Luis Nadeau (nadeaul@nbnet.nb.ca)
Tue, 19 Jan 1999 16:25:56 -0400
>>- Wayde
>> (wallen@boulder.nist.gov) wrote
>>On Fri, 15 Jan 1999, Tom Ferguson wrote:
>>
>>> I have an interest in hand made paper making. I've never managed to
>>> integrate it with my photography, but it is wonderfully fun and peaceful
>>> pursuit in it's own right. I'm far from an expert. But, all the paper
>>> making literature I've read indicates that Alum is not a good size if
>>> archival properties are important to you. Over time (how long I don't
>>> know) it is said to cause hardening and yellowing.
>>
>>We had a discussion about this about three years ago on the list, and you
>>should be able to locate it in the archives. Luis Nadeau also talks about
>>using Alum and other hardeners in his book on Carbon printing. The thing
>>that sticks in my mind from these discussions is that the use of Alum
>>probably doesn't much affect the archival properties of the paper if it
>>has been sufficiently washed. If I remember correctly, Luis notes in his
>>book that many very old carbon prints were hardened in Alum with
>>apparently not ill affect. (Please correct me if I'm remembering this
>>incorrectly.)
That's correct. Old carbon prints, as a rule, are in much better shape than
everything else, including platinum prints, for reasons elaborated in my Pt
book.
>>I'm curious, does anyone know the long term effects of glyoxal on paper?
It's been used for decades in the photographic industry. I first read about
it when studying Pierre Glafkidès' _Chimie et physique photographique_ in
1976. The previous edition may have had it as well. The effect should be
the same as formaldehyde.
Luis Nadeau
Fredericton, NB, Canada
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:43