Ryuji said:
If you find something on conference proceedings but no published paper, the most usual process is to contact the author ... shouldnt be pretending to be an expert....People in the field are very efficient in exchanging these things informally though.
You mean on blogs like APUG? ? ?
Hey, Ryuji, I just checked IS&T, and that Beveridge paper was not published by them between 1982 and 1988, but I am trying to contact Beveridge as well - he was chairing various conferences within the past few years so he should still be around. It would be interesting to know what he thinks about it all now, and I will try to find out. Nobody (I think) is proposing that residual protective thio-/sulfate/urea/cyanate is an ideal solution, because it is nearly impossible to determine the ideal amount and to dose the material accordingly. Further, the ideal amount is a critical factor. The value of the work on the thio3, as I will call these three compounds, is that they show where some materials in some conditions have done better than expected. This work is thus more forensic than anticipatory.
That said, will a fixer that employs small amounts of thiourea or thiocyanate tend to produce films and papers with longer lives, assuming that you have balanced the chemistry so as not to damage the material in some obvious way? If so, you may have some protection without the burden of an additional step. But, on the other hand, what are the conditions where treatment with these chemicals may harm the materials they are processed in? Who has studied and documented this?
The ideal approach, obviously, is a stable, non-volatile, non-dose-critical chemical such as 2-(amidinothio)ethanesulfonic acid combined with a wash to known standards, unless Fuji's research showed that the wash result was less critical when 2-(amidinothio)ethanesulfonic acid is used. But did Fuji's research show that? I.e., how the product performed with different residual hypo amounts? We seem to have no idea, except for a hint dropped here and there, what Fuji has actually published on the practical pros and cons of this agent. More specifically, in such an open-ended field as photographic processing, it is most important to know where an agent claiming to promote archival stability fails. Under what conditions? Why? How do we avoid it?
And in any case, it is now clearly impossible to recommend Ag Guard because supplies are limited to current stocks, unless Fuji plans to continue manufacture using a different source for the chemical. Or is it possible that they have now developed a superior replacement? This raises other questions: is the product being quietly dropped because some problem has been found? Or is it as good as ever but simply does not sell enough to justify continued synthesis? (If the latter is the case, Fuji may be withdrawing the product prematurely since conservation is a hot topic again, as the IS&T archiving conference 2006, in May this year (again, as in 1982, in Ottawa and spearheaded by the same organisation) shows.
What would be helpful here, I think, is to cite specific papers that anyone knows of which discuss 2-(amidinothio)ethanesulfonic acid and related technologies, and summarize them. Vague references to authors of papers without dates, titles, publication, etc. are not acceptable. A full citation is required, or there is no point in even mentioning the research. Furthermore, where the material is only available in Japanese, and it is thus impossible for most of us to read it, a summary of the principal findings of the paper would be helpful. That goes for everyone here. Ron, an article by Ctein is not a citation that can be accepted at the level required here.
I get the impression that RS has concluded that post processing with brown toner has superior stabilizing results compared to 2-(amidinothio)ethanesulfonic acid except for the obvious problems of tone and contrast change in the image, which may not be desirable or acceptable. Who has established that? When? In what publication? How definitively? What are the alternatives?
As a general matter, I find that in nearly all serious discussions here, the participants tend to be excessively reticent about sources. My feeling is that without more transparency, and at the very least citation of sources, nothing that is said here can be considered more than intemperate blogging. I understand that when discussing emulsion technology, even at the primitive level it is discussed here, that a certain level of secrecy may be required. But it should be documented to the extent possible. And there is nothing whatever secret about archival research, so there is no reason not be
fully disclosive. I don't know what anybody feels they have to lose by giving a citation, except the few seconds it takes to look it up and type it in. And I feel strongly that those who want to discuss these things publicly owe their collocutors that much time and effort.
I would like finally to say to everyone that I hardly ever read APUG because I find that the discussions often take a combative tone which is simply unbearable to read. Photography needs more cooperation, less passion. I admit that I have been a great offender in this respect in the past, but I am trying to mend my ways.
I know of nobody in the photographic community (outside of a few researchers who keep to themselves) other than Ron Mowrey and Ryuji Suzuki who are making substantive contemporary contributions to the practical understanding of photographic processing at this time. However, speaking for myself and probably for some others, I can't bear to follow these discussions because of all the ill feeling that accompanies them. These discussions always seem to degenerate into combat zones. May I say once and for all that I think this kind of discourse is a waste of time? You both have so much to contribute. Why mar that with ill feelings and bad manners? It would be better if you two would simply cooperate. Photography has highly limited resources, and you two cannot afford to be spared to ego games and unproductive sparring. Am I the only one left standing who wishes that you two would learn how to get on? Photography needs you to cooperate!
Honestly, sometimes I feel like taking up a collection to send you both to charm school.
May I close with the wise words of Julia Margaret Cameron? 'Who is to say which is the right, and which the wrong focus?'