Is Toning a Necessity for Archival Printing?

[john_s]

bojanfurst,

Thanks for the link to the Canadian conservation institute site.

I strongly dissagree with the quantity of prints that they suggest can be placed through one gallon of fixing bath.

If I were to place that many 8x10 fibre based prints through a one gallon bath of fix it would exhaust the fix to a point that extended time in the bath would be required to finish fixing the print.

These figures do not take into account the gradual saturation of the fixing bath over use and the subsequent increase in time that would be required to give a proper fix.

There comes a point when the fixing bath exhausts and ceases to work.

Regards
Peter

Proper fixing is one of the essential parts of the archival processing of paper. The following is a quote from a post of Michael Gudzinowicz from (i think) rec.photo.darkroom in the days before that site became a real mess.
Sorry if the format is messy, as I wanted to use fixed font to make the columns line up. (edit) it still failed as apug stripped out the extra spaces. I've inserted underscores to fill up spaces taken out by apug. Paper size for capacity is 8"x10".
<start of quote>

More on Fixing - One and Two Bath Fixation:

Grant Haist, the former director of research at Kodak, cites the following
maximal permissible values for one-bath film and paper fixers for commercial
and archival processing:

One-bath fixation:_____Commercial_________Archival

Film:

Max. Ag conc.:_________1.5 g/l____________0.2 g/l
Max rolls/gal:_________25 rolls/gal_______2 rolls/gal
Non-image Ag in film:__0.01 mg/in^2_______0

Paper:

Max. Ag conc.:_________0.3 g/l____________0.05 g/l
Max. sheets/gal:_______30 8x10____________5 8x10
Non-image Ag in paper: 0.005 mg/in^2______0

Essentially, as fixer total silver (free and complexed) and halide
concentrations rise, the fixer's ability to remove all of the silver from
the paper diminishes markedly, as indicated by the very limited capacity of
one-bath to remove silver to archival levels.

The solution to the limited capacity is to use a fresh second fixer bath to
maintain a very low total silver level, with a water rinse between the first
and second baths to minimize fixer/silver carry-over. Some older texts even
suggest a fresh third bath.

Two bath fixation:______Commercial______Archival

Film:

Bath 1:
Max. Ag conc.:__________6 g/l___________3.5 g/l
Max. rolls/gal:_________60-70___________40

Bath 2:
Max. Ag conc.:__________0 .5-1.5 g/l____0.02 g/l
________________________after 60-70_____after 40

Non-image Ag in film:___0.01 mg/in^2_____0

Paper:

Bath 1:Max. Ag conc.:____2 g/l____________0.8 g/l
Max. sheets/gal:_________200 8x10_________70 8x10

Bath 2:
Max. Ag conc.:___________0.3 g/l__________0.05 g/l
_________________________after 200________after 70

Non-image Ag in paper:___0.005 mg/in^2____0

The first fixer gets rid of most of the silver, and the second maintains a
very low silver concentration and relatively high free thiosulfate
concentration to remove the remainder of the insoluble complexes and
non-image silver present in the emulsion after the first fixation.

The first bath is used for the maximum number of sheets or rolls indicated,
and then discarded after silver recovery.

The second bath is substituted for the first, and a fresh second bath is
prepared.

After 5 cycles (substitutions), or one week if continuously exposed to air
in tanks, both baths are replaced. Compare the capacity for commercial or
archival standards using two baths to that for one. Two bath fixation is far
more economical than using one bath, and avoids the temptation to over-use
fixer which results in under-fixation and difficult removal of insoluble
complexes which destroy prints and film.

<end of quote>

 

[john_s]

And just as there is archival processing, there is also archival storage and display/mounting. Sulphide toning makes a big difference if storage is less than ideal.

 

[d_ross]

The funny thing with this is who ever really knows? Even if you do a half assed job of it nobody alive now will ever know if your prints are archival or not. The only real test is time. So in a eighty to a hundred years someone will know your work is archival, provided you date it of course 🙂

 

[ARCHIVIST]

I agree.
We will not be around in a hundred years to see the results of our labour.

However we do have the works of photographers past and this work we can critique in regards to its physical quality after time. We can learn from them, improve where required and have some degree of confidence in how we process.

Regards
Peter

 

[john_s]

I was chuffed when my cousin brought around to show me a recently found photo of my great grandfather and his family taken in 1889. Showing very little fading or other damage. Yes, it was sepia toned and had been stored in a pile of papers and notebooks in a rather warm climate for most of its life, not exactly archival storage. In those days photos were special and a little care in processing was considered worthwhile.

 

[rlouzan]

BRONZING!!! :bang:
http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-62780-p-2.html

Peter,
I've never heard that RC paper only have LE of 40 years. How conclusive is this? What part of the coating does it really start to break down?

Plus the development of newer RC paper continues to be done, so we have to wait another 40 years to even make the conclusion for newer papers, don't we?

To clarify, what I'm talking about is a non-glossy RC papers. I can't stand any glossy papers, be it FB or RC or Inkjet.

 

[bojanfurst]

What a great thread. This is why I love this forum. 🙂

 

[ARCHIVIST]

Bronzing and the break down of the RC coating are two separate issues.

Bronzing may be a contributing factor in the RC breakdown but not necessarily
the only cause nor does it have to be present for this to happen.

Regards
Peter