I worked in an office for more than a decade that had a hallway filled with photos of employees. Some of the photos had come from a previous building and were quite old. There were new pictures being added periodically, generally at significant milestone anniversaries, like 10 years, 20 years, and so forth. All were matted and framed 5x7 photos behind glass. It was glossy paper, but I couldn't tell whether RC or fiber behind the glass. What was interesting was that all of the photos would start to show a yellowish shiny silver plating over time. It would generally develop on pictures that had been there for 7 or 8 years, and it was progressive. The older it was, the more "plated" it became. It really looked like slightly oxidized silver plating.
Originally Posted by jnanian
I never did figure out what caused it. I would hate for something like that to happen to my photos. It was weird looking, not attractive at all.
i love silvered out images
they give a look that no other medium can offer.
Simon does not "sell" anything.
Originally Posted by NB23
In fact he's quite conscientious in ensuring that his answers are factual and objective.
We're lucky to have his expertise (and PE's) so readily available to the community.
“Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something.” - Plato
Originally Posted by Leigh B
THANKS SIMON !
I think it is because they are around a bunch of IT people/engineers
“Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”
Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I got images degradation in thew way Ctein describes it in his book: Changing the silver into brownish reaction products, mostly at black/white borders. This happened always with prints under glas glass which were exposed to the sun light. The degradation happened in some years, not some monthes.
I saw this at Kodak, Ilford and Foma RC papers. They were untoned und un-sistaned. It seems that the TiO2 problem is not fully solved yet.
I never saw any degradation in free presented prints (without glass), and of course nothing happened with my photos dark stored in boxes. I never saw a yellowing in the highlights, I alway got changes in the silver itself.
I am sure that the papers are sufficent fixed an washed. Incorrectly processed papers would degrade in boxes too, may in a slightly longer time. If your photos degrade only when presented then something chemical is different to baryta papers.
Therefore I make papers for long presentation on baryta. Such papers are much less sensitive to sun light.
Just for fun, here is my first image I ever printed (a self-portrait with the Rolleiflex) -- in the employee darkroom at the Grand Canyon in 1977. Chemicals were fresh, but no guarentee about the process! Some fading of the details in the highlights.
I gave this print to my dad the same year, and my mom framed it -- probably an Aaron Brothers mat and frame. It was displayed (no direct sunlight) for about 33 years, despite my offers to reprint it, LOL! I doubt that it was window-matted with acid-free material, some masking tape was on the back, and no toning. Another copy made at the same time and tossed into a folder looks like it did the day I made it.
Kodak RC glossy
Last edited by Vaughn; 08-24-2012 at 02:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.
At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.
We've got old family photos from 1946 that have absolutely no yellowing, degradation, breakdown or whatnot, in B&W and colour, some hand-coloured. Mind you, they are stored in many bog-standard albums that only come out when Uncle Frank and Twiggy stumble here and need their memories jogged of what they looked like "in them thar olden days". (Better than now... ) . I surmise the chemical makeup of papers way back in the mists of time were either more stable or the modern era industrial revolution has a bigger role to play in imparting and accelerating deterioration of un-tined RC or FB prints.
“The photographer must determine how he wants the finished print to look before he exposes the negative.
Before releasing the shutter, he must seek 'the flame of recognition,' a sense that the picture would reveal
the greater mystery of things...more clearly than the eyes see." ~Edward Weston, 1922.
please, be awre, sistan isNOTA TONER NOR DOES IT REPLACE TONING!.NOTHING BEATS TONING IN PROTECTING IMMAGE SILVER. DONT SKIP TONING1.
When I first started in the darkroom last year, I overused my fixer, majorly! A lot of my prints from that time had yellowed, or wit brown blotches all over the. the most crucial ones had used fresh chemicals and were fine. One of a swan has been framed and has been hung up on various places and it is still fine. Some very good negatives from that time were under fixed too, but luckily they had been stored in dark containers so I was able to refix most of them to stop further degradation. Some others that had not been stored well however were unrecoverable. The most crucial ones having used fresh chemicals, were fine. I always wash as follows: Luke warm water bath, then in running water for several minutes, each individual print held in the water stream, then hung to dry. I don't often tone, I do intend to try selenium I have many copper toned prints, but I'd have thought copper would degrade the image life? I use a fresh bath of fixer for each prints session, 1+9 Kodak or hypam, no more than 20 to 30 5x7 or about 10 8x10 or 5 12x16 depending on what I am doing, then I toss it. I will use one batch of fixer, 1+4, per roll of film using a 500ml or thereabouts tank. Fixing is a crucial step that isnt to be saved on. I just get bulk 5L bottles. All negatives are stored in a file in filing sheets.