>works well, looks good and can be substituted for gum arabic or gloy. It
>produces good continuous tone and sharp detail from continuous tone negatives.
>It has a slightly shinier surface than gloy whereas gum arabic tends
>towards the
>matt.
>
>I have had no problems with yellowing either with the silver chloride/arrowroot
>albumen prints I have made, or with the gum dichromate albumen prints. On some
>very small prints the shininess was obtrusive but they were only made to be
>rephotographed
>I have noticed no flaking with these prints.
The above confirms my own observation for anything that applies "over some
years" with the albumen process. An evaluation of what took place over a
longer period however is different.
>I also have some albumen prints dating from the 1850s and 1860s, including one
>of Prague, which has a Perrutz shop under an arcade. I like to think that it
>sold photographic goods. Some of these prints have yellowed, I assume from
>improper fixing, but the others look as if they were made yesterday.
To make me believe that, you will have to show it to me, period. You will
also have to show it to my reflexion densitometer... And we are not the
only ones;-) Not the least of which if James Reilly, director of the Image
Permanency Institute, RIT, Rochester, NY, and author of, among others _The
Albumen and Salted Paper Book_, Light Impressions, 1980.
While improper fixing (fix too old or exhausted or fixing too short) and
too short of wash (and poor quality mounts, adhesives, etc) and poor
storage conditions (high temp. & humidity) have a remarkable deteriorating
effect, the fact of the matter is that it is practically impossible to make
an albumen print that is as permanent as the most permanent silver-gelatin
(i.e. "properly" toned) prints.
The chemical reasons behind all of this, e.g., sulfur compounds in albumen,
etc., can be found in the conservation literature. A full discussion of
this is way beyond the scope of this list.
There are albumen prints that look beautiful, gorgeous, etc., compared to
the completely faded ones right next to them. Some do indeed "look as
pristine as the day they were made", but all of this is highly subjective.
When compared to freshly made contemporary prints, side by side, their age
becomes obvious.
This is not to say that the process should be avoided all together today.
Most vintage prints have faded *badly*, but this was caused by poor
processing, etc. The fact that a few old prints have "mellowed" nicely over
the years to give us what is now *not* "pristine" as one would like to
think, but still beautiful and gorgeous prints to enjoy, is enough to tell
us that the process, properly used, can be part of the alt-photo palette
one can use.
Speaking of "mellowing" and "archival processing", this reminds me of the
comments a New York gallery owner made back in the 70s, regarding the new
rage over the then new archival methods of print processing: "...but if
those [new] prints don't fade, nobody will want to buy them!"
She was referring to the fact that (visibly) old, i.e., somewhat faded
prints, commanded much higher prices that anything that looked new, i.e.,
truly pristine...
Luis Nadeau
awef6t@mi.net
nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca
Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada
http://www.micronet.fr/~deriencg/nadeau.html
http://www.primenet.com/~dbarto/lnadeau.html