I don't want to derail the discussion of Bob's superb prints but will address these, since the thread started as more of a general technique thread:
The untoned print appears to have a wider range of tones with more local contrast. For instance, see the contrasting densities around the bread sign. It appears as though the toning process flattened the mid-tones. Is this a result of the bleach?
My apologies...my second to last post was meant to refer to Roger Cole's posted examples. The toned print seems to have lost a bit of life in the mid-tones in addition to an overall decrease in local contrast. IMHO I can't say that the slight change in print color (which I must be missing by looking at these scans) is worth the trade-off (or the additional work).
I can see how you'd get that impression from the scan but everyone who saw both prints (the toned one was sent to someone in a print exchange so I can no longer show the one scanned above) preferred the toned one. It isn't any result of bleach because my technique did not use bleach. These were with single solution brown toner not the bleach/redevelop sepia like Bob is using.
I can also see how you can miss the change in color in these scans. It's very subtle on the 8x10s at this toning time (45 seconds but see below). I have an 11x14 of this image, mentioned above and originally printed for a small show, toned per the above post in the same session as the 8x10 but for 60 seconds, that now hangs on my wall and the color is far more obvious, though still intentionally far short of a full "toned to completion" brown tone.
I have continued to figure out this process since my previous posting. I'm not entirely sure what's going on with some of the different results I get. In the above toning sessions the change was very subtle at 45 seconds and just right for what I wanted at about a minute (the minute isn't shown, and I can't scan it as I don't have an 11x14 scanner and it's now mounted and overmatted anyway.) Later I toned more prints with the same technique and wound up overtoning at 40 seconds, at least to my intentions if not the ultimate result. The only difference is that the first batch were thoroughly washed including wash aid before toning, then washed again after toning. The second batch were just quick washed because I couldn't get to the toning for a couple of days, then washed and toned. I'm not sure if residual hypo would make this kind of difference?
Drew, if you read this, do you wash your prints before toning then again after, or just wash after toning?
So I'm refining this technique. I have also found something Drew didn't mention because he probably assumed I knew it though I didn't, that the solution loses strength very quickly if you try to store it. I've toned a few prints, far below the capacity even at 1/4 strength, then poured into a bottle, squeezed the air out and tightly capped. A day or two later it somewhat "works" but is far, far slower than when fresh. It goes quickly (at least on the last batch, not washed before toning and with fresh toner) so I can see why Drew says he rarely tones more than 30 seconds. I may experiment next with mixing it to only 1/8 strength. I usually tone only a couple of prints at a time so true capacity shouldn't be an issue, it will save waste when I have to throw it out when done for the night, and maybe slow it down to where I get the result I want in a more controllable and repeatable time like, maybe, a minute or so.
Compare the above, toned for 45 seconds, with these, toned in the same 1/4 strength brown toner for 40 seconds but not washed until after toning. I'm not going to embed these images because I think that might be more disruptive of the discussion of Bob's excellent prints, but here's a direct link to the images on my Flickr page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rogercole/6421965615/
Dead Link Removed
