Archival qualities

Perhaps you misunderstood. 

This was the point I made:

"This is surely on the basis that any image based on silver, which is more
subject to oxidation, is not going to be as stable as an image based upon, or
toned with,platinum,palladium or gold, That is a given. " Hardly a contradiction
as you suggest.

There is no argument that silver prints that are not gold toned are less
archival than platinum, for example.

The other rather obvious point was that prints which are properly processed
are likely to last longer, see my post in rreply to that from Sandy..

What is your objection to that ?

Terry

In a message dated 29/3/06 , rs@silvergrain.org writes:

> From: TERRYAKING@aol.com
> Subject: Archivity
> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:32:37 -0500 (EST)
>
> > We do know that those that were not processed properly had a few
> > problems. But that is the point.
>
> You initially stated that:
>
> properly processed silver image --> archival
>
> and now stating
>
> improperly processed silver image --> not archival
>
> These are different arguments.
>
> > You should look into the proceedings of the 1850s 'Fading Committee"
>
> I've gone much farther than that. We have much more knowledge on the
> mechanism of image fading than 1850s.
>
> The relevant question is how many percents of properly processed
> images survived with or without toning over the course of 100+ years,
> and whether gold toning significantly increased the percent survival.
> Modern conservation scientists would say yes to the latter question.
>
> Since 1950s there are rising concerns for archival properties of
> properly processed silver image, which has to do with oxidative
> attacks rather than inadequate processing standard. Proper processing
> (without toning) provides no protection against oxidative attacks but
> noble metal toning or polysulfide toning provides this protection.
>
>
Received on Wed Mar 29 16:22:18 2006