I would like to process my B&W prints so that they are "archival" or "nearly-archival" without significantly changing the tones or hue of my print. My research to date has led me to believe that that best way to do this is with a very dilute bath of selenium toner.

Unfortunately, selenium toner is a very, very poisonous substance. For my situation (I'm a clumsy darkroom hobbiest whose dark room is also a laundry room in a house with little children) the risk of using this chemical out-weighs its "archival benifits".

Is there a safer alternative to selenium toning for archival processing B&W prints? What about Agfa's "Sistan??" Is gold toner any safer than selenium toner?

Thanks,

Unfortunately, I have decided that I would rather not handle selenium toner because it is would rather not , TOXICusing a can to make them stable enough to last for generation --

-- Walt Bowen (Walt.Bowen@jhuapl.edu), October 08, 1999

Answers

I use both Selenium toner and Agfa Sistan. Because the selenium toner are used to change the silver into silver selenide, I don't understand why a short bath in the toner without changing the image tone should makr the photos more archival. So when I use selenium toner I see to it that the image tone changes as much as possible.

When I don't want to change the tone of the image, I use Agfa Sistan after the final wash. Sistan doesn't smell, but one should use gloves to be completly safe. Sistan should be very diluted, so no harm is done if you get a drop on your skin. Just wash with soap and water. no problem.

-- Patric in Sweden (jenspatric@mail.bip.net), October 08, 1999.

I've read in a number of sources (e.g., in "The Print" by A. Adams), that selenium is highly toxic if inhaled in its powder form (making mixing from powders dangerous) but not so dangerous if purchased and mixed as a liquid. On the other hand, Ansel Adams used it for decades and look what happened to him.

-- Chris Patti (cmpatti@aol.com), October 11, 1999.

As far as I know, Se is only toxic when you get in direct contact with it, i.e. when you have skin contact, inhale, or ingest it. With the Se Toner solutions containing about 2% sodium selenide, I don't see more danger than there is say with developer. (Many developers contain hydroquinone which is highly toxic.) If you don't use your fingers to handle the prints in the toner, cover or thoroughly clean your wet bench after the sessions, and if you make sure the bottles are securely locked away out of reach of the children (all these are things that are actually necessary with any chemistry given your particular situation), I would judge Se toner to be perfectly acceptable.

Alternatives for archival processing are sepia toners (which change the image tone to hue of brown, FB, particularly warm-tone FB papers responding strongest, and some RC papers responding only by warming a little) and Gold toner (which cools the image tone, but to a degree that might range from barely noticable to eye-catching). The latter is also very expensive.

What would you consider as "nearly archival"? A properly processed FB print can be kept for quite a number of decades w/o any toning if you avoid storing it under adverse conditions (heat, humidity). If that is fine with you, why bother to tone at all?

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), October 13, 1999.

Good 'ol Kodak Brown Toner (my namesake) might be the ticket. Check out: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an12/an12-5/an12-507.htm l

-- Tim Brown (brownt@ase.com), October 13, 1999.