> : 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 AGAIN, where do they say this? Exactly. Links please. And not to more questionable web sites, lists, and forums; my eyes are bleeding. I demand Kodak's own words, not haphazard parsing. > 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. You are using microfilm examples to argue something we are not talking about, which is conventional film and paper. Who are these "archivists" you speak of? You know nothing about what happened years ago. You do not know the specific storage conditions of the materials, You do not know how the material was originally processed, you do not understand spots can come from many sources, and you have not, nor can you, (apparently) provide any verifiable facts and details. Just too many "thems" and "those people" and a large group of non-descript archivists. If Kodak is conning us, why does their web site specifically mention the use of some toners for archival processing? I just looked. Apparently, you do not know much about toners and photochemistry. > : Selenium toner does not necessisarily degrade prints, by the way. > Selenium > : is a specific recommendation 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 ;-) Not in my formulas. Not a dram. I cannot speak about all toners; you said "some" which is as good as saying nothing at all. Bob
