archivable negs/copies ?

[veke]

Is there some extra step(s) one should make when wanting long-lasting archivable negatives and paper copies? Normal process goes: develop/stop using a stop-bath/fix/rinse/HCA/wash/wetting agent/dry. These steps following the instructions from the manufacturer.

I use 1-shot developer and use fresh fixing liquid and washing is done under running water or frequently changing water.

Because I want ever-lasting (?) achievements should I do a longer washing than the ordinary? Or perhaps a 2-step fixing meaning doing the fixing twice?

Is the HCA liquid the same as the Washaid from Ilford, not precisely the same ingredients but the same result in practice?

I do not know what to ask but those who have been doing works for long-lasting archives know if there are some important things to notice. I am not into toning, that is one way to make prints last longer, perhaps let´s not go into that in my case.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Veke,

For film, following standard procedure should result in negatives which, when stored properly, have nearly unlimited life spans. The main thing is to fix properly and wash thoroughly. I'd recommend using HCA, mostly to keep washing times reasonable. Note that negatives which are well over a century old still exist in good condition, even though early photographers lacked chemicals with the purity and consistency of modern products and somewhat casual fixing and washing procedures were sometimes employed.

For prints, fixing and washing are also of primary importance. Use two fixing baths, splitting the total time between the two. With FB paper, HCA is almost a necessity, unless you like to use a lot of wash water. Selenium toning is often recommended, not so much for visual effect as for increased permanence.

If your interest in the topic extends significantly beyond the usual level, there's a lot of information available in a Google search.

Konical

 

[veke]

thank you, Konical. Your comment gives more confidence to my own thinking, nothing exceptional or radical improvement is needed for archival use from the normal precess. The two step fixing is good, I will do so.
I use RC papers so the times are shorter than for FB´s. But otherwise the process is the same.

Yes, there is information available in the internet. Sometimes, unfortunately, wrong advices continue to live a life of their own as they are copied as facts from one forum to another. Nobody has the time to hunt those and give corrections. The opinions here in Apug are from people who know and there are possibly many suggestions that can be evaluated at the same time by many readers. I trust the advice here.

 

[pentaxuser]

I use RC papers so the times are shorter than for FB´s.

Be aware that while modern RC is said to have the permanence of FB, modern RC hasn't been around long enough for there to be proof.

RC prints in the modern era have now lasted at least 25 years and maybe 30( depends on what date you believe the modern RC paper era began) but if you want to be sure that your prints will last 50+ years then you either take a risk with RC( very small in my opinion - I have prints from the early 70s which are still OK)or use FB

pentaxuser

 

[Konical]

Good Morning,

Ditto to Pentaxuser's comment. I also have RC prints made in the 1970's which show no sign of deterioration.

Konical

 

[veke]

Good morning, autumn is at its best here in Finland. Great photos are just waiting outside in the nature...

About the FB vs RC, what kind of a difference is between a color and b/w paper copy? I also have great (?!) paper copies from the early 80´s on RC but those are in b/w. Many color paper copies have already suffered a little, they were processed in labs. From this experience I can say that for some reason colors will suffer much quicker than b/w. Have you checked the negs, can one develop first-class prints from the color negs from the 70´s although the paper copies may have suffered some loss in quality, any experience?

 

[Simonh82]

With colour film and papers you are dealing with the stability of dyes rather than a silver image. Modern film and paper is probably very good it I doubt that they are in the same league as black and white images yet.

One issue with colour is that it only takes the three dyes to deteriorate at slightly different rates and the colour balance goes of.

The silver left in a black and white film or print is inherently toxic to many bacteria and molds. You are relying on the action of stabilising anti-fungal washes to help keep your colour images permanent.

I don't want to give the impression that your colour images will have rotted to nothing in a few years time, but there are more factors at work with colour images.

 

[AgX]

As indicated above one should not only consider the processing but the films themselves. Different technology is applied to different films.

Chose films on PET base for instance.

 

[gone]

Good advice here. As an artist who is also a photographer, I am very keen on using archival materials. I would doubt that RC paper is as archival as FB, but that is just a gut feeling. As we know, RC hasn't been around long enough for anyone to answer that question. One thing I know about dyes is that they are all essentially impermanent in strong light (especially modern dyes), and different colors fade at different rates. Since I shoot only B&W I don't have this to worry about, but I do have a couple of color photographs I purchased years ago when I belonged to an art organization, and they show signs of fading after just 10 years of careful display in our home.

 

[removed account4]

hi momus

there is a difference between rc and modern rc.
OLD rc papers suffered problems. i began making prints
in 1981 with rc paper and the images look like i made them yesterday ..
the problem with modern rc papers, from what i have been told, is the base
and since it is not made of paper, but some sort of other material
it breaks down ... but according to kodak's image permanency institute
(wilhelm ? ) if processed "correctly" rc papers will outlast fiber based papers.

i guess the thing is to fix the prints and wash them well use perma wash (fix remover) and tone them..
and contact the paper manufacturers to see what THEY suggest too ...

john

 

[veke]

great comments, thanks!
Damages that happen in bright lighting to the dyes happen from the front side. The photo is on the wall in a gallery. But moisture and the chemicals that didn´t disappear in the final washing can attack from behind, through the fibre in the back of the paper. During some years this reaches the emulsion side on the front. Is this correct? And is there a difference in the structure of fb and rc that may be better or worse when thinking of archiving?

 

[George Collier]

Veke - one broadly accepted practice is the use of 2 fixers, call them 1 (removes most of the undeveloped silver halides) and 2 (gets the rest).
Divide the required fixing time between them, plus a little for safety factor.
When fixer 1 tests bad, fixer 2 becomes fixer 1, since it still has lots of life, then make a new fixer 2.
Initially, you have to mix more fixer, but in the long run, the amount of fixer you use is dependent upon the amount of fixing you do, so it is no more expensive, and you will probably never have under fixed prints or negs.

 

[veke]

hi George, I contacted a person who has been working on archivable negs and he highly recommended the 2-bath fixing. And for the reasons also you mentioned. Thanks!

 

[chip j]

I normally do B&W film and FB paper. When it comes to color-digital(!) pigments will last 800 yrs.