None of your references comes from Kodak. A fine point, but quite important in my view. Lets look at your references: > http://www.usask.ca/lists/alt-photo-process/2000/jun00/0427.htm The Alt list is not a reference worth trusting a hundred percent of the time, no list is. It is a mailing list and granted, there are some people that likely know a few things, but the list should not be trusted to prove anyone's point. I have talked with some of these list "experts" and it is quite clear many know very little about photochemistry or photography, for that matter. For example, the general opinion of some of that list's membership that nitrate negatives will usually fall apart and therefore cannot be trusted. Quite untrue. Or the idea that if it is to last, you must always use archival storage materials. Again, not always true. Kraft envelopes are bad - not true! Or glassine is dangerous -again, NOT, TRUE. That Kodak never offered sheet Kodachrome or prints made on a Kodachrome emulsion coated on a plastic support. NOT TRUE, NOT TRUE, NOT!!! TRUE!!! Another list reader was an "expert" on old movie technology and she could not explain how the Technicolor process worked; she claimed Technicolor once offered a special Technicolor Tri-Pack film to producers and studios. Later, she sent me a link and an excuse; the link was equally wrong and I did not buy her excuse. Another said dyes will always fade, but pigments never not fade. He was not aware of the Dye Transfer/Wash-Off Relief process that proves he is full of bilge. Sorry, I would look for better proof. > http://www.clir.org/pubs/reports/dirsci/dirsci.html I found no specific references to rapid selenium toner and it makes a difference because at one time, Kodak offered a selenium toner as well as a rapid selenium toner. Yes, it could be the same formula and the name perhaps was changed. I will allow for that possibility. I am not sure because the Rapid version gave me a different tone on Ektalure than the "standard" selenium toner. When I toned papers, I preferred Sepia Toner. One reference discussed microfilm and selenium. Apparently, the link above references ongoing research and not hard data. I will admit, I did not read it all. To lazy, I suppose. Or, perhaps the reason is this: that page was written in 1990 and therefore, it is (probably) out of date. That causes a problem because much can be learned in five years. These discussions are usually based on bad or incomplete information. Sometimes, the information from large organizations is clearly incorrect as well. I have talked to conservators clearly without a clue and/or any deep knowledge about their freaking job. Sorry to break it to you, but some lists are started by people with very little knowledge about the topic the list pertains to. Quite often, the list members add info that is clearly incorrect or out of date. Someone told me iron was never used to make toners because it will not work. WRONG. That Kodak never offered as many papers as I discussed. Wrong; Kodak offered hundreds of papers, grades 0-6 (in some cases) and dozens of surfaces not offered today. That Kodachrome never came in 828, 126, 110; "I must be thinking of Ektachrome." By the way, at one time, Kodak offered a catalog of sundry items and equipment that was slowly phased out and (sadly) no longer available. A vast number of products; some of which the George Eastman House says were not manufactured by Kodak; "I must be thinking of Dupont or Ansko." Note the spelling? The "Image Permanence Institute" entry discusses microfilm, not conventional film and papers. Forget toning and GPS for a moment. If the film is properly processed, it will last. Examples in my collection absolutely prove this and there can be no debate. Yes, storage can make a difference, but these days, far too many people point to dubious "proof" that is more often than not, a matter of guessing rather than actual hard supporting data. For all I know, these curious tests were not properly done. > http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003T6K This page is a discussion between people that may or may not know what they are talking about. You really cannot trust lists and forums for accurate data in every post. It is, after all, just another Internet list or forum. Again, where does it specifically say, in Kodak's words, these toners and protectants do not work? I just took a look on Kodak's web site and they specifically recommend the use of Rapid Selenium Toner for Archival Processing. They recommend: "Dilute 1:20 for print protection and 1:20 or 1:40 to increase shadow contrast and maximum density with a minimum tone change." The same page mentions gold solutions; several in fact. One person said this, "...the upshot was that if a weaker solution of selenium was used, the protection would be not as complete as a strong solution." The poster is probably guessing; even at 1:40, there is more protection than is actually needed. This link also discusses microfilm, not what we are talking about. I know all about microfilm and how it is processed. I also know about Illfochrome Color Micrographics film and it will last for a very long time. Some self-proclaimed experts have never mention this film, so they are not experts. > http://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/Archival/archival.html >From the above link, "When queried as to where such pollutants come from, he stated: "The acids are emitted by wood, plywood, particle board, and chipboard, and the formaldehydes are emitted by carpets, draperies, upholstery, and certain plastics. In addition, sunlight entering a building causes the buildup of ozone, peroxides, nitric acid, and other nitrogen-containing molecules..." Dramatic examples of accelerated aging tests are shown in the article. Judging from the examples, ArtCare board appears to be superior to 100% rag board for long-term preservation. Test results also indicate that dry-mounted prints, no matter what board they are mounted on, fare better than prints that are hinged or corner-mounted. The dry mount tissue serves as a barrier to pollutants that have been absorbed by the mount board." Our collection was stored in hundreds of liquor boxes; the plates and negatives were stored individually in Kraft paper envelopes, 11x14/16x20 plates on shelves. Apparently this is a "bad idea," because it causes "problems" Sorry, my experience was this was not a big issue and the fact tat some of the images were produced in in the 1800s, show the storage materials and storage conditions are important, but not a guarantee that disaster will happen. Why did they last? Well, we did things correctly. Proper chemical mixing, attention paid to exhaustion, stop bath, two fix baths, proper washing, and the use of hypo eliminators. Since the 1800s, and no evidence of degradation, spots, funky tones, or smells. 100% rag board is mentioned but not discussed much. Except that it is a bad idea and as the comment stands, silly to be sure. What kind of 100% rag are we (they) talking about? I have many items printed on 100% rag and they suffer few problems. Our currency is 100% rag and it is exposed to many strange conditions. Still holds up. I have cheap stamped envelopes going back many decades, and still in perfect condition. It is quite likely these envelopes are 100% rag. I have some "dime novels" still in pristine condition, but printed on cheap paper pulp. Furthermore, I have many images mounted on poor quality materials like pressed pulp and Masonite. Again, no problems. So what do I believe? My large collection of solid evidence or someone's "proof" the images will not last? I find all sorts of words like "apparently." So apparently, this page is written by someone with no proof, just a few too many words like "apparently." (SNIP) > btw, I also run my own tests and always advised my students to do the same > rather than believe everything one is told by photographers, lecturers > (including me) or reads, especially when one purports to expound on facts. > Oddly, there are people out there in the world who seek glory or gold at > the expense of truth, something I've never quite come to understand.. I am all for testing. However, and no offence, but how are you testing? How are your students testing? Specifics please. You are probably not setup to properly test these issues; your students are most certainly not. I was once a teacher at the SLC Art Center ("Art Barn," Finch Lane, Utah) so I know students will often parrot what they are told by their instructors. Last month I was told my statements about polarizers were wrong. I said solid glass polarizers are not available; all filters available to photographers are film sandwiched between glass. People want to argue that fine point. The "experts" want to argue; one sent me a link to a page "proving" you can buy solid glass (dyed in the mass) polarizers. This page had a typo. So I discount most everything these experts have to say. Again, no offence, but, if you lecturing, why tell your students not to believe your words? You can believe my words. Barring the absence of legitimate proof that I am incorrect about something I serve up in a list post. We live in a world where much of our knowledge is available with a simple Google search. Unfortunately, we have access to an equal amount of incorrect information, as well. Then it spreads. God help us all. For all I know, you are correct and Kodak did say what you say they said. So I am asking for a legitimate link to an exact quote from Kodak, not a web site or mailing list. Back up your words and offer me a few crumbs. Until you do, I will refuse to believe you. Sorry about that (Smiley+) Bob - Trying To Be Fair - In Utah
