I have been printing on RC papers almost since they came out in the 70s (mostly Kodak but Agfa for a few years in the 80s). Most are shots of family activities, kids and our travel. The vast majority of my prints are 8x10 printed with a wide left border and spiral-bound (actually the GBC bindings - the ones with the rectangular holes) into books which we give away to family members at Christmas. We give away between 500 and 1000 prints each year in bound form.

On a few of the prints we have framed and hung on the walls of our home the image has deteriorated to a mottled bronze color, which is concentrated in the darkest areas of the print. Most of these go back to the mid to late 70s. Prints from the same years which are in the bound books are fine, so I'm guessing it's not a fixer/wash question. The affected print surfaces have been against glass or plastic (no mat or spacer), and I suppose that's likely to be a cause of the problem, although only a few of the prints framed this way have this problem. Does anyone know what might cause this kind of deterioration?

-- Kip Babington (cbabing3@swbell.net), January 10, 1998

Answers

RC paper just isn't a lasting medium for images. RC prints tend to deteriorate after about fifteen years. This period is approximate and depends on how well they were washed when processed, and the quality of the paper probably plays a role as well. I've only been shooting for about three years so I have no personal basis for comparison, but my understanding is that the RC papers of the 70's and 80's were of considerably lower quality than those of today. In any case, if you want your images to last, print them on fiber based paper. It takes just a little more time, but is well worth it both in terms of permanence and image quality. Archivally processed prints can last hundreds of years.

-- Michael Eaton (wpriestl@NAS.gov), January 16, 1998.

It could well be a fixer/wash problem: prints improperly fixed or washed will be light-sensitive, so the ones on walls will suffer more than those bound as books.

As for mounting without mats, well tut tut. Anything that has its face pressed up against glass for a couple of decades is bound to suffer. Plastic will probably be worse than glass, because nasty chemical changes can happen to it. Impermeable materials like RC photo paper may well suffer more than fibre in this respect. If these pictures are worth anything to you, remount them now. It may even be worth re-fixing and re-washing them.

I've got loads of RC prints from the early 70's in their original Ilford boxes, which is probably a bad idea, because I don't suppose the boxes are acid free, but the prints don't seem to have suffered at all. (True, the self-portraits are frightening, but that's just the subject matter. I would swear there is a Dorian Grey syndrome going on here.) The few that are mounted in frames, behind mats and glass, and hung on walls for a decade or two, don't seem to have suffered either. I've never used hypo clearing agent, but have always been generous in fixing and very generous in washing.

-- Alan Gibson (gibsonal@mail.dec.com), January 16, 1998.

There were two articles by Ctein in issues of Darkroom Photography last year dealing with this issue. The problem is especially bad with untoned prints placed immediately under glass. I have always taken Ansel's advice and used only fiber papers. RC is simply not archival. However, if you must use it, always tone in selenium or use Agfa Viradon.

-- Ed Buffaloe (edbuffaloe@earthlink.net), January 20, 1999.

Are the discolored areas shiny or just brown?

-- John Hicks / John's Camera Shop (jbh@magicnet.net), January 21, 1999.