Is Toning a Necessity for Archival Printing?

[taylan]

I read about archival printing for many sources and almost everybody agreed that the selenium toning is a standard procedure for archival printing. What do you think about this? Is possible to produce a print that has an archival quality without toning?

 

[Vics]

I think selenium toning is thought by many galleries to be a must. That may be outdated by now.

 

[Steve M.]

You can get an archival print on fiber paper w/o toning if it's properly washed. Galleries always pick up on catch words like selenium or platinum. My favorite gallery speak is silver gelatin print. That simply means it's an optical B&W print, so EVERY B&W photo from real B&W film print is a silver gelatin print. Not so special after all.

 

[Tim Gray]

As I understand it, no, without full selenium, sulphide, or gold toning (and maybe a few others), silver B&W prints aren't archival. That doesn't mean they won't last a long damn time if not toned and stored properly. But the metallic silver is vulnerable to attack from the elements.

Also as I understand it, light/partial toning only protects the bits that are toned, and not the rest. So a light selenium toning really isn't as archival as toning to completion. And sulphide toning is more archival.

Also, too, Sistan is supposed to work.

 

[Turtle]

if you have ever tried to sepia tone a partially selenium print then you will know that the selenium reaches far beyond its visual impact. It makes it clear how short an immersion you should give in the selenium to allow sepia toning and even then it will only hit the highlights. if you can't bleach it with the sepia bleach then it is pretty stable, with greater vulnerability in the highlights!

My understanding is that when people talk about achieving the 'archival standard' with respect to print production, they are discussing a process to achieve a standard 'archival' result with respect to fixer/residual silver. It has nothing to do with how long the silver print will actually last, only the tested standard achieved when the print is finished. It is unrelated to toning, although toning can increase the longevity further. Copper tone it and longevity will be reduced, however, so it is not universal to all toners, only those more stable than the silver salts.

You could achieve archival results with a super warmtone paper and also with a very cold paper. In theory the cold tone pape would last longer without degradation (according to theory) as the silver clumps are bigger presenting a smaller surface area for oxidation.

You could carelessly wash a silver print that had been toned in toned in selenium and it would not be archical if the paper tested for above a certain level of residual fix/silver.

This is my understanding.

All I know is I was prints properly and test some here and there to ensure I am not leaving excessive undeveloped silver in the paper. I tone then when it works for Dmax etc but it is not standard for me or required for a pint to be arhival. I have seen lots of prints for big names being printed in London and plenty of them are untoned prints. They sell for big money.

 

[taylan]

First of all thanks for all answers. As i understand there is not an agrement on this topic and all informations depend on beliefs. Do anybody know any scientific or serious work?

 

[Tim Gray]

First of all thanks for all answers. As i understand there is not an agrement on this topic and all informations depend on beliefs. Do anybody know any scientific or serious work?

Look for Wilhelm Imaging Research's stuff on print permanence. That's one source. Another, more photographer friendly source is Tim Rudman's book on toning. As I stated above, from my readings in these and other sources, for archival standards, you want selenium, sulphide, gold, and maybe Sistan, and it needs to be more or less to completion.

As turtle pointed out, one facet of archival prints is reducing the amount of residual fixer in the print. The other facet is protecting the metallic silver from oxidization. Washing methods address the first point. Toning addresses the second. Which is why full toning is required to fully protect all the silver in the image.* Though, there is an argument to be made that the highlights are more susceptible to damage, so partial sulphide toning of the highlights might be better in the long run than partial selenium toning of the shadows.

* Whether or not this is necessary for practical purposes is besides the point. If you want a print to last only a couple years, or are going to put it in full sunlight, or are going to leave it in your flood prone basement, etc., then toning for archival purposes is most likely a waste of time.

 

[Tim Gray]

Actually, this page is probably a good primer on the topic:

http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html

 

[d_ross]

The answer to your question is yes you can produce archival prints without toning. Archival results are achieved primarily by fixing and washing to archival standards using recommended processes by the particular paper maker. Look on your paper instructions that come with the paper you use, the likes of Ilford give good instructions for achieving archival print quality.

Many many prints by the likes of Edward Weston for example have so far passed the test of time without selenium or sistan, and many of those were printed in a shack in Mexico somewhere as well.

Institutions consider a silver print will only be truly archival only if it is stored properly as well. so if you want archival prints was and fix as per the paper manufacturer's instructions, and then store them in archival boxes etc

 

[ARCHIVIST]

I am, by trade, a photographic archivist and deal only with black & white negatives and prints.

Toners primarilly aid the aesthetic of a print with the the added advantage of protecting the silver from the effects of contact with air. Toning is not essential for processing to archival standards but does give added protection to the silver.

For a print to be processed to archival standards all the residual thyosulphates (residue fixer) must be washed from the fibres of the paper and the print base must be fibre, not resin coated.

The expected life span of an archivally processed black and white print, on fibre base paper, is 100 years. It, of course, must be stored correctly after processing. Resin coated prints, because of the resin coating, have a life expectancy of only 40 years. Some may go longer but at 40 years you can expect to see the resin coating start to break down. Early examples on Ilford RC papers are still around today at 50 plus years but they show a very slight cloudyness especially in the gloss finish.

Many people over fix their prints in an effort to make them archival. This is not required and in fact longer fixing times require longer wash times in an effort to remove excess thyosulphates that have saturated the paper fibres.

Remember that 85% to 90% of the fixing of the print takes place in the first 15 seconds of being immersed in the fix - so why extend the fix time! Always use two fixing baths. Total fixing time should not exceed 2 minutes ie 1minute per bath with constant gentle aggitation. The first bath will saturate quickly while the second bath remains fresher longer.

Always use a rapid fixer (eg ammonium thyosulpahte and boric acid eg Ilford rapid fix) and do not exceed the manufacturers recommendations for usage - keep your solutions fresh and do not try to stretch the life of your chemicals at the expense of the print! (sorry for yelling the last part).

Wash the print in flowing water, sometimes referred to as rapid washing. Give a 15 minute was then a 10 minute soak in a clearing agent such as Kodak hypo clearing of Ilford's equivalent. Clearing agents are essentially leaching agents that will draw residual thyosulphates from the fibres of the paper. If used they reduce the need for long wash times. Finally, give another 15 minute wash. After washing you can either dry your print or tone. If you tone remember to give another 10 - 15 minute wash at the end.

Do not be alarmed at the amount of time the print is in the wash. Fibre base papers are extrememly robust and no damage will result.

Several years back I made available a paper I had written on archival processing to members of RFF. Many asked for the pdf. It was aimed at the entusiast who processes at home. Currently I am revising its format and should have it ready for those of you who may want a copy. Just pm me with an e-mail address and I will get a copy out once it is ready to go. Please do not be concerned about giving me an e-mail addy. I have had issues in the past where I have posted the paper on a referrence site with its content being changed - once bitten.................Once sent I will delet the e-amil address used.

Hope this helps guys.

Regards
Peter.

PS Sorry for any spelling errors.

 

[sepiareverb]

Peter is a go to source for this kind of info. I've pm'ed you for the updated pdf Peter- Thank you.

 

[sevo]

The role of toning in image stability is very debatable. Toning once was a standard procedure on high quality to luxury prints - which will have been better processed and stored all around. And insufficiently fixed images immediately go spotty when selenium toned, so that toning eliminates one common failure to achieve archival quality, by destroying the prints even before they are dry.

That is, the statistical evidence to the archival superiority of toned prints is quite likely due to reasons only indirectly related to toning.

The archives I have worked with actually refuse toned prints when buying new photographs, as tests for toner residues are nowhere as thorough and safe as a hypo elimination test - the biggest concern for archives is not that one particular print might fade, but that it might break down emitting chemicals that cause dozens of adjacent prints to fade...

 

[gns]

Peter, Thanks for that clarification. Can I ask a somewhat related question?
I have a print (B&W/fiber-based) that I purchased from another photographer about 30 years ago. Apparently, it was not washed sufficiently and/or dried on a contaminated screen because I have recently noticed a small area in the image where the pattern of the drying screen is faintly visible. Can this be corrected or at least halted by re-washing the print? Or is the damage done?

Thanks,
Gary

 

[Turtle]

Peter, thanks for that.

One thing I have read, but not tried, which is hugely relevant to permanence is a short immersion in polysulphide toner (such as Agfa Viradon if it is still around).

Apparently, in 45 secs or so, almost all the silver is converted to 'silver whatever it is' yet no colour change will result. None. So they say. So, you can get all the archival benefit long before the colour change occurs.

I have never tried this, but it would appear to whoop selenium as an mechanism for increasing permanence. I have used Viradon for colour change (brown) and my experiences would suggest that with a neutral to cool paper, you wont get any colour change in 45 secs. It might be a bit tight for a super sensitive paper like Forte PWT (now gone) or Oriental Warmtone (just needs to smell toner to change colour) but one to consider.

PS I once did a split toned print off Forte PWT with selenium first and then Viradon to completion. Lovely cool shadows and pinkish brown highlights that were wonderful for skin tones. Its a nude of my wife pregnant with my first son and its rather nice to think it should last a very long time considering all the silver has been toned.

 

[shadowfox]

For a print to be processed to archival standards all the residual thyosulphates (residue fixer) must be washed from the fibres of the paper and the print base must be fibre, not resin coated.

The expected life span of an archivally processed black and white print, on fibre base paper, is 100 years. It, of course, must be stored correctly after processing. Resin coated prints, because of the resin coating, have a life expectancy of only 40 years. Some may go longer but at 40 years you can expect to see the resin coating start to break down. Early examples on Ilford RC papers are still around today at 50 plus years but they show a very slight cloudyness especially in the gloss finish.

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]

If it is of any help, here is Canadian conservation institute guideline for B&W prints:
http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/crc/notes/html/16-6-eng.aspx

Relevant bit: Recently, toning using such products as Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner or Kodak Poly-Toner has become accepted as an essential part of a processing sequence designed to produce permanent photographs. This is due to changes in the properties of silver particles in contemporary black-and-white photographic materials, and the presence of increasing amounts of air pollution in the environment.

Fürst

 

[ARCHIVIST]

Turtle,
As I stated in my original reply toning has the added advantage of protecting the silver from contact with air. How, what type and to what degree of tone are purely up to the photographer.

To attain a full 'coverage' of the silver I suggest it is not only the time the print is kept in the toning solution but also the strength of the solution.

I use Kodak Rapid Seenium Toner at 1:19 and tone by inspection rather than a set time. I am just as concerned about the aesthetic as archival permanence.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the topic of the silver in the emulsion contacting with air - remember when you visited great grandmother as a child and on her sideboard was a silver tea service? Remember how blotchy it looked, almost stained - well this is the oxidising of the silver after being in contact with air.

The same happens with photographs that are not stored correctly. Cover the silver by toning the print and the air cannot make contact.

Regards
Peter

 

[ARCHIVIST]

Shadowfox,
I worked for Ilford here in Australia for just over 10 years and had access to many govt. depts. and large commercial labs to whom Ilford supplied photgraphic materials.

The issue of the coating breaking down over time was raised when one govt. dept. asked me to identify what was causing a very slight fogging on an old RC print and on another a tiny crazing in the gloss surface in one corner.

I contacted the UK and was told that the resin coating after processing appeared to have a life of only 40 to 45 years. At this point you could expect a deterioration of the coating to happen.

Note please - this is not a hard and fast rule / time line. RC papers from the early 60s are still looking good today. Quality of processing and storage have an impact on how long it will last.

It is safe to say though that an RC print will not give the 100 years required by museums and galleries and that from the 40 year point on it may well be living on borrowed time.

Just as a matter of interest forced aging tests carried out by most manufactureres do not always give accurate results. The knowledge about the RC issue only became known when actual time had passed.

Regards
Peter

 

[ARCHIVIST]

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

 

[ARCHIVIST]

Sorry guys!

In my original reply I gave the wash times for film instead of print.
I have corrected the mistake.

Regards
Peter