B/W print turned mottled gold

I'm in trouble.

I sent my mother-in-law a really nice B/W
print that I made and after about a year,
the black areas turned an ugly mottled gold
color.

She wants a new print and I need to know
what to do so that the problem doesn't happen
again.

I used Ilford chemistry and Mitsubishi Gekko
paper.

In article ,
Jim Stewart wrote:
I'm in trouble.

I sent my mother-in-law a really nice B/W
print that I made and after about a year,
the black areas turned an ugly mottled gold
color.

She wants a new print and I need to know
what to do so that the problem doesn't happen
again.

This is probably a problem with fixation or washing. Either the print
is not adequately fixed (less likely; this would usually give some
silvering instead of fading to a gold color) or was not adequately
washed after it was fixed.

The other possibility is that the print was mounted with materials that
are not acid-free, which will cause fading which is visually similar to
fading from improper washing.

Revise your fixing and washing steps of your process so they are standard
(don't use Ilford's fast-processing recommendations with non-Ilford papers)
and ensure that the new print is archivally mounted.

--
Thor Lancelot Simon

"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to
be abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
. ..
I'm in trouble.

I sent my mother-in-law a really nice B/W
print that I made and after about a year,
the black areas turned an ugly mottled gold
color.

She wants a new print and I need to know
what to do so that the problem doesn't happen
again.

I used Ilford chemistry and Mitsubishi Gekko
paper.

Gold? Perhaps more dull yellowish? Like spots of silver tarnish? If so,
print is not adequately fixed/washed. Make sure you are using fresh fixer.
And it certainly does not hurt to tone with highly diluted selenium mix.

"Jim Stewart" wrote

after about a year,
the black areas turned an ugly mottled gold
color. I used Ilford chemistry and Mitsubishi Gekko
paper.

This happens to RC paper - the reason for it is a
matter of debate. Titanium dioxide in the paper
reacting with UV light is one current suspect,
sulfur from pollution or the mount material is
another.

The history of RC materials is one of
problems followed by Kodak/Agfa/Ilford/xxx
claiming 'we have fixed the problem'
followed by either the reemergence of the
old problem or the creation of an entirely
new problem. I greet any explanation or
solution with suspicion.

Agfa RC was very prone to bronzing. I haven't seen
any on Ilford RC but that may be a matter of luck/time.

To keep it from happening again you might try using
Ilford paper. Err on the safe side: use fresh fixer
for 5 minutes, a hypo eliminator, wash for 1/2 hour.
There are all sorts of fast processing methods but
the old methods are known to not contribute to the
problem.

If the picture is in a frame then make sure you
use acid free board for the mat and mount board -
"4-ply 100% cotton museum board" is considered the
safest: the core of the board should be pure white,
not grey.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Darkroom Automation: F-Stop Timers, Enlarging Meters
http://www.darkroomautomation.com/index.htm
n o lindan at ix dot netcom dot com

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
. ..
I'm in trouble.

I sent my mother-in-law a really nice B/W
print that I made and after about a year,
the black areas turned an ugly mottled gold
color.

She wants a new print and I need to know
what to do so that the problem doesn't happen
again.

I used Ilford chemistry and Mitsubishi Gekko
paper.

This is called silvering out and is common on very old
photographs. It comes from oxidation of the silver image.
The silver oxide is very finely devided and can migrate to
the surface, where it can be again reduced to metallic
silver by other polutants. Very finely devided silver
(colloidal silver) is bright yellow, hense the gold color.
The problem comes from oxidants in the atmosphere or
from mounting materials. Sources of peroxides are plentiful,
automobile exhaust, vapours from fresh paint, many other
sources.
Well fixed and washed prints are vulnerable. Actually,
a very small amount of hypo left in the emulsion acts to
protect the image by creating a layer of silver sulfide on
the individual silver grains. However, a much better way of
protecting the image is toning. The best toners for image
protection are sulfiding toners, selenium toners, and gold
toner. While it was found that Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner,
in very high dilutions, was not effective for microfilm a
stronger dilution _is_ effective for pictorial films and
prints where some change in image color or density is
acceptable. According to Dr. Douglas Nishimura, of the Image
Permanence Institute of the Rochester Institute of
Technology, a minimum of three minutes in a solution of 1:9
KRST will protect the image. Another very good toner is
Kodak Brown Toner, a polysulfide toner. Polysulfide tones
all densities evenly so any amount of toning which results
in a visible effect on the image will protect it. Gold
toning is similar but is expensive so its not much used
although its still the standard for microfilm.
While inadequate fixing and washing can cause image
degradation the effect is most often a brown or yellow
staining. Lack of complete fixing causes overall staining
because the remaining insoluble reaction products are
distributed throughout the emulsion. Inadequate washing can
result in an overall stain but often shows up more as an
imagewise stain. While both stains can be removed the
process can further damage the image and the resusults are
not always permanent. Once an incompletely fixed image is
allowed to age for a few weeks it can no longer be
completely fixed by re-fixing because the reaction products
continue to change in the emulsion, eventually becoming
impossible to remove.
Despite the problems with inadequate fixing and washing
oxidation of the image is caused by external polution and
well fixed and washed images are particularly vulnerable.
About 15 years ago some RC papers had problems with
image oxidation caused by peroxides being emmitted by the
titanium dioxide used in the reflective layer. This problem
was solved by adding peroxide scavengers to the reflective
coating and emulsion. The scavengers are self-regenerating
so they remain effective essentially for the life of the
print. These same peroxides also attacked the plastic layer
in which they are suspended causing it to crack and flake.
This has not been a problem for RC for many years now.

Silvering out can sometimes be removed by a mild silver
bleach, a treatment similar to removing dichroic fog. The
safest method is to treat the print is a bath of fresh rapid
fixer to which is added citric acid in the amount of about
15grams per liter. The print must be watched carefully
because this treatment will also bleach out the image.

However, the best solution for your problem is to make
new prints and tone them as suggested above. The toning will
protect the prints against even pretty severe oxidative
attack.



--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

"Richard Knoppow" wrote in message
...

"Jim Stewart" wrote in message
. ..
I'm in trouble.

I sent my mother-in-law a really nice B/W
print that I made and after about a year,
the black areas turned an ugly mottled gold
color.

She wants a new print and I need to know
what to do so that the problem doesn't happen
again.

I used Ilford chemistry and Mitsubishi Gekko
paper.

toner. While it was found that Kodak Rapid Selenium
Toner,
in very high dilutions, was not effective for microfilm a
stronger dilution _is_ effective for pictorial films and
prints where some change in image color or density is
acceptable. According to Dr. Douglas Nishimura, of the
Image Permanence Institute of the Rochester Institute of
Technology, a minimum of three minutes in a solution of
1:9 KRST will protect the image. Another very good toner
is Kodak Brown Toner, a polysulfide toner.

I should have stated this more clearly. Tone in KRST at
a dilution no weaker than 1:9 for a time of not less than 3
minutes. This should give protection to all parts of the
print or negative. The problem with KRST is that it tends to
tone the more dense areas of the image more quickly than the
less dense parts. So, when toned according to the old
recommendations, that is, in a 1:19 solution for a couple of
minutes, as when combining KRST with a wash aid, the toning
is not sufficient to protect the shadow areas of negatives
or the highlight areas of prints. The high dilution method
was first suggested because it did not significantly change
the structure, density, or color of the image, important
properties when toning microfilm but less important to
pictorial film or prints. Toning according to the current
recommendation _will_ result in some change to the image as
will toning in KBT as suggested.
Toning of pictorial materials is less critical than
toning of microfilm so some restrictions which apply to the
latter do not apply to the materials we mostly use.
Again, gold toning is quite effective and does not cause
much change to the image appearance but the toners tend to
be expensive. Gold tends to generate a neutral to blue image
and, for this reason, may be desirable for some prints. In
general, the warmer toned the original image the more it
change in appearance in any toner, becoming more yellow in
sulfiding toners and more blue in gold toner.
However, the color is dependant on many factors, so, for
instance, microfilm does not become sepia colored in KBT but
rather shifts toward blue.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA

Richard Knoppow wrote:
new prints and tone them as suggested above. The toning will
protect the prints against even pretty severe oxidative
attack.

Having similar problems with early digital prints, we got into
the habit of spraying them with a fixative designed for art work.

Would this work?

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

Richard Knoppow wrote:
[...]

So very well expressed. Thank you for that, Richard.

(I thought maybe the OP had The Mydas Touch.)

jjs wrote:

Richard Knoppow wrote:
[...]

So very well expressed. Thank you for that, Richard.

(I thought maybe the OP had The Mydas Touch.)

Thanks to everybody, especially Richard and
Nickolas. I *really* appreciate the details.

I will be remaking the print with Ilford paper
and toning as Richard described.

Thanks again,
-jim

"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" wrote in message
...
Richard Knoppow wrote:
new prints and tone them as suggested above. The toning
will
protect the prints against even pretty severe oxidative
attack.

Having similar problems with early digital prints, we got
into
the habit of spraying them with a fixative designed for
art work.

Would this work?

Geoff.

At one time it was recommended that prints be coated
with laquer, in fact, Kodak used to sell print laquer.
However, although it may protect surfaces from contact with
air this is not always effective since oxidizing material
can reach the print through the support plus the coating
makes it difficult if not impossible to treat the print
should that become necessary.
In the case of RC prints it was found that covering the
prints caused a trapping of the gasses emitted by the
reflective layer. This may no longer be the case for paper
containing the scavengers and anti-oxidants but is still not
recommended.
Remember that the digital images are composed of dyes or
pigments, not metallic silver. It may be that laquer would
be suitable for color prints were the images are composed of
dyes.
The best protection for silver prints is to tone them.
I did not mention in my other post the use of protective
agents such as Agfa Sistan or Fuji Ag-Guard. The Agfa
products is discontinued but may still be found and, AFAIK,
Fuji does not sell Ag-Guard outside of Japan. They are not
identical but both use substances which are supposed to
stabilize the image without having any effect on its
appearance. Fuji released some research on its product
indicating it was effective but less so than toning. AFAIK,
there was never any serious research done for Sistan
although there is anecdotal evidence that it works. However,
Sistan is sensitive to the amount left in the emulsion, too
much results in staining.


--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA