemical composition of wash water, trace contaminants in paper base), and that as a result, it's perfectly possible to hew to some processing standard and still get horrible outcomes.

[Oren Grad]

Even where excellent test data are available, as with what Wilhelm is doing, there are unresolved, and really unresolvable, questions about extrapolating results from artificial to real-world conditions. Looking retrospectively at prints that have survived doesn't tell us about the ones that didn't, or why they didn't, and without knowing how many prints of each type were made and stored under given conditions in the first place you can't calculate rates of anything. To my knowledge nobody has done a prospective study in which a fixed number of prints on X, Y and Z materials were followed for decades under naturalistic conditions to see which yielded the highest survival rate.

If you want to work in a monochrome medium and insist on the highest likelihood of having your precious masterpieces last for a millennium, what little knowledge we have suggests that you probably need to be making your negatives on polyester-based sheet film rather than acetate-based roll film (not a big deal in this crowd, I know) and printing with Pt/Pd on acid-free rag paper. Even with that, I think that any bet placed on something made out of paper lasting for hundreds of years has to assume an improbable streak of good fortune in the storage conditions it will encounter long after the maker is gone.

Beyond that, I think that at this point all bets are off. Note the conservators' paranoia manifested in the other current thread about lighting conditions for display of silver gelatin FB prints that aren't even 100 years old.

[Gene Crumpler]

I read an article from the photochemistry offical journal the the accepted industrial standard is 0.02 mg of silver halide per square cm. I researched this subject quite a bit before adopting the Ilford Archival Process procedure in my dark room. When I process archivally in my darkroom, I fix in Ilford Rapid fixer 9:1 for 2 minutes, a five minute wash, 10 minutes in rinse aid, 20 minutes wash, 10 minutes 1:10 selenium, followed by a two hour wash. This will get it down well below 0.02.

FWIW

[Gene Crumpler]

I forgot to mention that each print receives this without the presence of another print any where in the processing. Slow but pretty sure. My degree in ChE is from Va Tech where at the time the Tech program was best know in the US for extraction unit operations.

[Brian Ellis]

I suspect it's a nice-sounding term that means nothing . As far as I know the word "archival" doesn't have a definitive, universally accepted meaning, much less the phrase "museum archival" but using the phrase accomplishes at least two things: (1) it implies that there's a museum somewhere that is or has been or might some day be interested in the photographer's work, and (2) it indicates that the photographer's work is worth preserving, maybe even in a museum. I'd be willing to bet that many of the photographers who use the term think they've processed in accordance with museum archival standards when they've used a two-bath fix, hypo cleared, washed, and selenium toned.

[Michael A.Smith]

The standards I thought were in existence have to do with the amount of allowable fixer remaining in the print after it has been washed. The silver nitrate test (I forget the initials for it) gives the amount remaning. My understanding was always that there should be no fixer remaining. And my prints and Paula's prints are washed so that no residual fixer remains. However, I recall a few postings by Richard Knoppow a few years ago in which he quoted tests that supposedly revealed that if a little bit of fixer remains in the prints, that makes the prints more permanent. What to do? Who to believe?

Selenium toning supposedly coats the silver molecules with selenium moleciles so that no sulfiding takes place. What concentration of toner to use? I have heard all kinds of numbers.

Are Paula's and my prints archivally processed? According to the above we cannot be sure. But when accelerating aging and pollutant susceptibility tests were done on my prints (when I wrote my article on ArtCare mat board) I was told they were the most difficult prints to fade the lab had ever seen. So I guess they are archival.

Paula and I guarantee our prints for 1,000 years. But of course there is a catch. The guarantee is non- transferable.

[Dan Jolicoeur]

Excuse my cynical inner being, but is the purpose of this thread to undermine and confuse the achievability of a silver gelatin print, and therefore give credence to the achievability of an inkjet print?

[Joe Smigiel]

"The standards I thought were in existence have to do with the amount of allowable fixer remaining in the print after it has been washed.. However, I recall a few postings by Richard Knoppow a few years ago in which he quoted tests that supposedly revealed that if a little bit of fixer remains in the prints, that makes the prints more permanent..."

I've read summaries of those same studies years ago although I no longer remember the source (wasn't Richard though). The Ilford procedure drops the thiosulphate concentration to acceptable levels of that standard IIRC. Trace amounts of thiosulphate did impart some benefit to the prints.

There has also been some more recent research that indicated weak sulfide toning was preferable for longevity than even selenium toning. IIRC, a photographer named Ctein was involved in this latter study or at least knows of the source. You might google for him and/or sulfide toning standards. I think some of the research was done on microfiche films so that may be another lead. IIRC a summary was published in Photo Techniques magazine as well.

[Graham Hughes]

The reason why sulfide toning is considered superior to selenium by some is not because silver selenide is any more likely to deteriorate than silver sulfide. It's because it's relatively easy to selenium tone a print without converting all of the silver. It's possible to do incomplete toning with a sulfide tonder; as a simple example, if you don't bleach the entire print when using a bleach-and-redevelop toner, then the unbleached portions will tend not to be converted.

[Phil_4235]

I recall Kodak had something in the Black and White Darkroom Dataguide (Kodak Publication No. R-20.) The 1980 printing has a chapter on "Processing Prints for Permanence", but I don't see the "A" word anywhere in the text. They do provide a procedure for "processing fiber-based paper for maximum permanence." (develop, stop, fix, fix, rinse, Hypo Clearing Agent, Hypo Eliminator, wash, tone, wash, dry.) One of the suggested toners is a gold chloride protective solution.

The silver nitrate test Michael refers to is documented in there using Kodak Hypo Test Solution HT-2. There are tint patches for Good, Fair, and Poor that allow you to "estimate the degree of washing" of your prints by comparing them to the stain left by the HT-2 solution.

A few years earlier, in the 1972 printing, Kodak was a bit more specific. In the "Process for Permanence" chapter, they do use the "A" word! "Archival permanence requires the use of washing aids such as Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent, or even the the Hypo Eliminator HE-1." There is a bit more info on the HT-2 testing - they say Fair washing may be satisfactory for prints stored under "temperate climatic conditions", but under more severe storage conditions or for documentary permanence Good washing is required. Also, the HT-2 test is reliable if Kodak Hypo Clearing Agent has been used, but may "give misleading results after certain other washing aids have been employed."