Archiving and toning -- Options

[koraks]

So what is it, how does it protect the image and how much toning does it take to get to this level of protection?

 

[Lachlan Young]

So what is it, how does it protect the image and how much toning does it take to get to this level of protection?

Here's the principle as isolated into Sistan/Adostab.

Take a look at the ingredients in a selenium toner, and you'll be able to spot what the main source of sulfur is (and the pH that makes it stink). That Selenium toners made materials more 'archival' was essentially purely coincidental. A tiny residue of Sulfur is the key here - which basically means use hypo-clear (not hypo-eliminator) and a reasonable wash, but don't overwash. The point of Se toning should be for colour/ density change (by which point you've more than sufficiently sulfurised it) rather than for any claims of archivalness - it just happened to be the one reasonably common toner that could be diluted enough to not affect image colour significantly (and which has other archival test uses for adequate fixing).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

@Alex Benjamin was right.

You sound surprised...

OK, kidding aside, here's an older thread on the subject. Has some informative posts by Photo Engineer, Doremus Scutter and Ian Grant, amongst others.

Wait... so selenium toning does not improve archival properties?

So in my reading about selenium toning, I'm seeing things about how so-called "light" toning, traditionally done to improve image permanence, is not worth doing. But I'm unable to actually find any data or primary sources...

www.photrio.com

 

[koraks]

Take a look at the ingredients in a selenium toner, and you'll be able to spot what the main source of sulfur is (and the pH that makes it stink).

OK, that story. But the problem with that is that selenium toning has been found to be unreliable in this capacity: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/toning-permanence.html

 

[miha]

Here's the principle as isolated into Sistan/Adostab.

Take a look at the ingredients in a selenium toner, and you'll be able to spot what the main source of sulfur is (and the pH that makes it stink). That Selenium toners made materials more 'archival' was essentially purely coincidental. A tiny residue of Sulfur is the key here - which basically means use hypo-clear (not hypo-eliminator) and a reasonable wash, but don't overwash. The point of Se toning should be for colour/ density change (by which point you've more than sufficiently sulfurised it) rather than for any claims of archivalness - it just happened to be the one reasonably common toner that could be diluted enough to not affect image colour significantly (and which has other archival test uses for adequate fixing).

Do you happen to know the composition (or the main ingredient) of the Fuji Ag guard "toner" I know its different from Sistan.

 

[koraks]

Do you happen to know the composition (or the main ingredient) of the Fuji Ag guard "toner" I know its different from Sistan.

https://asset.fujifilm.com/master/jp/files/2024-03/e8d277c4e6b8755a0d55e4b31ae1ed0e/sds-and-ais_eg380329g02jp.pdf

Water, a form of pseudourea and methanol. I can see how this might act as a radical scavenger and/or donate sulfur similarly as discussed above, but IDK for sure.
You may find this interesting: https://resources.culturalheritage.org/pmgtopics/1988-volume-two/02_09_Wallace.html

 

[miha]

Thank you @koraks

 

[Lachlan Young]

OK, that story. But the problem with that is that selenium toning has been found to be unreliable in this capacity: https://www.largeformatphotography.info/toning-permanence.html

I was merely pointing out what that article expresses in more words - a certain level of sulfur will enhance archivalness, but unless you selenium tone so far that you get what (to many) would be an objectionable colour change from conversion to selenite, whatever enhancements in archivalness you might attain are from sulfur compounds that you either intentionally add or fail to wash out. In other words, it's mostly about the wash step(s) rather than toning.

 

[koraks]

Ok, understood; thanks for clarifying!

 

[Yezishu]

I don't think the OP needs to worry too much about preservation at this stage, so this might be a bit off-topic.

I strongly agree about the effectiveness of GP-2. In my work with some gold and silver nanoparticles (for sensing), when the molar ratio of thiourea to chloroauric acid is 4:1, tetrachloroaurate(III) ions are fully converted into gold(I)-thiourea complex ions. With this solution, silver nanoparticle micro-patterns (with micrometer-level resolution) can be precisely turned into gold nanoparticle clusters, which are highly resistant to chemical corrosion(For example, immersing nanoparticles in human body fluids). After heating to about 300°C, the gold nanoparticles on glass become spherical, even more stable and take on a beautiful pale pink color, concentrated sulfuric acid can be used to clean them. It was much later that I learned about GP-2 and realized that similar idea had already been studied in photography a long time ago.

 

[Dusty Negative]

One chief benefit of archival processing is that you're able to say that you do it.

And don't forget the Selenium ribbon you're allowed to wear on your uniform.

 

[Dusty Negative]

Many don't like the "eggplant" tone that strong selenium toning imparts to many papers.
FWIW, I prefer the image tone change that the many different sulfide based toners - like sepia toner - impart, and it is a bit easier to tell when they have been fully toned.

At risk of burying OP in information, I feel compelled to defend my good friend Selenium here. While it's true that selenium *often* (ok, usually) adds a rather nauseating eggplant color to a fully-toned print, it can add a rather attractive red-orange / burnt orange color to others, particularly Ilford Art 300 (which is what I typically use when I actually enlarge, which is rarely these days). I have little demonstrable proof to back this up, but in my experience the glossier the media the eggplanty-er the tone. Warmtone paper (again, what I tend to use) seems to produce nicer tones with selenium. FWIW - I tone to completion with Art 300 and Selenium, and I find the results attractive. As usual, YMMV.

In any event, sulfide toning is likely a better archiving method, and yields far more tone variability than selenium, so probably logical to start there after getting comfortable with "basic" enlarging.

 

[Bill Burk]

A little selenium toning at 1:20 does protect the print.

I have some Berg Blue toner that does sort of bleach and dye toning. After selenium toning the Berg toner doesn’t work because you can’t bleach the print any longer.

And don't forget the Selenium ribbon you're allowed to wear on your uniform.

I was thinking about the Ilford sticker you used to get in the boxes of their premium paper.

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

If you want an archival print the best route is to double tone.
You bleach for the highlights (or more going down to some middle tones) and you tone in Sepia.
Then you tone for the shadows in Selenium. Like this the whole print is toned.
Color from selenium will be different than a straight print in selenium.
You can also invert the procedure, selenium first, then after a really good wash, you sepia tone.
The resulting colors will also be different.
That will make a bullet proof print.

 

[pentaxuser]

@RalphLambrecht this is so helpful! Thank you for sharing.

It is worth buying Ralph's book for the sheer range and depth of coverage of "things photographic"

pentaxuser

 

[pentaxuser]

If you want an archival print the best route is to double tone.

Well the results can be better in terms of "looks" but I didn't think double toning was necessarily the best from an archival aspect? It may well be nearly as good and on the basis that it may look better then it may "win" - just not on archival grounds

pentaxuser