From: Sarah Van Keuren (svk@steuber.com)
Date: 06/27/00-07:21:39 PM Z
I remember a study some years ago that found selenium
> alone NOT as much help archivally as polysulfides and sulfides (if I
> remember correctly).
>
> Judy
>
You do remember correctly. Steve Puglia, a fellow grad student in
photography at the University of Delaware, later working at the Library of
Congress, found that pure selenium did not protect silver as claimed.
Selenium-toned microfiche was getting just as much foxing as untoned.
Hidemi Yokoto, then a grad student in photography at Tyler School of Art,
translated Steve's article for Japanese photographers. Word had not reached
Japan at that point (about 10 years ago) and Kodak was promoting selenium
toning for archival permanence over there which seemed a pity with the
existing mercury contamination, etc.
I see no reason to use this poisonous heavy metal unless one must have the
purplish tone that it imparts to silver prints. I haven't seen that it makes
any visual difference with vandyke prints.
Sarah
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 07/14/00-09:46:46 AM Z CST