Richard Knoppow (dickburk@ix.netcom.com)
Mon, 17 May 1999 23:46:15 -0700
At 10:37 PM 5/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 17 May 1999, Jonathan Bailey wrote:
>>
>> As to the posting regarding the use of hardener in the fix: I believe it
>> has a serious inhibiting effect on any subsequent toning - and seems most
>> especially deleterious to the split-toning processes I employ. It is an
>> excellent issue to raise, and pertinent to the original question. This
>> issue alone could account for Andy Buck's problems.
>>
>
>Hope I will be excused for asking what may be a really DUMB question,
>since I've never used nelson gold toner -- but unless you're using it in
>some special combo, it was my UNDERSTANDING that it's used for archival
>purposes rather than color change. I draw on memory here, but to get it
>blue, or red, doesn't it have to be with something else?
>
>The reason I ask this, laying myself wide open to what is bound to be
>INSTANT correction, is that it occurred to me to wonder what it is Andy is
>looking for and NOT getting that makes him say he's failing. Because,
>especially with cold tone paper, you don't see a lot of change I believe
>with just plain gold, nicht wahr? And unless you have a matched print wet
>in another tray you might be getting change you don't notice.
>(Instructions often are to tone by comparison that way.)
>
>As far as hardening fixer inhibiting toning, my experience, BTW, is that
>it doesn't with the, let's call it dynamite toners. I used to teach toning
>workshops where students brought their ready-made prints to tone, all of
>which had been fixed with hardener. I never noticed any difference in the
>way theirs toned, and the way my own prints toned in the same formulas, my
>own having been fixed in non-hardening fix.
>
>I myself don't see any particular reason for a hardener in fix, and the
>paper washes better, quicker without it -- and unless you're planning to
>leave your prints in the holding bath for a week, what's hardener for?
>(Film is a different matter, of course.) But as I say, just with the
>garden variety toners, I think some of that is NOT true... though I could
>surely believe that GOLD is more temperamental...
>
>In any event... Andy -- what did you not find that you should have?
>
>
>Judy
>
>
>
>
Nelson's Gold is a sepia or brown toner covered by a (now expired)
patent. I think you are confusing it with the Gold toner used to produce
blue tones. That toner can be used in a similar way to Selenium to protect
the image silver. Kodak formula GP-1 is a weak thiocarbamide-gold toner for
this purpose.
When a previously sepia toned print is treated in a gold blue toner it
turns red. This effect is used in Nelson't to modify the tones produced by
an otherwise pretty conventional direct toner. The advantages of Nelson's
is that it can produce partially toned prints without split tones and the
image color is a bit different than anything else will produce.
Since Nelson's is used at elevated temperatures the use of a
non-hardening fixing bath may cause problems with some papers which have
soft emulsions. Alum hardener apparently interferes with the operation of
some toning baths but a treatment with wash aid and washing should
eliminate this. The hardness of the emulsion is probably not a factor.
Nelson's works with warm toned emulsions and doesn't cause much color
change with neutral or cold toned emulsions. The latter respond to bleach
and redevelop type toners.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
dickburk@ix.netcom.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:34