----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert M" <written_by@xxxxxxx> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:10 Subject: Re: darkroom chemicals : Not so fast. Where does Kodak say "metal" toners do not offer protection? : Gold toner is ideal for toning images because the images is "plated." Kodak : offered "Gold Protective Solution" just for this consideration. All the : books are wrong? Not by a long shot. : HA! Kodak admitted it was a con! KODAK themselves said they offer it only because people want it, and they know it fails to protect the image. This was raised many years back when the archivists of microfilm noted redox blemishes and raised the issue.. the reason the beneficial effects are still praised in books is that many modern researchers are book researchers rather than hands-on researchers. * : : Selenium toner does not necessisarily degrade prints, by the way. Selenium : is a specific reccomendation for archival processing. ..and it's a failure - again, see Kodaks admission on this. The ONLY reason it ever worked was that it *used* to contain thiourea in the old formulation - the modern formula does not. WHen they compared the two they found image degredation was worse in selenium toned images than 'unprotected' images. it was the sepia in the mix that protected the silver, not the selenium. *There was a thiourea component once in some of the successful gold toners too ;-) karl
