Polytoner Approximation

Does anybody have an opinion as to the proportions of selenium toner and "brown" toner one should mix to approximate Kodak polytoner? Or would split toning be a better approach?

There are several formula out there as to mix polytoner type formula. One I have seen is on Kodak's site.

They all give slightly different pallets depending on the paper and what formula you use. If you are not looking for a specific effect, then split toning would not be a bad way to go, or simply using one or the other.

What exactly is the purpose of your toning? Merely archivability, or are you looking for a color as well?

Search kodak.com for cis268.pdf which describes a procedure.

Photoe said:

Does anybody have an opinion as to the proportions
of selenium toner and "brown" toner one should mix
to approximate Kodak polytoner?

Click to expand...

Apparently KRST's archival characteristics were due
to minute amounts of sulfide contamination. That was
in KRST's early years. Later sulfide-less KRST did not
retain that archival character.

A very small portion of polysulfide added to KRST, I'd
think, would restore it's archival character. Dan

So Then the Question.

dancqu said:

Apparently KRST's archival characteristics were due
to minute amounts of sulfide contamination. That was
in KRST's early years. Later sulfide-less KRST did not
retain that archival character.

A very small portion of polysulfide added to KRST, I'd
think, would restore it's archival character. Dan

Click to expand...

So then the question. Why did Kodak not restore the
'contaminating' sulfur compounds to the more recent
KRST? In doing so we would have a selenium toner
with archival characteristics.

ALL of the above is according to the IPI's research
into Life Expectancy of selenium and sulfur treated
microfilms. Print paper having a small grain silver
image similar to microfilm is thought to react
in the same manor. Dan

dancqu said:

"
Apparently KRST's archival characteristics were due
to minute amounts of sulfide contamination."
So then the question. Why did Kodak not restore the
'contaminating' sulfur compounds to the more recent
KRST? In doing so we would have a selenium toner
with archival characteristics.Dan

Click to expand...

This supposed sulphur contamination is in fact conjecture, not proven fact.
The research was on microfilm and it seems likely that the results may be transferrable to other emulsions - but this further research was not carried out AFAIK.
The authors were careful to state that "It is our strong feeling that the changes in formulation that suddenly rendered dilute selenium toner ineffective relate to the sulfiding action of minor constituents" and "Apparently insignificant manufacturing changes may have caused this active agent to be no longer present;" ... and so on.
Testing old samples however failed to reveal this suspected contamination however, and further research was not funded, so 20 years later it remains theoretical I believe. (Based on discussion with research paper author).
Tim