Look into Tim Rudman's toning book. There is a full chapter in processing/toning for permanence and this is discussed in depth. >From what I rememebr: - Sulfide is the MOST archival toner - Selenium is archival only when carried out to completion - Gold is protective - Iron, copper, uranium, etc. can actually degrade images faster. RE: Properly processed negatives last a long time I agree. Last year my father in law brought a lot of old images he wanted me to print. Some of them from the 1910s (images of my wife's great-grandfather taken in Paris before WWI) and besides a "few" scratches due to improper storage the negatives looked perfect, were printable and produced very good images. I even found a couple of pictures with my dad as a kid (1940s) in them! On 6/11/05, Robert M <written_by@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > I only use selenium or metal toners for colour though as tests (mine, > > Kodaks and others) have shown they offer little to no protection, and in > > the case of selenium toner it can actually be detrimental to print > > longevity. I know ALL the books say otherwise, but the simple fact is > that > > metal salts like gold only offer protection proportional to the amount of > > silver they replace, so yes if someone is prepared to completely bleach > > away the silver and replace it with that awful blue that gold produces > then > > by all mean, they now have a gold image, but any silver that remains is > > still susceptible to oxidation. Only sulphiding offers true protection. > > > 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. > > > Selenium toner does not necessisarily degrade prints, by the way. Selenium > is a specific reccomendation for archival processing. > > > Bob > >
