Re: [Leica] B&W paper - Forte

[Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>]

Way back when, I just followed the instructions that were printed on the
back of the chemical tins.  If Kodak said wash for 20 minutes after a 3
minute soak in Hypo-Clearing Agent, then that is what I did.  I knew
nothing about archival washers, or toning treatments.  Perhaps in 200
years, my prints will look like crap  (Some may say they already look like
crap, but that's another story).  Lets wait and see.....  ;-)

Dan C.

At 11:03 PM 13-04-00 +0800, NG K.K. (JOSEPH) wrote:
>Dan, I like that - your idea!  Although, am just a novice in this
>regards.  I have been thinking, is it worth the effort for practicing
>all the cumbersome procedures that was taught by the photographic
>books I've read.  However, if it has been proven, then probably it is
>worth doing it.  But it would not kill if we do not follow everything
>mentioned,
>right?  At least, we should be thorough in washing the print.  It is our
>baby anyway.  To protect it from fading, the very fundamental of
>processing the print should be followed.
>
>I have some old B/W about 40 yrs old of my dad that turned yellow.
>Could it be that the print is not properly washed during its production.
>Or, due to the handling, storage and environment?  I am thinking on
>how to go about recovering the photo.  Any idea from you guys? should I
>refix, rinse, tone it, .... or whatever?
>
>K.K.
>
>
>Dan Cardish wote: ---------------------
>
>> Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2000 22:39:02 -0400
>> From: Dan Cardish <dcardish@microtec.net>
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] B&W paper - Forte
>
>> Archivalness?   I've got 30 year old prints made when I didn't know my ass
>> from a hole in the ground about photography, and they look today just as
>> ey did when they were first printed (and I certainly didn't selenium tone
>> em; I never heard of it back then).    People take  this "archival" thing
>> y too seriously.  It just isn't that difficult to wash a photograph.  I
>> spect that it is just a marketing ploy used to justify higher prices for
>> "fine art" prints, similar to calling them "silver-gelatin" rather than
>> what they really are.
>
>> Dan C.
>
>>  At 05:39 PM 12-04-00 -0700, Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>
>>Except they are saying now that you don't get Archivalness with 1:9.
>>But if you've only toned a few prints you can pour it into a bottle and
>reuse it again.
>>This I'm learning from Richard Knoppow's rec.photo.darkroom.
>>It's a newsgroup and I have to remind myself to go over there.
>>It's the only newsgroup I look and post to.
>>Mark Rabiner
>
>------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>