Sistan vs Selenium

[bmac]

Why use Selenium if Sistan is supposed to stabalize everything? I'm looking for a less toxic archival solution to use on my FB prints. I don't like having toxic chems in my darkroom now that we have the munchkin in the house.

Brian

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Sistan doesn't act as a toner, so if you want the color changes you can get with selenium or increased Dmax, you won't get it from Sistan. I've only used Sistan on RC prints (and on film in place of Photo-Flo, where it acts both as a preservative and as a wetting agent). I'm not sure what it would do to fiber based prints. Sistan also won't intensify negatives, which is another use for selenium toner.

 

[dancqu]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bmacphoto.com @ Oct 9 2002, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm looking for a less toxic archival solution to use on my FB prints.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
From Google enter "unblinkingeye". Visit the archival page. They have a
good bit on Sistan and other processes. Dan

 

[edbuffaloe]

My personal opinion is that Sistan is not a final solution to archival quality. It sequesters silver ions by binding to them and forming silver thiocyanate, but there is no valid test data to demonstrate its long-term effectiveness. Selenium, too, has its limitations, since the toning must be 100% to fully protect an image, and most people don't want that much color in their black and white prints. On the other hand, with some papers that don't change color very much (such as Ilfobrom Galerie) selenium could be quite effective as an archival agent.

 

[bmac]

I agree that Selenium is probably the best bet for archival purposes, but am trying to figure out something that isn't so dangerous. We've got a youngin now, so I am a little more cautious...

 

[dancqu]

Edwal claims archival results when using their 4&1 hypo eliminator. The
&1 is the equivalent selenium or gold treatment. Check it out. Small
shovel probably needed. Dan

 

[dancqu]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bmacphoto.com @ Oct 9 2002, 12:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I'm looking for a less toxic archival solution..."</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Nelson Gold Toner may be the answer. This year marks it's 70th. Oder
level should be low. Check it out. Don't forget the Edwal 4&1. May be
it works. Dan

 

[edbuffaloe]

It is no longer recommended to completely remove hypo from film or paper. Hypo eliminator is generally considered obsolete and not an archival solution. Gold Protective Solution is probably the most effective archival treatment. Check out Liam Lawless' tests of GPS at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival...al/GP2/gp2.html. Ten minutes in GP-2 prevents bleaching better than anything else available. GP-2 will cause a slight color shift toward blue which I don't really care for. At some point, I have to go for the aesthetic appeal over archival certitude.

 

[lee]

I agree that Selenium is probably the best bet for archival purposes, but am trying to figure out something that isn't so dangerous. We've got a youngin now, so I am a little more cautious...

If you have had Head and Shoulders on your head you have had more Selenium there than would be used on your prints. IF you use Selenium to exahustion there is nothing left. As long as the little one does not drink it there is little danger in Selenium. Keep it above what Junior can reach.


lee

 

[bmac]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lee @ Dec 2 2002, 02:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
If you have had Head and Shoulders on your head you have had more Selenium there than would be used on your prints.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
Wow, that'd look pretty strange! What are you trying to say?

 

[lee]

Only that the amount of selenium in Head and Shoulders shampoo is less than what you would use in toning photographs.

lee

 

[lee]

sorry misspoke I meant to say that Head and Shoulders has MORE selenium in it than the selenium needed to tone your photographs. Just don't let the little guy/girl get hold of of the toner.

lee

 

[dancqu]

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (edbuffaloe @ Dec 2 2002, 02:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It is no longer recommended to completely remove hypo from film or paper. &nbsp;Hypo eliminator is generally considered obsolete and not an archival solution. &nbsp;Gold Protective Solution is probably the most effective archival treatment. &nbsp;Check out Liam Lawless' tests of GPS at http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival...al/GP2/gp2.html. &nbsp;Ten minutes in GP-2 prevents bleaching better than anything else available. &nbsp;GP-2 will cause a slight color shift toward blue which I don't really care for. &nbsp;At some point, I have to go for the aesthetic appeal over archival certitude.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>
I've been giving it some thought. Was it ever "an archival solution"? All
agreed that hypo levels should be very low after the wash. That is if no
after sulfide, selenium, gold, or, or, treatment is planned in which case
the hypo level may vary depending on the post fix treatment.

I can see those clouds, snow, etc, slowly turning a sick pale yellow.
Would it not be better to clear all sulfer compounds from the paper
and then throw on the gold, selenium, sulfer or whatever? That is
to protect the IMAGE.

As far as Edwal 4&1 is concerned, if it is an "eliminator" perhaps that
works with it's unique chemistry to provide the archival results claimed.
I don't know. It may work and do so while HCA-ing. After all selenium and
hca are a usuall mix though the mix is not called for if the fix is alkaline.
I would suggest a rinse prior to toning. I would not want silver in my
toner. Dan

 

[edbuffaloe]

Recent studies at the Rochester Institute of Technology’s Image Permanence Institute (RIT IPI) indicate there may be as much danger in over-washing as in under-washing. Doug Nishimura of RIT states, “...it has been proven at Kodak, Fuji and here at IPI that a small amount of hypo will make photographs MORE stable against air pollutants and that overwashing decreases the stability.”

 

[theyankeesnapper]

Why use Selenium if Sistan is supposed to stabalize everything? I'm looking for a less toxic archival solution to use on my FB prints. I don't like having toxic chems in my darkroom now that we have the munchkin in the house.

Brian

////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sometimes Selenium is not desired if your using a paper like Ektalure, Forte's warm tone, or Art and you want want to limit or have little or no color change. Sistan in this circumstance would be recommended. I don't think a finished print that was toned properly in Selenium would be toxic enought to hurt your home environment. But I would recommend an once of prevention and keep all your chemicals locked up from this point on. They don't call the age of "the terrible two's for nothing".

Regards.

Bob McCarthy

 

[Gerald Koch]

The "terrible twos" last through the "terrible fours" so don't slacken off with your safety measures.

 

[Jim Noel]

In his "Toning Book", Tim Rudman has the most complete discussion of toning for permanence I have seen. He dispells some myths through his thorough testing.

 

[Neal]

Dear Brian,

Letting your child drink your fixer (or "Weed b Gone" or prescription medicines, or dozens of other things) is hardly better. Lock up everything that your child shouldn't get to. Speaking from experience, height is not a deterrent.

Neal Wydra