RC paper, how unarchival is it?

[Ryuji]

Then let's go back to the basic question
what is more destructive to a print?
UV light or environmental pollution?

Image can be damaged by any one of the attacks. UV is effectively attenuated by glass or plexi used in framing, and also by the gelatin overcoat containing UV-reflecting compounds. Environmental pollution is more difficult to control unless you are willing to lock up the print in a container with chemical absorber or appropriate air purifier.

What I suggest to people with concern for permanence, it is best to process the material so that the image can withstand today's standard of oxidative pollutants and still use best precaution in preparing the work for display or storage. Like your case, there are some places better and some worse than average situations. The best strategy is to prepare for the worst and still aim for reasonably good display/storage condition using all precautions for archivality.

For any serious work, chemical processing is the cheapest part of it all. The highest storage standard is only affordable to large museums, and remaking work is a lot more expensive than adding a step of chemical treatment at the time of production of the work. Not to mention the cost of shooting the image, your time, rent for your studio, etc., as well as the cost of archival matte board and other framing supplies.

Current trend of conservation of photography (by conservators at museums) is very oriented to passive approaches. That is, you should assume that, once the work leaves your hand, no one will apply image protection or toning or any sort of wet processing even if the image is fading.

Finally, degrading paper is very dangerous to have next to photographic print. It's a generator of an oxidative agent!

 

[Ryuji]

By the way, this topic has been exhausted in many places, here, pure-silver, rec.photo, etc. in the past and I think I repeated all important points of practical relevance here. Some of the participants here apparently have lots of free time and 24/7 access to apug, with repeated posting with misinterpretation of magazine articles as well as my own posts, but I don't wish to match his level of dissipation. I'd rather use my time effectively in providing information on web. So I'll end this thread here. If anyone has further questions on this matter, I recommend to consult original study reports from 1990s. Many people who post on the net did not keep up with all the excellent work done in the US, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, Canada, and other places.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ryuji;

In a previous post in this thread you mentioned that the Fuji product had been discontinued. I based my comment on this fact.

You have discounted Cteins single test. Ok, fine. I agreed with you and said that a statistical approach is more valid. Please note that in my prevous post. But, you have not mentioned anything regarding your taking a statistical approach in your experiments. In addition, I see none of your data here either. Just speculation based on theory.

In point of fact, I have seen Cteins report (admittedly not statistical) and it affirms what I have seen before and what I know of theory regarding fade under natural circumstances. When I see that work, and compare it with the Agfa remarks on Sistan for those conditions, I have a certain degree of trust even in the absence of statistics. This is, of course, provided the work is within the limits of the tests and the Agfa instructions.

I would also add that I mentioned before that our EK fade tests were done with normal ambient oxygen and forced oxygen, so you apparently missed that. We have extensive studies of the effect of oxygen on fade, and the use of oxygen barrier compounds and free radical chain stoppers wherein the free radicals come from both oxygen and UV light. There have been extensive studies on the diffusion of oxygen through the front and back of both RC and Baryta papers, and through gelatin layers. There is a whole host of stabilzer formulas that have been proposed internally at EK to prevent these problems.

As for data, you have a patent # of mine above to look at. It is the result of a lot of tests and statistics. Even though it is based on color fade, it is indicative of the types of image stability tests that I conducted and indeed what all of the B&W and Color divisions in KRL conducted for both films and papers.

I am not conducting image stability experiments at the present time. My work is presently directed entirely at emulsion making and coating. Moreover, I turned in all image stability samples and reports when I retired, so I have no data of my own, but as you say, you have data, so lets see it. I'm sure that it will be quite convincing to us all.

Thanks.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Then let's go back to the basic question
what is more destructive to a print?
UV light or environmental pollution?

I went to Ecuador a couple of weeks back and the prints I made in the late 80's early 90's are hanging in my mom's house. The living room gets a lot of sunlight with very high content of UV (right over the Equator at 8000 ft/2400 m). Prints were made in Agfa Brovira/Portriga, Kodak Polycontrast, Forte RC and FB and Ilford RC papers. MOST of the BW prints were not toned. A few were seleniumed and one was tea-stained (brovira).
There were also a few color prints,
The prints were framed with aluminum/wood frames, mat board (passepartout) and glass.

I helped her take the frames apart to clean the glass and change the matt board (passepartout) that had faded badly, specially the one that used to be green.
However, the prints looked fine to me, even the ones in glossy Forte/Ilford RC paper didn't show any signs of yellowing, bronzing or deterioration ( I could compare the borders that were covered to the uncovered portion). Brovira paper looked great as expected, even the one that was tea-stained was not affected.

From the color ones, they showed some discoloration excpet the Cibachromes.

I guess air pollution there is close to nil, her house is surrounded by avocado and citrus trees, and except for bleach used to mop the floors every other while the air should be free of pollutants.

So is it UV or air that kills the prints or both ?

It can be light, heat, humidity, oxygen, ozone level and pollutants.

A good indicator is this. Shine up some very fine silverware and let it sit out on a cabinet and watch it tarnish. This same mechanism can take place on the silver image. But, here is the problem. The silver image is very finely divided metal particles and the silverware is solid metal, and so the reactions are slightly different both in type and proportion.

Sometimes, the 'tarnishing' preserves the silver from further deterioration and others it will lead to further destruction. That is the problem.

There are competing methods for destruction of your images whether color or B&W and they differ in proportion whether on RC or Baryta or film.

The only thing I can say is that toning with Selenium or Sulfur helps preserve silver images. Too much washing and not enough washing both hurt. Sistan, used as directed seems to help. The Fuji stabilzer, now out of production seems to help. These are the results from my experience, and Ctein's work seems to back it up with respect to Sistan.

As for older color prints, the use of Type II Kodak stabilzer is best. This is a buffered citric acid solution at pH 4.5 with benzoic acid in it as a 'bug' preventative, and an oxygen barrier compound present such as a sugar like sorbitol. But, in the end, nothing can preserve a color print.

Newer color papers are orders of magnitude more stable than those used just 10 years ago.

The stability of older RC was very poor. Today it is very stable but just like any product made by man, it has a limited lifetime. Even the best tests used today cannot give an exact figure for this lifetime. Only time itself will tell.

PE

 

[titrisol]

Thanks guys, so I guess my images will last a long time in that environment but maybe be fading quick in a more aggressive environment. That makes a lot of sense.
I have followed (without knowing it) the guidelines Tim Rudman mention in his book for a while, and most of my pics seem to be fine. The only excpetion was a batch I processed in a shared darkroom which started to bronze and were trashed immediately.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Fuji didn't announce it. They just told me when i asked, so i posted this info to inform current users to stock up. Also, there are at least three manufacturers for this compound, and the synthesis of this compound is not that hard.

I stand corrected. For some reason I thought Fuji started manufacture of this chemical because no one else was doing it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks guys, so I guess my images will last a long time in that environment but maybe be fading quick in a more aggressive environment. That makes a lot of sense.
I have followed (without knowing it) the guidelines Tim Rudman mention in his book for a while, and most of my pics seem to be fine. The only excpetion was a batch I processed in a shared darkroom which started to bronze and were trashed immediately.

One last comment.

I have some ciba / ilfochrome prints stored in a folder with some Ektacolor 37 prints. The E37 prints are fading reddish rapidly while contemporary E37 prints are just fine.

There is also a strange odor in the folder.

Something strange there, so I would not store dissimilar prints together based on this information.

PE

 

[claytume]

PE

can you comment on an efficient method of archival RC B&W roller machine processing?

It seems to me that RC was intended for roller transport processing yet I can't find information anywhere that details archival processing with this method. I asked Bob Carnie about lab processing and he said labs don't do archival B&W machine processing.

I process all my prints in a machine because trays would be far too slow for my volume. After the main processor I use a small 2 bath processor with selenium then wash. It's not very efficient time wise.

Clayton

 

[Photo Engineer]

PE

can you comment on an efficient method of archival RC B&W roller machine processing?

It seems to me that RC was intended for roller transport processing yet I can't find information anywhere that details archival processing with this method. I asked Bob Carnie about lab processing and he said labs don't do archival B&W machine processing.

I process all my prints in a machine because trays would be far too slow for my volume. After the main processor I use a small 2 bath processor with selenium then wash. It's not very efficient time wise.

Clayton

Clayton;

Unfortunately, the original RC papers were designed for stabilzation processes for the military and as such were not designed for archival quality unless they were then refixed and washed. In some cases, as newer stabilzing agents came out, they did not need refixing. This was supplied by a heat activated stabilzer that was released by a very hot final drying drum at ~200 deg F.

This process was developed in part by Grant Haist of EK and was also released by several other photo companies besides EK.

So, the only way I see to get the quality you want is via a good wash outside of the RT machine, provided that it does a good job fixing.

Of course, toning after this is all done is always the best.

A test of both silver and hypo retention of a freshly processed print, as it exits your RT machine should tell you how good your process was. If there is retained silver, then the fix was not good enough and if there is retained hypo then the wash was not good enough. Just improve them outside of the machine as it would probably be hopeless within the machine.

BTW, we used the old Pako RT machine at the photo finisher I worked for and it really did a good job fixing and washing but then it was one of the old fashioned ones with lots of extra capacity.

PE

 

[billtroop]

Just on the issue of thiourea, and without commenting on the validity of the information, but there have been references in the literature to work done since the 1950s. For example, there is an SPSE publication from 1982 which contains this summary for the Int'l Symposium on the stability of preservation of photographic images that Klaus Hendriks organized for the public archives of Canada, Ottowa, Aug 29-Sept 1, 1982.

"David Beveridge and David H. Cole, Ilford Ltd.

Silver image stability can be influenced by many factors in the manufacture or use of the photographic product. These factors have been examined, classified and related to the properties of silver.

Silver metal is thermodynamically unstable and pure silver images are very susceptible to oxidation.

Analytical examination has shown that processing in a thiosulphate fixing bath provides a silver sulphide surface considerably improving the image stability. Compounds such as thiourea reinforce the sulphide layer and give further improvement to image stability, however, formation of sulphide from this sources does not occur during processing but subsequently by decomposition of the adsorbed compound.

Compounds which reduce the corrosion potential of silver render the image more thermodynamically stable and therefore more prone to atmospheric oxidation and it is suggested that adverse effects can be ascribed to this mechanism."

There is certainly room for valid disagreement here. And though I would not be comfortable recommending Sistan, I must observe that a comparatively (!) recent product introduced by Agfa is entitled to some credibility.

Thiourea treatment is not recommended. Thiourea can decompose to form corrosive acid in presence of oxygen and light on silver surface. Thiourea treatment was used to Daguerreotype silver image in 1950s and it damages most images within 20 years. Bad record.

Thiocyanate is ineffective in low concentration, and it is harmful to silver image (accelerates image degradation) when overdosed. Thiocyanate also loses treatment effect once the print is rinsed in water. Not ideal. Plus, my test indicates that thiocyanate treated image is not as permanent as polysulfide treated prints.

The best method in current knowledge is polysulfide or gold. Next best is selenium. Sistan is less effective than these options.

 

[Ryuji]

Just on the issue of thiourea, and without commenting on the validity of the information, but there have been references in the literature to work done since the 1950s. For example, there is an SPSE publication from 1982 which contains this summary for the Int'l Symposium on the stability of preservation of photographic images that Klaus Hendriks organized for the public archives of Canada, Ottowa, Aug 29-Sept 1, 1982.

Bill, conference abstracts are given little importance in scientific community. They are not much more than preliminary results in most cases. Peer reviewed journal papers are much more important.

Regarding the content of the abstract, the mechanism of adsorption and shielding from oxidants does not immediately lead to a recommendation for such treatment. Thiourea does get adsorbed by silver but it can also enter a more harmful reaction by producing corrosive acid in presence of air and light.

The mechanism of oxidative degradation of silver image was studied by people like Brandt (Kodak), Minagawa (Fuji) and more recently Honda (Konica), and it is reasonably well understood. There are multiple chemical processes going on, and each of these can be intervened with proper processing and storage management.

There is certainly room for valid disagreement here. And though I would not be comfortable recommending Sistan, I must observe that a comparatively (!) recent product introduced by Agfa is entitled to some credibility.

The point is not the matter of comfort or credibility. The point is whether Sistan is robust, fool-proof and effective enough to recommend in practice. When Sistan is retained by the film or paper in concentration higher than the optimal level, the image degradation can be accelerated by the treatment, compared to when there was no treatment at all. On the other hand, if the amount of Sistan retained in the emulsion is less, the effect is also reduced. Another problem with Sistan is that, Sistan intervenes the diffusion of oxidized silver and further reduction of it. It doesn't prevent the oxidation of silver. It's sort of sweeping (hiding) dusts under the rug. In order to stop generation of silver "dust" what's needed is something that converts silver to silver sulfide, or something that is strongly adsorbed to silver with dense assembly of inert molecules to sheld silver from oxidative attacks. Thiocyanate does not get adsorbed on metallic silver strongly enough, nor does it convert silver to silver sulfide at a useful rate.

After all, Sistan treatment can be removed altogether by a quick rinse of the treated material. Repeated humidity cycle can also affect the treatment efficacy. It is more desirable to use compounds that can't get washed off. Fuji Ag Guard uses such a compound. When we know much more about this, there is no need to adhere to thiourea or thiocyanate.

 

[lowellh]

Archival is not a type of medium but a condition.the ARCHIVAL STANDARD is defined and quantified in ISO 18917.
"Determination of residual thiosulfate and its decomposition products is of use in appraising the adequacy of washing and therefore the permanence of the silver image on photographic films, plates, and papers. Inadequate washing can cause a loss in image density and the formation of stain in low-density areas. These deleterious effects are accelerated by improper storage conditions."

 

[Photo Engineer]

Archival is not a type of medium but a condition.the ARCHIVAL STANDARD is defined and quantified in ISO 18917.
"Determination of residual thiosulfate and its decomposition products is of use in appraising the adequacy of washing and therefore the permanence of the silver image on photographic films, plates, and papers. Inadequate washing can cause a loss in image density and the formation of stain in low-density areas. These deleterious effects are accelerated by improper storage conditions."

Unfortunately, overwashing also can lead to deterioration (cf Ctein), and so that ISO standard is a guideline for hypo retention regarding stability and nothing more.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bill, conference abstracts are given little importance in scientific community. They are not much more than preliminary results in most cases. Peer reviewed journal papers are much more important.

This statement has been bothering me since I read it. I cannot let it go uncommented on for those who wish to read and trust journal articles or reports of talks at seminars and society meetings. It is also true of those who only can read abstracts, having no access to the full journal articles.

In the cases that I am familiar with at EK, all publications whether articles or even abstracts are subject to 3 levels of internal peer review. This is done two times for a talk. The first is for the approval of the talk and publication of the abstract and the second is for the actual talk itself.

This is to insure that you can trust an article, publication or talk at the same level rather than have differences in quality for each form of external presentation leaving the level of trust and credibility to the reader or listener.

Of course, for publications there is the internal peer review and an external peer review. For a talk there is an interal peer review but the external peer review is the audience. The result of either is commented on elsewhere either in other journals or in the trade press. If a scientist were to either publish or give a talk that was incorrect, it would rapidly be reported on and refuted elsewhere much to the detriment of the originators reputation.

In any case, preliminary work must be explicity noted and commented on in the abstract and in the talk to maintain the credibility of the scientists involved.

I might mention that at EK the process for gaining acess to the patent application system is much the same. It requires several levels of peer review before a supposed invention can go on to become even a draft patent. It must be proven to be unique internally by comparison with prior published art before the inventor can continue with the application.

In all cases that I have seen, and as I mentioned above, all work of this type must also be performed as part of a statistical analysis to verify that the results are not an anomaly or outright error.

These points must be stressed for the sake of members here on APUG if one is to have credibility in their work or publications

PE

 

[Ryuji]

This statement has been bothering me since I read it. I cannot let it go uncommented on for those who wish to read and trust journal articles or reports of talks at seminars and society meetings. It is also true of those who only can read abstracts, having no access to the full journal articles.

If you find something on conference proceedings but no published paper, the most usual process is to contact the author directly for the current status. If the conference abstract is not published in real journal, it is often an abandoned project. Sometimes it is just taking time to publish because of additional data requested by the referees.

Also, if you are not keeping up with current literature, you shouldnt be pretending to be an expert.

In the cases that I am familiar with at EK, all publications whether articles or even abstracts are subject to 3 levels of internal peer review. This is done two times for a talk. The first is for the approval of the talk and publication of the abstract and the second is for the actual talk itself.

I'm talking about formal peer review involving anonymous referees. Your colleagues or anyone who are very closely associated with your work are not good for publication standard.

Of course, for publications there is the internal peer review and an external peer review. For a talk there is an interal peer review but the external peer review is the audience. The result of either is commented on elsewhere either in other journals or in the trade press. If a scientist were to either publish or give a talk that was incorrect, it would rapidly be reported on and refuted elsewhere much to the detriment of the originators reputation.

It's not true. There are MANY incorrect reports that stay in publications without public rebuttal or discussion. People just don't have time to waste for correcting errors that don't matter. People in the field are very efficient in exchanging these things informally though.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If you find something on conference proceedings but no published paper, the most usual process is to contact the author directly for the current status. If the conference abstract is not published in real journal, it is often an abandoned project. Sometimes it is just taking time to publish because of additional data requested by the referees.

This is true, but what is wrong with not publishing something. That does not make it invalid. I gave a talk on perfectly valid work, only to have the project cancelled and so the final publication was cancelled.

I'm talking about formal peer review involving anonymous referees. Your colleagues or anyone who are very closely associated with your work are not good for publication standard.

Of course, and this is sometimes done with very complex material where an outside peer review is also called for a presentation. I would like to point out though that you don't get to speak again at a conference if your data are invalid or suspect. Presenting invalid data at a conference ruins you both externally and within your company.

It seems that you lack practical experience with this procedure.

It's not true. There are MANY incorrect reports that stay in publications without public rebuttal or discussion. People just don't have time to waste for correcting errors that don't matter. People in the field are very efficient in exchanging these things informally though.

Isn't this last sentence taking both sides of the same argument? If people don't correct errors, but exhcange information informally then are they not correcting the error? If the person does not then get to report again, is that not evidence that the procedure is self correcting? Isn't this evidence that a reputation can be ruined from a bad or incorrect presentation. Imagine what such a presentation does to someone within his own company.

Beveridge is a respected Ilford scientist with publications extending over many years. I give him credit. And, BTW, I hope those here interested in image stability are aware that there is a tutorial on this subject at the ICIS meeting in Rochester in May.

BTW Ryuji, who refereed the work you published on silvergrain.org, and are we to take it seriously? I have read it and found you did a good job, but that is beside the point. The point is that you have criticized both me and Bill Troop, a person for whom I have great respect, but to do this shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standards. Should you have your work vetted, or are we right in suggesting that the work Bill mentions is valid?

Now, although this is a rhetorical question of having your web site on photographic chemistry vetted or reviewed, I submit that you cannot have it both ways. There are believable reports out there that exist in only abstract form, or on individual web sites and they are either right or wrong. Credibility depends on the reputation of the individual and company involved in production of the work. I believe that Ilford would not allow publication of incorrect information. I also find your work on your web site to be well done. What more can I say in defense of either myself or Bill Troop?

PE

 

[Ryuji]

BTW Ryuji, who refereed the work you published on silvergrain.org, and are we to take it seriously? I have read it and found you did a good job, but that is beside the point. The point is that you have criticized both me and Bill Troop, a person for whom I have great respect, but to do this shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standards. Should you have your work vetted, or are we right in suggesting that the work Bill mentions is valid?

For most of the part I try to give references to the original work. You are completely free to go to library to get them, read them, and send me criticism if there's any. Each year, there are about 3 people who send me emails like that. Some people also give me refs to other papers, etc. For others I disclose my test conditions and formulae, etc. so that others can duplicate the results if there's any question. If you take my argument and rank my web site below Journal of Photographic Science, that's perfectly fine with me. But that doesn't mean lots of junk people pick up from the internet are of equal quality. I would also rate people's posts in apug depending on the amount of nonsense they posted in last 12 months.

Anyway, you've so far admitted that you don't read literature except Ctein's article and don't even run tests of your own work. Since I spend considerable amount of effort in making my prints, and some of them are hang in galleries, I run accelerated tests every time I use a new paper or toneing formula to verify the stability of the image. Why are you posting lots of stuff in this thread, although your posts add little to the existing knowledge? (besides you always tell me "you are incorrect" i can predict that every time i post something here!)

 

[Photo Engineer]

Anyway, you've so far admitted that you don't read literature except Ctein's article and don't even run tests of your own work. Since I spend considerable amount of effort in making my prints, and some of them are hang in galleries, I run accelerated tests every time I use a new paper or toneing formula to verify the stability of the image. Why are you posting lots of stuff in this thread, although your posts add little to the existing knowledge? (besides you always tell me "you are incorrect" i can predict that every time i post something here!)

I didn't mention anything in regard to what I read or don't read, except for mention of Cteins article in the context of this thread.

I did commend you for your work on your web site. In fact, my comments about and to you have been far more positive than yours to and about me. I think that your web site is very good, and I often refer people to it in private notes for information. Some of my past posts have referred people to it as well.

If you run tests on print keeping, I have yet to see any concrete results posted anywhere at all. If you make prints or in-camera exposures from your emulsions, I have yet to see them posted here. Seeing this data would be useful to us all.

Congratulations on having your work hanging in galleries. I'm sure you must be quite proud of them and I'm sure that they are exceptional.

There is nothing that I want more than to work in harmony with you Ryuji. With us working together, we could really come up with some interesting innovations. I'm sure of it. I truly wish it would come about.

PE

 

[billtroop]

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?'

 

[Photo Engineer]

Bill;

Thanks. I agree totally with everything you say. See my previous post to get an understanding of the extent those feelings. I agree about the Ctein article in particular and only mentioned it as being credible based on my own experience with image stability.

My own feeling is that image stability is a costly and difficult morass beyond the means of us outside of 'corporate space' to investigate and unless we cooperate we will get nowhere.

I feel that if Ryuji and I can find a common ground for cooperation, things will proceed at an accelerating pace for everyone and we will all benefit. There is room for all possible opinions and approaches in this infinite universe.

My best wishes to you all.

PE