I use the Berg copper and blue toners all the time for a few reasons:
1. they really are metallic toners, not dyes.
2. they can be reversed with paper developer, although contrast is lessened.
This re-developing method also is effective for split-toning.
3. they are liquids, so you do not risk the health hazards involved in mixing
powdered chemicals. (The Museum School in Boston, where I teach, will
not even allow me to use powdered chemicals, despite having just installed a super
ventilator over the sink.) At home, I do use a mask and mix powders,
but I try to avoid it.
4. they can be used on b & w photos, as well as, van dyke brown prints.
5. they are gorgeous when used with each other on the same print.
I do not like to use any toners on r.c. paper, which is a type of surface that
suffers when kept in liquids too long.
Laura Blacklow
(author, New Dimensions in Photo Processes)
I'm surprised that nobody piped up with the standard response to berg-type toners...
"But they're not archival!!!"
Everything I've been able to find agrees with this - but my understanding is, while they don't add any archival qualities (like selenium does), they don't shorten the life of a print or make it "less" archival if properly processed.
If I make a print that is so tonally balanced I don't dare dip it in selenium... is it not "archival" either?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?