Toning and Permanence

[paulr]

Please excuse the very long post. I thought it would be worth it because so many photographers here are concerned with image permanence, and because the information that's been shared with me here goes against a lot of the conventional wisdom.

Initial questions were raised in this thread: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/502249.html

I had brought up some issues based on an old research paper that I'd found, and on dodgy memories of some other things I'd read a long time ago. But I couldn't answer a lot of the questions being raised. Happily, someone put me in touch with Douglas W. Nishimura, who's a Senior Research Scientist with the Image Permanence Institute at Rochester Institute of Technology. He may know more about this issue than anybody.

The reader's digest version is this: selenium toning is not very effective at protecting silver prints from deterioration, unless toning is carried out to an extreme degree. Gold toning is better, working at much lower doses. Sulfide toning is better still. Most surprising of all, incomplete washing of the prints, leading to trace amounts of thiosulfate in the paper, may actually improve permanence. But there are many caveats and twists and turns. It's worth reading the full text if it doesn't make your eyes glaze over.

Read the full text of Doug's note on Toning and Permanence (/toning-permanence.html)

[Kirk Keyes]

So does that mean we should be using a iodide final rinse to try and prevent the oxidation of the image? He kind of dropped that line of thinking and moved on to the sulfide/selenium stuff...

[Jan Nieuwenhuysen]

Thank you for a very interesting post! Maybe this can be put somewhere on the permanent pages of this site?
This issue was raised during a 'preservation issues' masterclass I participated in last year at our national collections institute, but the discussion was rather inconclusive. Everybody knew what Wilhelm had said on it in his book (e.g.: Ch 17, note 23) , but not the actual chemistry behind it. It sort of kept nagging me at the back of my head.

[Henry Ambrose]

I second Jan's idea to add this to the static content. The thesis (or a summary of it) referred to in the last paragraph would be a great addition as well.

Thanks paulr

[Andre Noble]

I can't read that. Anybody - what was the gist of it?

[Andre Noble]

O.K., that's better. Thanks Ken.

[paulr]

"Bottom line is that it looks like Kodaks current claims about all of their toners helping preserve is probably correct, but in the case of the selenium formula, it probably isn't the selenium that is responsible."

Ken, how are you drawing this conclusion? Their conclusions were that selenium toning needed to be carried out to an extreme degree to make a significant difference.

In their testing the exception was an old batch of rapid selenium from the 80s that was more effective. They theorized about why that particular batch was better (contaminants, etc.) but were unable to come to any solid conclusions.

[Paul Butzi]

Is it just me, or does the fact that the archival properties of an entire generation's worth of photographs was dependent on misunderstood (and unobserved) presence of contaminants in Kodak RST make anyone else view the various claims for longevity of gelatin silver prints with a high degree of skepticism?

Or am I the only one who's observed that an entire decade's worth of my prints, all carefully processed according to the much touted 'tone in Kodak RST' for archival results, are probably not protected?

It all raises the question - can anyone point to published longevity tests for any currently manufactured gelatin silver paper?

It seems that, regardless of process used, longevity is a crap shoot. You pay your money, follow the 'current best practice', and take your chances that none of the manufacturers will change suppliers and render all your careful processing worthless.

[paulr]

Crap shoot is about it. That's how it's been throughout history. You could say that only now do we have reliable information on the stability of processes used during the renaissance. All we had to do was wait 400 years to see what happens (of course, the challenge now is to figure out what the work looked like THEN).

The difference is we now have at least some guiding science, even if most of the data is speculative. Better to have some educated guesses than none at all.

And there's one thing that's always been true: storage conditions are really important. Unfortunately, this is the hardest factor to control if your work doesn't end up with a rich institution.

For some perspective, remember that archival standards are really high. They're not based on when your work will completely self-destruct--they're based on when there will be a significant change in color or density. By these standards most of the old paintings on museum walls would fail outright. Some pigments have faded, others have changed color, varnishes have yellowed, dirt and soot have infused outer layers--but the work is still beautiful, it still effects people, and only the conservators seem to know that it's changed at all..

[David Luttmann]

That's about it Paul. It appears that inkjet printers get derided for longevity issues because their prints may or may not last 5o, 80, 100 years. However, we also hear of color and B&W film & prints fading, or experiencing color or tonal shifts in less than 30 years. It is evident that there is an inherent weakness in every piece of the photographic chain, whether your capture method is film or digital, and your output is silver, pt/pd, inkjet, etc.

This is a fascinating time to be working with photographic materials. Longevity is discussed more now than ever....probably more than it need be. But discussions like this will benefit both users of analog and digital capture and output.....and the purchasers of our work.

Regards,

[kthompson]

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you need to put it in perspective. Forget the lab tests and look around you at the prints you've made, how they've been stored & displayed and what has or hasn't worked for *you*.

Look--there are standards used by archives and museums for storage and the like. they're very tight, strict parameters for temp , humidity control. light exposure, enclosure materials, handling etc. It can get to the teeniest little detail--to the point where you have the thing locked away som nobody will ever see it or use it...

I work in such a place--not that we have things purposely locked away, but that in reality they are because there's not enough money to actually conserve them or get them displayed in a safe way that won't cause them any potential damage. It's one reason why I like my job--I get to see all this stuff that will probably never be displayed--but at the same time, it gives you a pause. You look at the stuff collected, and ponder the purpose.

The archivists sometimes say--nothing lasts forever. They say you can't save everything. They'll look at a potential collection and then look at the budgets and look at what they can realistically accept since they'll have to save it to the best of their abilities forever more or less. I've worked on collections that come in and are unpacked once and we document them and then they stored away indefinitely because of lack of money to conserve. They can store them in a way where they stabilize, but they can't treat them to a point where they can be safely displayed. So the photos are all there is really for anyone to see the actual thing.

It's the same way with prints you make now. Do you want to file them away in an underground vault forever, or actually use them? Do you want to accept the notion that if you actually use them and enjoy them, they'll eventually probably deteriorate despite your best intentions? Do you want to accept the viewing limitations you'll have to impose on them to stretch out their life? Or do you want to just make some photographs and enjoy them?

Worry about the negs--enjoy the prints while you can. You can worry about this if you like--but if you look at what was considered to be archival practice over the course of the last century, a lot has changed and will continue to do so, yet there are still tons of photographs floating around, and even among the deteriorated ones, many of those can still be enjoyed.

oh well, my opinions only, not my employers.

[David Luttmann]

"Worry about the negs--enjoy the prints while you can."

That has pretty much been my stance as of late. I've got the scanned neg, or the digital file. These are both stored away. If I need another print in 25 years, I'll just run one off.

[paulr]

"Worry about the negs--enjoy the prints while you can."

I might be more like the dusty traditionalists on this one. My negs represent such an unrealized blueprint of my vision (in most cases) that I think of them more as a sketchbook than as an archivable form of work. So if hubris leads me care about my work's immortality, it's got to be the prints.

Now that I'm starting to print digitally, this could change. I'll have an archivable file. But preserving ones and zeros is a whole other can of worms ... as much about saving our work from ourselves as from sinister oxidizers.

[David Luttmann]

Paul,

The way I set things up is as folows:

1) 4000DPI 16bit scan of either the MF or LF neg, or the digital RAW files are saved to CD or DVD.

2) The final file ready for printing is saved as well. This allows me the options of going back to the original scan, or simply reprinting from the final file.

For my wedding of portrait work, this allows people to have the coated print they want, behind glass, knowing that if it does fade in 50 years, the original file or neg or working file is available as well. That said, I have prints uncoated, that are exposed to sunlight daily, for quite a few years that appear the same as the coated, stored in box print.

I think that in most cases, we all worry too much about the longevity issues instead of enjoying our prints!

[David Mark]

Of course some current papers tone to a beautiful cold tone in Selenium, so I'm sure many photographers will continue to use RST even if it is not having the benefits for image permanence that we supposed it did.

With my current favorite printing paper (Ilford MG fiber) selenium toning does not produce a significant shift in image color, although it does noticably increase Dmax. I had been toning largely to protect the image. In light of this -- to me -- new information, I am going to stop working with Kodak RST. The benefits of slightly deeper blacks do not outweigh the disadvantages of having to properly dispose of the toxic residue.

Provided it is still available, I am going to try Agfa Sistan to protect the prints. Does anyone have any information on the actual effectiveness of this product?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Aww jeeez......one tries to stay away from these discussions but sometimes the comments are just too much.

Pt and pd are noble metals and as such far more resistant to corrosion than silver and far longer lasting than pigments.

I have tried to stay away from this discussion even though I find many flaws in the article. I might not be an expert on conservation, but I am a chemist. One of the glaring errors is the assumption that KRST toner is a mix of sodium sulfite and thiosulfate. Anybody that has used KRST and has gotten a wiff of it knows it contains ammonium. Most likely one of the main ingredients is ammonium thiosulfate. How the ammonium ion affects the thermodinamics and oxidation rate of silver/selenium/ sulfur compounds I have no idea, but I suspect it could be a determining factor. Furthermore, why wasnt a qaulitative analysis done? Any bench chemist worth his/her salt can easily find out the main ingredients in KRST.

Second, as it was explained in the response, silver ions in a substrate are a "motile" species in the sense that they will intiate a chain reaction when oxidized, but of the damaged prints mentioned there is no data including the most important step in conservation of photographic images which is the fixing and washing steps. It is pointless to argue the merits of selenium toning if one does not know if the prints and/or film were processed correctly, assuming that it was so is foolish.

Third and most important is the question if the selenium toning was done to completion. The photographer that uses KRST 1+25 or 1+30, puts the print in the toner until he/she sees some slight change and then takes the print out is IMO doing toning for image/color change, not for conservation purposes. From personal expereince I always used KRST 1+2 and have prints that not only were displayed for years in places where the sun hit them at times but where in full room light at night and were then placed in a storage unit for a year exposed to the heat, humidity and cold of Texas weather and still look just like the day they were first printed.

As DKT says, nothing lasts forever and entropy will always win, but some thing DO last longer than others, lets not use a somewhat lucid response from a knowledgeable person to discredit a stablish process in an effort to elevate another one. In the end THERE ARE pt/pd prints that are more than 100 years old, there are silver prints that are more than 80 years old. I have yet to see an ink jet poster that is more than 10 years old.

[paulr]

Jorge, that wasn't an article, it was an extremely generous email in answer to a question. The fact that he didn't outline all the procedures used in all the experiments doesn't mean anything. He did give references to many of the papers that he and his colleagues published; if you want to dig into the nuts and bolts of his assumptions and procedures, you should look there, to the peer reviewed publications.

Or if you'd like to ask him anything personally, I'd be happy to forward you his email.

"THERE ARE pt/pd prints that are more than 100 years old, there are silver prints that are more than 80 years old. I have yet to see an ink jet poster that is more than 10 years old."

Huh? doesn't this have something to do with the age of the mediums? It's true, the safest bet is to use a process that has been around a while. But what if you like the look or the capabilities of a newer medium? I have a cartoon of some cave men ... a couple are standing next to the wall with their charcoal drawings, looking skeptically at their friend who has an easel set up outside, with brushes and paints. One says to the other, "Oh sure, technology has made it faster and more accessible. But is it art?"

[David Luttmann]

Poster? I don't recall anyone discussing duotone or offset press work here.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Paul,

It is obvious that this is a response to an inquiery, as I noted in my second paragraph. While it is a well informed opinion by a knowledgeable person we should not take this information as "proof" that selenium does not work as a preservating agent as I suspect it was the purpose of posting this response. Furthermore, as I stated in the other thread, there are two distinct mechanisms both of which are mentioned in the response you posted. The gold chloride example has nothing to do with selenium toning as the mechanism for preservation is totally different. As a matter of fact, if anybody here wanted to tone their prints for maximum durability the best method is to tone in gold, pt or pd, since these chemicals in fact replace the silver in the prints and given their chemical properties it is more likely to last far longer.

It's true, the safest bet is to use a process that has been around a while. But what if you like the look or the capabilities of a newer medium?

WHat you do is you take your chances and acknowledge that there is little information, and that whatever information there is, it is only an "indication." You certainly do not try to discredit and existing process, proven to be effective, just so that you can say (as what was said above) "if my prints do not last 25 years it does not matter, I just press the button once more. After all selenium toning does not work either."

Ultimately, reality has a way to humble even the smartest scientist. As a chemist I found the response well thought out and in some cases with some interesting ideas, as a photographer I know from having selenium toned prints stored in the most horrid conditions that it does work. In addition, from the preservation point of view there are other reasons to tone with selenium or sulfides, namely the toxic effect these chemicals have on fungi and algae. Selenium toned prints are very resistant to these kind of parasites. So you see, from the first time I saw your post I thought it was misleading but chose to stay out of it. It is not until I saw someone trying to lump ink jet posters with silver and pt/pd prints that I decided to speak up, blatant displays of ignorance should not go unchallanged.

[paulr]

"Ultimately, reality has a way to humble even the smartest scientist. As a chemist I found the response well thought out and in some cases with some interesting ideas, as a photographer I know from having selenium toned prints stored in the most horrid conditions that it does work"

The question, of course, is how well and for how long. Anything we can learn empirically from our own work will obviously be limited in time frame. These researchers were studying toners in the interests of posterity. Of course you're right that reality often humbles scientists, and that this research doesn't "prove" anything--proof is not even a term that scientists use, as you know.

To say that existing process have been proven effective is likewise misleading. The gelatin silver process is barely a century old, and the specific materials and toner formulations we're using today are only years or decades old. We have no proof of anything, and only small scaterings of scientific evidence. The RIT study and others that Douglas cited are the most thorough ones to date, and it's safe to say they make up the preponderance of scientific evidence on the topic. It's hardly the first time that a scientific study contradicted widely held annedotal evidence or conventional wisdom.

None of this research represents the final word. But for once it gives us a solid body of knowledge to fall back on next time we have to decide what process to bet on.

[David Luttmann]

"But what if you like the look or the capabilities of a newer medium?"

I agree Paul. Kirk Gittings has mentioned on another thread how he wishes he'd done all the prints for his recent show using the new Epson and K3 inkset. He likes the color better. And he likes the look of the B&W on matte paper as much or more than his silver output.

I think we are seeing a shift away from some of the analog processes to the new digital ones. Much in the same way that silver replaced pt/pd prints of old for those who wished to avoid the un-natural brownish to bluish tones. It's good to question the permanence of inkjet prints. Now that much research has been done over the last few years, even if the stated 200-300 years for B&W inkjet behind UV glass is cut in half, I think 100-150 years is still adequate. I see no reason to question the inkjet permanence tests and not those of silver or other methods. This is even more so considering that a lot of the silver and color prints done over the last 50 years show fading as well. This isn't even going into what a lot of color negs look like from the 50-70's.

In the end, if you've got a beautiful photo, printed with carbon pigment ink, on a high quality paper like Hahnemuhle, you should be good for generations to come.

Regards,

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well Paul, I have said my peace so this will be my last response, but IMO it is less misleading to say "lookee here, I have a selenium toned print that is 60 years old and was stored in the worst conditions and still looks like the first day so selenium toning must be effective" than to say since there are some opinions that selenium toning does not work it really does not matter and my ink jet posters are just like silver or pt/pd prints.......As I keep saying, this is not "new" technology any longer, it is time for those of you making ink jets to stop trying to discredit and/or dumb down previous proecesses to make yours look good. Let your prints speak for themselves in all facets, which includes longevity, as with everything, time will tell.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Ken, it was precisely the last paragraph you quoted that lead me to beleive there were some mechanistical problems, but given that I have not read the reference, nor have I any intention to do it I am willing to take this gentleman's word for it but if I understand your confusion correctly I am on the same boat, apparently there is something magical about microfilm, given that printing paper also has some very small particles...... ;-)

[paulr]

On the issue of fungus and other biological attacks on prints--this would be a whole other line of inquiry. I believe the RIT studies focussed on oxidation because in their experience most of the damage they'd witnessed came from this source. Likewise, studies that focus on color work meant for display have tended to focus on lightfastness.

As far as the assumption that inkjet prints should be dismissed as an archival medium, I think there's already a lot of evidence to the contrary. There have been very few color processes that test as well as the most current inkjet pigment inks. In black and white, I've started using quadtone inks that are 100% carbon pigment.

My silver prints are processed and washed to a high standard, and then toned in both selenium and nelson gold toner (a sulfiding toner that also plates the silver with gold). But if I had to bet on which one will hold up better against oxidation, i'd bet on the inkjets. In the end, silver is silver; carbon is carbon. And with the silver prints, I know little about the paper base itself. With the inkjets, I can print on 100% rag paper that meets all the archival standards.

[David Luttmann]

And Paul,

Carbon on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag is gorgeous. I've used both Quadtone & Carbon on Photo Rag for B&W portraiture shots and I love the results.

[kthompson]

this is long--I apologize. every time I tried to edit it down, it got longer--so forgive me.

There was a time, well probably the first couple of years in my job when I was more interested in these issues, I guess before I got jaded and cynical (joke) and worn down by reality.... I used to be a fiber based guy---everything was on fiber. Then I started working in a museum, where almost everything was produced on RC, and it puzzled me. . Almost all the other archives and museums were the same way. How could this be? Even the big ones who maintain the recommendations that fiber based prints are better for longevity--and I still believe they are, but that's beside the point I'm trying to make here--even these labs were making RC prints every day. Then, digital came along and you see very similar things going on now. It's not so much a "do as I say" thing--it's just there are different levels of use going on with different priorities. The idea that a print or photograph is used as access is much different than looking at it as an "artifact"--a one of a kind, or an art object. It's more about information in the end, and how to best use technology and media to get it out there.

The photo dept's are more or less like a commercial studio or lab They're expected to offer services within limited budgets and bound by governing laws It's all done at cost, and I can tell you that if you give someone the whole range of prices for a reproduction--they usually try to go for the cheapest. If there was a need for an "archival" print--they can get one, but they'd have to pay and it's much cheaper to get an RC print or even an inkjet. Just today in fact, someone was nickle & diming us on a 5 dollar print. They wanted to get the "cheapest" print so they could scan it themselves for an enlargement....this is no different than when we made cibachromes and people would balk at paying 15 dollars for a print. They would buy a slide dupe for 90 cents and then they'd complain when a lab wouldn't print it because it had a little copyright sticker on it...yet it was at cost! They won't pay cost for a print off a 4x5 chrome, but would go for a third generation print off a slide dupe thinking they're getting some sort of a "deal". They just don't get it, but then again, most of them don't need it.

You don't need an "archival" print for publication. You don't need it to hand around and look at. You don't need it to stick on your refrigerator or glue to a page in a scrapbook or stick in magnetic album with PVC pages. Whatever you put in there, or handle with sticky fingers or whatever is gonna get screwed up eventually anyways. You don't need to make "archival" prints for exhibitry either--just make "pretty ones". They're going to hang on a wall, with light hitting them, and the public will be close to them. If you're not in a museum, maybe they're at a gallery opening....with the beautiful people munching cheese straws, sipping wine from a box and running their greasy fingers over the print marveling at the non "plasticky" feel of that genuine archival fiber based print. Maybe you're at an arts festival out on some sidewalk with cars rumbling by spewing out exhaust fumes.... these prints are going to be at risk. Let those be expendable--keep your masters tucked safely away as well as your negs.

At work--we print with RC for exhbitry and other forms of output as well. It depends on size of print, budget and display time. There are fiber prints--but these are few and far between because the average exhibit is up for 5 years or so, with many only for a year or two. When they come down, they're usually totally recycled for the components and the photos are tossed out. You don't need an archival print to use for a year or two and then throw it away. It just has to last for that time on display, and if it gets messed up, you can replace it.

Until recently, there have been no claims that an inkjet would be "archival" or that a CD would be either. But NARA now has specs for archiving on CD, and even the Historic Register is going digital and accepting inkjets, digital files and CDs in a program that years ago was similar to HABS/HAER. Times change, and unfortunately we must change with them, or be left behind...

sorry--I'm just rambling, I can't seem to articulate my thoughts on this. Digital is here now--it's been coming for the past decade, but it's finally here, only the money to change isn't and those of us left doing it the old way, are having to catch up or make do.

thats' the reality. 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. I think at this point--from my conversations with peers, it has become apparent that those still shooting film and making prints are doing it to keep up with the standards which are now changing, and because they cannot afford to retool as a commercial digital studio with the same quality and actually keep up with the archiving of the files. the money just isn't there.

4x5 film is still the best in my opinion. it's hard to get that quality anyway else, except in a larger sheet size and the stability is good with little effort compared to other stuff. You would think that this media and infrastructure that is paid for and has been in place for decades and can do the job would be enough--but it's not. it's about the information, get it? when those preservation programs start to go digital--and there're quite a few that have been digital for years already--that's it. You can kick & moan and scream bloody murder about how it's not "archival", but many of them believe there's no definition for the word "archival" either, even when applied to film and prints. The amount of digital information being generated outside in the commercial and public world will eventually become so large, and already probably has if you look at how editorial photo collections have changed in the past decade--that like the national register citing the lack of b/w film availibility and labs--soon the standards will be forced to change.

It's gonna be digital soon, like it or not. better get used to it.

fwiw--I use selenium at 1:3 quite a bit, as well as polytoner and sepia. as far as I'm conerned, it seems to work. I have examples of prints with bronzing and redox stains that we've produced--unfortunately--that for whatever reason got screwed up once we sent them out. In some little unscientiific tests, it seems that the toning did indeed help these prints, if they were to be displayed for long periods of time in public areas. Our s.o.p. is basically to replace a print like this, yet when it happens, you want to figure it out and put out a better product.

my opinions only/not my employers.

[Paul Butzi]

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.

The question you raise with respect to paper base is one I found troubling with regard to my gelatin silver prints. Archivalists/conservators are saying that OBA free acid free paper bases are a minimum standard for 'archival', at least according to some sources I've read.

But I've not seen an OBA free gelatin silver paper in the past decade. Is there a commercially available gelatin silver paper that is actually free of optical brighteners? I doubt it.

As for the 'relax and enjoy the print while it lasts' suggestions - yes, I agree, BUT. When I sell prints of my images, I feel like I owe the purchasers at least some 'reasonable care' that what I sell them will not degrade in short order. And, in a world where the archival nature of a process is dependent (perhaps) on trace contaminants that are uncontrolled by the manufacturer, who is free to change sources/suppliers/processes/specifications at any time, what does 'reasonable care' look like?

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.

The existence of prints using some similar process and similar materials which have survived for a long time is not any meaningful evidence that prints I make will have similar lifespans, any more than the existence of a living 103 year old man in Kamchatka means that I can expect to live to 103. None of the paper bases used 100 years ago can be purchased today, as a base line example.

Nor is this a problem confined to the photo world. Textile art and watercolors are examples of media with similar lightfastness/staining/stability problems. I own watercolors that are less than 20 years old, have spent little of that time on display, and yet show noticeable color shifts/fading.

[David Luttmann]

Paul,

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

[kthompson]

for mold and that sort of thing--look at the IPI's climate notebook site, or look at their free software for the "Preservation Calculator". They also have a nifty online tutorial, that shows deterioration examples in different environments.

try this link:
http://www.imagepermanenceinstitute.org/sub_pages/8contents.htm

the temp & rh is probably a more important factor than all the handwringing about toners, because mold is like a death sentence for photos and negs, and is pretty hard to rectify. from my jaded perspective I'll tell you that it's almost impossible to maintain the standards for the temp/rh in the real world. it's a constant struggle--you have to heat the air to dry it out and then cool it at the same time. it has to be maintained within a less than 5 degree range,within a set range of temperature for specific items. it's like a balancing act...

[kthompson]

paul--hmm....again, not trying to sound flippant here, because I believe you feel strongly about quality assurance on your prints and that's a noble cause in my book. but as the producer-- you *cannot* control the variables of the use once they leave your care if you're selling them....the clients have to uphold their end of the bargain. I'm not saying you shouldn't back up your work--but there's a point where things can and will happen beyond your control, and well--**** happens. . If you fiber base print and tone, there's no reason to worry---hell, even if you RC print and don't tone, there's no reason to worry if your environment is really good. Those properly processed and stored RC prints meet the same standard as the fiber ones, yet there is endless debate on this because the real world is so unpredictable. It's just the uncontrollable variables that cause the problems--and you basically try to hedge your bets by picking a durable, abuse tolerant material to beat the odds. Not many fine-art people would market their work in these terms, but it's the truth as it has played out over the course of time. or at least that's my version.

[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.

[paulr]

"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."

My only point is that silver in its reduced metal form is not toxic, but in its ionic form as thiosulfate it is. Likewise the fact that one particular selenium compount kills fungus does not automatically mean that another one will do the same. I don't think that grinding up your silverware and flushing it down the toilet would mess up your septic tank organisms. I also doin't think you'd have an easy time getting funding for that particular experiment ;)

As far as a place to grow mold, my fridge seems to do just fine. Last check there were already a few active experiments in the vegetable crisper.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Silver is not the element in question, it is selenium, and wether silver selenide can be a fungicide.

As to your fridge, remind me not to accept a dinner invitation at your place.....or at least to pass on the salad... :-)

[paulr]

Yes, I know you're talking about silver selenide. I used silver as an example of the principle. We know selenium sulfide is a fungicide; this does not tell us if silver selenide is a fungicide.

And I'm sad to hear you're not looking forward to my vintage salad. I thought you prefered older processes ...

[Struan Gray]

Someone back where this thread was worth reading asked why Selenium tones the shadows first. The reason is that the silver particles in the shadows are larger and less filamentous then in the highlights. It is quite common in reactions with and on small crystallites that you find the reaction proceeds very differently on different crystal faces, and the presence of steps and corners becomes important too. Thin spindly structures made from an atomic lattice tend to have lots of steps on their surfaces, and rather small crystal faces - envision
making a smoothly curved shape from Lego. Another example is the noble metal catalysts in your car exhaust: if you make the particles too small they stop working as catalysts. It's the same thing at work.

Selenium is toxic, but only mildly so to oxygen breathers - bacteria that metabolise sulpher have a harder time coping with it. I don't know about funghi. Selenium is also highly mobile in the environment, which makes it more of a risk than contaminants that stay put. FWIW, the first and so-far only contaminant from the Hanford Tanks to reach California via the groundwater is Selenium.

Dismissing Nishimura's work as just 'an opinon' is bizarre. If you are not prepared to do your own experiments and you are not prepared to take the word of the acknowledged expert in the field, I submit that you are not really interested in the question. I have done original published work on how molecules stick to TiO2, and Nishimura's comments on singlet oxygen and RC bronzing are the only ones that have ever made sense to me. None of what he says about toning and permanance contradicts my knowledge of atomic-scale physics and chemistry. Much of what his critics have said here comes across as waffle, or at least using the vague and general to generate the appearance of having dismissed a particular.

Inkjets, Pt prints, septic tanks and 'posters' is just a smokescreen. The important point is that Selenium toning gives a measure of protection, but not as much as sulphiding toners. That's a useful fact. Not many of us deliberately dip our prints in peroxide, but the fact is that a typical household atmosphere now contains far more oxidants, particularly organic ones, than the households of the past. It is likely that resistance to environmental oxidation will be more important for my prints than for my grandfathers'. Were I making silver prints with a view to posterity, I would use a sulphiding toner.

[paulr]

Practical Considerations ...

Ok, so for the gullible among us, like Struan and me, who entertain the possibility that Nishimura might not be a quack and that his research might call into question the writing on the Kodak bottle, the question is what are the best options. Best baased on what we know or suspect right now.

Sulfide toners might be the most archival, but I don't know too many people who like the way they look, at least for most of their work. I experimented years ago with kodak brown toner (potassium polysulfide) and polytoner (polysulfide/selenium) and got tones from deep chocolate brown to purple and lavender browns. They aren't subtle. Polytoner gives some control, brown toner is all or nothing. same with bleach and redevelop toners like sepia.

I experimented briefly with old thiorea toners called DuPont Thiocarbamide Toners for Varigam. More control, but not compelling enough to use. I have the formula if anyone's interested.

These are all very warm, sulfide developers.

There's GP-1 and GP-2, mentioned in the articles. I haven't used them but they're popular. I believe you could use these in addition to selenium, if selenium gives you a look that you like.

No experience or knowledge about anything like Sistol.

For the last 12 years, almost all of my silver prints have been toned in Nelson Gold toner, over a light toning of selenium. On Fortezo (RIP) this combination gave beautiful cool brown tones. I have never seen any tests done on nelson gold, or even a studied explanation for how it works, but the general understanding is that it creates silver sulfide and also plates the image with gold. So there's a chance it's good protection. It gives a controllable, progressive tone. Color can be controlled by dilution, toning time, previous toning in selenium, and the way the paper was developed. It stops working when the gold chloride runs out (replenishable) or when it gets killed by contaminants, like chlorine.

For cooler or neutral tones, I imagine the other gold toners would be a better bet. GP-2, which I hadn't heard of before, sounds promising. Anyone tried it?

On the subject of optical brighteners, I'm curious to see what research has been done. Bob Livick on livick.com did some accelerated aging tests (using sunlight and and oven autoclave) and found some interesting things. Hahnemuhle photorag, with optical brighteners, did not yellow even after extremely drawn out abuse. Moab Entrada, another 100% rag paper with a natural finish and no brighteners, did yellow. These weren't controlled studies, but they raise some interesting questions.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Much of what his critics have said here comes across as waffle

If you chose to ignore the inconsistencies on what was presented here, that is your prerrogative. But like you I too have the right to voice my opinion. Given that these reported "results" are given from using a KRST that apparently does not exists, that Kodak "knew" that KRST did not work and was driving them crazy but decided to continue making (go figure that one) , and that there is nothing magic about microfilm and the results apply as well to paper, but then Se toning seems to work with paper and not microfilm....I will continue to "waffle" all I want, even the "acknowledged" experts in the field are wrong sometimes, and I dont need to conduct my own tests to ferret out the inconsistencies. Of course, if you wish to pay me to do them and set up a lab for me, let me know when you are sending the check and I will be glad to do the testing.

[David Luttmann]

Paulr,

The Hahnemuhle photorag is great for color work. While maybe not the best for maximum density B&W printing, the fact that it doesn't yellow has made it the paper of choice for both my color & B&W work.

Kirk just gave a great summary of his findings as well on this paper & others for B&W & color printing.

Regards,

[paulr]

Jorge, I've looked at what you've written and gone back to the original email. I don't see any inconsistencies at all. The information he presents is not complete, obviously. It's a summary of a lot of research.

If you're interested in examining the best information that's available to date, he cites the original studies (including the phd thesis that came to the same conclusions using photographic paper). But if you'd rather ignore everything besides the anecdotal evidence that supports what you already believe, I grant you that this approach is easier. But it doesn't constitute a high horse from which to dismiss those who are in fact the experts on the topic, or photographers who are willing to consider their case.

Yes, experts not always right. But this is an argument for asking more questions, not for blindly dismissing the conclusions of anyone who knows more than you. I would hope.

[kthompson]

Paul--
There's only one type of photo dept. in our system, and we do it all. My job is actually split 50-50 between collections and exhibit support. For years I actually had to attend meetings of both branches. I have access to the collection, and have been here longer than the handlers actually. We're one larger museum over 5 smaller ones. There's a similar dept in an art museum, and the state archives has it's own set of technical labs. One does the photo work, and is similar in some ways to our operation, but they also have facilities used to support other agencies that lack darkrooms. That lab operates very much the same as ours--in that fiber base use is very lopsided if not obsolete. To give you an idea of the amounts of materials used by this system, you'd have to look at the annual contracts, which I don't follow it too much--but I know the numbers are very lopsided against fiber base. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands sheets of rc against maybe 1500 fiber annually. It's just not being used. The collections are documented on sheet films, microfilm etc. The objects being documented on film. Prints are not the ones being used in this case.

The only "Prints and Photographs" lab I can really think of offhand, I guess would be the LOC---but that's Federal gov't. Look around at your state records center. Do you even have a state run museum, you must have an archive? Do they have a photo dept? What do they offer, what are their facilities? If I look at some of the private university collections in my state, they don't really have labs or studios per-se, but they use student interns, or work/study programs. The private universities have partnered in with the public libraries in my area, and they're the ones driving the digitization projects. If you go to Museum L or SAA or some lists like that, even PhotoHist (which I'm on as well)--you'll see this is the number one topic almost. This is the way things are going, and it's not coming out of photo departments primarily but coming from others. The reality here is that the photo dept's are like service bureaus, studios or labs that support the operations--and if they move into digital, then everything moves along with it.

To think that there's some separate curatorial lab out there someplace that will last indefinitely printing fiber base for collections? I dunno, maybe they exist. I kind of doubt it at a certain point in the scheme of things, because they'll become more like a living history lab....I still print 100-120 yr old glass plates in our lab, but I'm not using POP or gaslight papers. Sometimes I wonder if I should be even printing them, since we scan the prints for digital files in the end. As a photographer it's a frustrating time to work--since with digital, so many others are using the cameras & scanners and taking over the duties that were formerly ours. What happens, is that you become delegated to the lab, while other do the imaging.

You say one thing--that with inkjets nobody knows the longevity, could be great and all that---but then you deny the reality facing the people working in these departments. Look--there's this lab that is charged with producing more prints than I'll probably ever make in a year, and they operate on a shoestring budget because they *have to* sell prints and shoot 4x5 at cost. They cannot make a profit, and so they sell a 4x5 for 1.50. A patron can buy that neg, go to a lab and run off 100 prints and then sell them for whatever and make a profit, but this lab (and us, for that matter) cannot do so. There's no law against this--it's the same way that anyone can sell public domain images for profit. But it doesn't address the fact that you're barely breaking even in operational cost, and then when it comes time to upgrade, there's just about nothing in the bank to do it. This lab I'm thinking of--they use a machine that's on it's last legs--they're getting a new machine for almost 20 thousand dollars, because the standards for them are still film and paper. It's gonna take some time to pay that off at cost, but what can they do? What choice do they have? I'd be surprised if the manufacturer is still in business in 5 or 10 yrs from now, and they're expected to keep working like they have for the past century? Hell, we can hardly even get parts for our Ilford machine, and when it dies, what are we going to do? Pay ten grand for a processor, or get a digital back? For what? To make 100 yr prints for the item history files, when the collection moves online in a digitization portal?

I know the LOC uses the same rc paper processor we use, and I know the smithsonian actually uses one like the new processor the other lab is getting. There are archives and museums all over the place, with staff grappling over the same decisions. I think you'd find that most of them are very much the same--looking at the digital output and usage skyrocketing, while whatever little cost revenue they bring in to support the operation is dwindling. There may very well be more places out there using fiber base internally, but none of the museum photographers I've ever met have been in much different situations than I am. I've met folks up at the smithsonian, talked with guys who worked for the Fed. gov't doing preservation work and met some private staffers as well, and they all seem to be more like industrial or commercial shooters than anything. Perhaps, the conservators would be different, I dunno. There are less photo conservators than photo departments though.

my opinions as always

[paulr]

What museum do you work for?
By the way, I wasn't suggesting that other departments do or should use fiber paper for what you're doing. Just trying to get a handle on what kind of work your department does, and what these prints are for. It still sounds like the prints that your department is making are not for the same purpose as the prints in an art museum permanent collection, and that the purposes, budgets, and standards are likely to be different.

For example, I know you can buy walker evans prints, made from the original negatives, from the library of congress for dirt cheap. i'm sure these are rc, if they're not digital already. But the walker evans prints in the collection at MoMA are fiber based, and were printed by walker, or by someone he hired a long time ago.

let me know if i'm missing something.

[David Mark]

Ed Buffaloe's cite, The Unblinking Eye, has a concise and well written article on archival processing. In that article, I came across the following:

"Doug Nishimura indicates (in a letter to Jennifer Scott) that complete protection with Kodak Selenium Toner requires a dilution of not more than 1:9, and a toning period of 3 to 5 minutes at 68º. Some fine art photographers find this depth of toning not to their taste."

What is interesting to me personally about this is that the paper I use, Ilford MGIV Fiber, requires almost exactly this dilution and toning period to get a discernible increase in DMax. While there is, to my eye, almost no change in image color, is it possible that, after all, I have been toning sufficiently for archival permanence? To put this another way, for an area of the picture to be protected by the toning, must there have been a visible change in density and/or image color? Do any of this forum's scientist contributors have an opinion on this?

I also found, in the same article, some information on Agfa Sistan:

"Other Treatments: Agfa makes a product called Sistan, and Fuji makes a similar product called AG Guard, which is used to treat prints after washing. Thomas Wollstein has corresponded with Agfa regarding Sistan, and tells us that Sistan contains potassium thiocyanate and a wetting agent--it works by converting oxidized silver ions in the emulsion to a stable, insoluble salt. Robert Chapman states that Sistan “...precipitates any silver ion formed by oxidation in the form of silver thiocyanate (AgSCN). Silver Thiocyanate is colorless and virtually light-insensitive.” But Sistan only works as long as the thiocyanate stays in the emulsion, so Agfa recommends that Sistan be used as a final treatment, after washing and before drying--if it is washed out, archival benefits are probably lost.

According to Doug Nishimura, “before any silver deterioration can occur, silver must be oxidized into silver ion. Even air and moisture can act as a strong enough oxidizing combination to cause damage.” He notes that “...there is always a small amount of ionic silver in equilibrium with silver metal in a photographic image.” But, whether the ionic silver already exists in the emulsion or is caused by pollutants, thiocyanate combines with it, thereby stabilizing it as an inert salt which will not cause image degradation. Sistan is said to be fully compatible with toning treatments. I should note that Dupont 6-T Gold Toner contains potassium thiocyanate, and Kodak GP-1 contains sodium thiocyanate, but I do not know if either is in sufficient quantity to be as effective as Sistan is alleged to be--also, prolonged washing would negate any benefit derived therefrom. Robert Chapman states that, though he has inquired several times, Agfa has not provided him with substantive documentation to prove the effectiveness of Sistan. He allows, however, that “..it makes sense on theoretical grounds.” Other sources on the world-wide-web hint that Sistan may not be effective over the long term, but there is no hard data to back this up either."

Obviously, then, for those who want the effectiveness of the treatment demonstrated before adoptiong it Sistan would not fill the bill.

[Struan Gray]

I am surprised so few people here and elsewhere have asked what the contaminant is. Apparently there is a substance which can be present in such small amounts that it doesn't show up in Kodak's production line assays, yet which affords silver images the protection always attributed to selenium and gold. The real question should be why is nobody bottling it and selling it.

Optical brighteners are not necessarily evil. Some may in fact help preserve the image as by definition they absorb UV light. That said, the one I know about - TiO2 - catalyses a number of organic decompositions, and photocatalyses even more. A standard treatment to remove organic contaminants is to pass water over a Ti02 support illuminated with UV.

Finally, a comment on archives: like many state funded institutions it is much easier to get money for sexy new equipment than for upgrading existing stock or for day to day operations and salaries. The library here, and a couple of county archives I know, have received money for swanky digibacks from private foundations that they would never have been able to raise for more mundane but arguably more useful purposes such as adding climate control to all the storage areas. It's the 'machine that goes ping' syndrome.

[paulr]

Struan, is Ti02 an optical brightener? and if so, is it the one that's used in modern papers? I only knew of it as a pigment.

[Struan Gray]

It is used as a brightener in many if not all RC silver gelatin papers, and it would not surprise me to find it in inkjet papers too - although I have no confirmation of that.

Again: it is not evil incarnate, but with the benefit of hindsight, it came as no surprise to me to see it fingered for at least part of the RC bronzing problem.

[Struan Gray]

PS: it is used in RC papers because of its high specular reflectivity. It doesn't have the strength of fluorescence of phosphorescence that optical brighteners in, say, washing powder have (which is why it is used in blackberry-powered solar cells, but that's another story).

[paulr]

Interesting. I remember reading that Ti02 wasn't the most stable pigment in oil paints .. that it yellowed over time. which was suprising, since titanium is so nearly innert. aparently zinc oxide is more stable in paint.

I've been working on varnishing my inkjet prints and was wondering why the varnish seemed to reduce the surface brightness of the paper (yellowing it slightly). the varnish is supposed to be acrylic based and crystal clear. then this thread made me realize--it has UV blockers, so the optical brighteners aren't getting their magic juice.

[kthompson]

>>>>For example, I know you can buy walker evans prints, made from the original negatives, from the library of congress for dirt cheap. i'm sure these are rc, if they're not digital already. But the walker evans prints in the collection at MoMA are fiber based, and were printed by walker, or by someone he hired a long time ago. let me know if i'm missing something.<<<<<<<<

okay--the art museum piece is the original, or as close to it--it's the real mccoy, the "artifact". the LOC, or any other archive for that matter, is a reproduction. Chances are it won't come off the original negative, but will come off a duplicate of the neg, or a copyneg of a print--or some combination of the two meaning, it could be many times removed. It might be a good reproduction of an original print, but it's not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Art museums do not generally print for their collection. They collect by purchasing, donation or loans....there's a fundamental difference here---a case of miscommunication between you and I. I'm talking about records, in that these are copies and duplicates of existing photographs or they are original photographs that were shot for the purpose of documenting an object or a building or even an event to support some broader idea.

It's just completely different, but the original records are treated with the same care as the artifact--only they're duplicated in an effort to preserve them and as a way of disseminating the information to the patron base--which now in the age of the internet means that a state museum or a county historical society often serves a much wider audience than many of them ever imagined. It is both exciting in some ways, and unrealistic in others--but like Struan's comment about fundraising and basic priorities--I can't even begin to go there in talking about this, it's just too close to home...just no comment really. Times change--you gotta go with the flow, or find something else to do.

I got a slip of paper about my retirement today. seems like I have about 15 some odd years to go before full retirement. Tell you what--in 2020, when I'm living off my pension, and not selling Grit door to door to supplement it--I'll get back to y'all about selenium toning when I'm tooling around in my own darkroom, assuming of course there's still some photo papers being made, and I'm not too senile or burned out to remember how to use the stuff.

[Sal Santamaura]

"But I've not seen an OBA free gelatin silver paper in the past decade. Is there a commercially available gelatin silver paper that is actually free of optical brighteners? I doubt it."

As best I can determine, Azo does not contain optical brighteners.

[paulr]

if fortezo contained them, it sure didn't look like it.

[Paul Butzi]

I'll eat my words.

As far as I can tell, doing some research on the web, recent Kodak fiberbase papers with a 'C' finish are OBA free. Don't know about Azo.

Apparently the Cachet/Maco papers are OBA free.

From what I've read, it's possible for a paper to look like it's oba free but still have OBA's in the paper base.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

But it doesn't constitute a high horse from which to dismiss those who are in fact the experts on the topic, or photographers who are willing to consider their case.

Paul, I am not the only one who saw these inconsistencies, Ken pointed them out too. Quoting an expert does not give the right to get on your high horse and proclaim you are the holder of the "truth." I have tried to tell you that "anecdotal" experience which I choose to call reality goes contrary to what was presented here. Bottom line I suppose these prints that were toned in selenium but were in fact protected by some magical sulfur compound must be brown not black as is the case of Se toning. Funny thing, I have yet to see brown microfilm too....Unfortunatelly I dont think Kodak is interested in finding this magical sulfur compound any longer.

It does not matter to me in any case Paul, you choose to beleive this person and take his word as the word of god, whatever floats your boat, I am sure as a chemist you are very capable of making your own conclusions.....

[paulr]

Jorge, why does everything have to come down to extremist black vs. white interpretations of what people say?

For what it's worth, in my lexicon, calling something "the best information available to date" does not equal "the word of god." Calling something "annecdotal" does not equal "wong."

However, if I have to make a bet, I'll more likely bet on an evidence-based, well supported source than on an annecdote. If it's an annecdote or personal experience that holds weight with me, it will get me to start asking questions, not just sumarily dismissing everything that disagrees with me.

It's one of those weird, post-middle ages prejudices I can't seem to get out of my head, that's all.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, why does everything have to come down to extremist black vs. white interpretations of what people say?

I guess because in the absence of visual cues, we have to take words at their face value.

In any case I did a gooogle search and in most cases where selenium was put in question they all cite Nishimura's research, when you are the only source of something even when you are wrong you are right and are still the expert, Wilhelm is another good example.

When I was in college doing graduate work, I worked as a TA for the physical chemistry dept. At the time we had oral final exams in the graduate dept. So before my one of my exams the professor that I worked for saw I was nervous, and this was his advice, he said:

Did you study?....yes
did you pepare the subject you are going to present? ....yes.

So then trust what you know and relax

So in the same vein, while to you it might seem silly that I question Nishimura's hypothesys, I have to trust what I know, and that is that the "anecdotal" reference (right or wrong) gives evidence to facts that challange the response posted by you.

As Ken said, I suspect the answer lies in the middle somewhere, also as he said, I suspect Kodak was less than forthcomming with Nishimura on their research and results. I beleive the inclusion of ammonium thiosulfate as part of KRST has a big role in the permanence properties of selenium toning, but apparently it is something that has not been researched. In the end, unlike you, if I was doing silver printing I would still use selenium toning for increased Dmax and permanence regardless of what Nishimura beleives, I have seen prints processed this way that are 60 years old, this is good enough evidence for me.

In the end as I said, while I tried to stay away from this thread I saw it as a way to discredit a well stablish clasic process in the hopes of elevating ink jet posters so that someone with little scientific traning like the pirnting tech can say, yeah well my ink jet posters are just as lasting as silver or pt/pd printing. I thought this needed to be challagned, I have done so, I am done with this. I wish you well.

[Oren Grad]

Thanks to Paul for seeking out and posting Doug Nishimura's observations.

I've ordered a copy of Christopher Gmuender's master's thesis from the RIT library. If folks here are interested, I can prepare a brief summary of his methods and findings after it arrives and I've had a chance to review it. Perhaps that would be a useful supplement to the Nishimura comments if those are going to be archived on the static page as a reference.

[paulr]

I think we understand each other a bit better now, Jorge.

You said, "So in the same vein, while to you it might seem silly that I question Nishimura's hypothesys, I have to trust what I know, and that is that the "anecdotal" reference (right or wrong) gives evidence to facts that challange the response posted by you."

It doesn't seem silly at all that you should question his (or anyone's) hypothesis. I think it's healthy. Your earlier posts sounded more like an outright dismissal, not a line of questioning. That is what I took issue with.

"I have seen prints processed this way that are 60 years old, this is good enough evidence for me."

this may be just be evidence that your goals are different from Nishimura's (and from those of some other people here as well). His research was based on how to preserve things to the standards of a historical archive--which calls for much more than 60 years without visual degradation. The world is full of 60 year old prints made in all kinds of ways that still look great. Nishimura was charged with the question of how best to preserve things for several hundred years.

"I saw it as a way to discredit a well stablish clasic process in the hopes of elevating ink jet posters so that someone with little scientific traning like the pirnting tech can say, yeah well my ink jet posters are just as lasting as silver or pt/pd printing"

Well, I started this thread, and that sure wasn't my goal. I don't know what could have made you think otherwise. This was about helping people who wish to continue making silver prints make the best decisions on how to preserve them, if that's important to them. the reseach I cited has nothing to do with inkjet, platinum, or any other printing process or turf war. It has to do with what toners best resist oxidation.

I'd love to see a thread (somewhere else!) about different pigment inks' resistance to oxidation, and how they compare to various other photographic processes. Unfortunately, i have not seen any research yet that addresses this. In the mean time, all we have is this lonely little thread, about toners for silver.

[Struan Gray]

Oren: yes please.

Paul: I have seen anecdotal statements that there are salt(s) in carbon inkjet inks that are needed for the ink droplets to aquire a charge and be deflected by the print head. Supposedly these could increase the rate at which the paper degrades, making even carbon-ink prints less long-lived than charcoal drawings or traditional carbon prints. This makes sense to me, but I've no feel for the scale of the 'problem' and I've not seen references to any research.

Me, I'm going to learn how to draw in silverpoint and chalk. Or use digital output to enamel on glass.

[David Luttmann]

"In the end as I said, while I tried to stay away from this thread I saw it as a way to discredit a well stablish clasic process in the hopes of elevating ink jet posters so that someone with little scientific traning like the pirnting tech can say, yeah well my ink jet posters are just as lasting as silver or pt/pd printing. I thought this needed to be challagned, I have done so, "

Paulr,

I think it's obvious that there are so many variables in the printing process with silver, or even with outdated niche methods like pt/pd, that what has been defined as an archival process (silver-selenium) many not end up being as archival as many presume. Some early responses in this thread were appearing as an outright dismissmal and needed clarification.

Fine art injet printing, carbon or otherwise, may very well end up being as archival as silver. There are so many different tests out there that it is difficult to choose one over the other as being accurate. In the end....no one can say with certainty because of all the variables.

Really, nothing in this thread has been "challenged." It seems that quite often those that become defensive about using niche methods are really simply lacking the experience of using new materials. Afterall, the entire basis of scientific analysis is established upon the idea of experimentation. Those who have not had any experience with new materials can really not offer anything other than opinion....making their assertions without value. I ran across people like this quite often doing my graduate work.

In the end we choose the materials that we enjoy working with. Silver is still a viable option as is inkjet. ....and I believe that output from both, when properly stored, will be around for generations......and this is based upon good quality tests.

Straun, I have heard about the salt issue as well. I am waiting for a response from my supplier of carbon pigment ink as to this issue. I'll see what they come back with.

All the best.

[paulr]

"I am waiting for a response from my supplier of carbon pigment ink as to this issue. I'll see what they come back with."

this could be worth a new thread if they tell you anything interesting. Jon Cone brought up another possible inkjet issue ... the coatings that do such a nice job of receiving inks also do a nice job of receiving atmospheric pollutants. i think a lot remains to be learned about various papers and coatings.

[David Luttmann]

"the coatings that do such a nice job of receiving inks also do a nice job of receiving atmospheric pollutants. i think a lot remains to be learned about various papers and coatings."

Paul,

These coating are of course an issue. Many of the Resin Coated papers designed to receive and encapsulate dye based inks use coatings that are of questionable archival quality. That said, acid free cotton rag matte papers would be a good option for pigment, or carbon pigment inks. These are the papers that don't use optical brighteners....yet still are great for both color & B&W output.

I'll let you know what response I get from the "Carbon Guys."

[Ryuji]

Iodide treatment is only weakly effective. It's inadequate to completely protect the image from standard peroxide attacks, while polysulfide toning is sufficient.

Efficacy of selenium treatment is dependent on the emulsion and developer, not only on the toner solution. It is not very easy to determine whether selenium treatment is adequate or not for ALL silver-gelatin material used today. Several studies indicated that selenium is effective with some emulsions but not in others, all at the same concentration and same treatment time. It is also known that selenium treatment may protect dark areas better than light areas, which may be left unprotected. These are the problems with selenium. Polysulfide treatment does not leave this problem.

There is a product called Ag Guard. I have some detailed discussion here:
http://www.silvergrain.org/wiki/index.php/Ag_Guard

This product is well tested by Fuji people, and the result is very promising, especially when polysulfide cannot be used, or when full toning with selenium is undesirable. However, this product is not available outside Japan. I have been making a image protecting agent similar to this and also has very good image protecting action. It's been showing pretty good protection by bleach (immersion) tests and peroxide fuming tests. I should be able to report more details in near future.

[Ryuji]

In any case I did a gooogle search and in most cases where selenium was put in question they all cite Nishimura's research, when you are the only source of something even when you are wrong you are right and are still the expert, Wilhelm is another good example.

There are some other independent studies by a Danish group, a German group, et al., and also myself. Nishimura is not alone on the unreliable protection of selenium treatment, although not many people may agree on his "sulfur impurity" theory. I think he only mentioned this theory as one possibility to account for his observations and he did not intend to establish this as a fact or anything.



I beleive the inclusion of ammonium thiosulfate as part of KRST has a big role in the permanence properties of selenium toning, but apparently it is something that has not been researched.

The inclusion of ammonium thiosulfate is to accelerate selenium toning reaction.

[Hossein Almet]

So wash well, but not too well is the thing. I wonder whether I should continue to use washing aid in the development process.

Thank you