Talk:Photographic print toning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	This article is supported by the Color WikiProject, a project that provides a central approach to Color-related subjects on Wikipedia. Help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards; visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Merge proposal 2 Request for pictures other than sepia toned 3 example not sepia toned 4 Contradictions

[edit] Merge proposal

What do people thing of merging both selenium toning and sepia tone into this article? They're both types of print toning and there appears to be some redundant information repeated between the articles.

Alternatively - merge the short selenium toning article here with a redirect, strip much of sepia tone's generic information but leave it with the historical and pop-culture information. --Imroy 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did the latter. Selenium toning is now just a redirect to this article. I decided that sepia tone would be about the digital methods used to imitate sepia toning, so I moved the historical information here. I also added some info from an Ilford document about toning but it didn't provide much detailed information. So the article still needs some detail about metal and dye replacement toning. --Imroy 02:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sepia tone should also be merged here, into a sub-section, until there's enough information to warrant a separate article for digital methods. --jacobolus (t) 18:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not accurate to say that sepia tone refers to digital photography alone. The technique in color photography of creating the older style appearance long predates digital photography. By pulling out the historical information and only leaving the recent information, it leaves a false definition to the article. It either needs to be fully merged, or have it's historical information restored. Merennulli (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Or moved to a new article called “digital print toning” or similar. But I think just merging it is the best option; there's not really enough material for two separate articles, and the historical information is relevant even to those looking for information about digital methods. --jacobolus (t) 20:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for pictures other than sepia toned

I think it'd be nice if there were examples of toned prints using toners other than sepia. Thoughts?

Agreed. If someone has examples, post them. --CPAScott 17:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] example not sepia toned

The top picture is not sepia toned. Its (by the look and date) an albumen print, gold toned. This gives a similar colour. I guess but dont know that sepia toning dates from maybe 1910-1920 in common use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinc (talk • contribs) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions

“

Sepia toning is done in two steps. First the image is soaked in a dilute bleach to remove pigment from the silver particles so the brown tones can be visible in even the darkest areas of the photograph. Incomplete bleaching will create a multi-toned image with black or very dark brown shadows Except for polysulfide toners, sepia toning is done in three stages. First the print is soaked in a potassium ferricyanide bleach to re-convert the metallic silver to silver halide. The print is washed to remove excess potassium ferricyanide then immersed into a bath of toner, which converts the silver halides to silver sulfide.

”

The above paragraphs, taken from the Sepia section of the article, directly contradict each other (two vs three steps). The more accurate paragraph should remain, while the other should be edited or removed. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. User Hu12 (talk · contribs) had put in the first paragraph, replacing a completely different paragraph. I thought I had reverted that edit, so I was surprised to see not only you reporting on his contradictory paragraph, but my edit wasn't even in the article history. I tried again, again using Twinkle and found that my edit still wasn't registering. Finally I tried a manual revert and found that the edit was being blocked by the spam filter. I guess Twinkle doesn't handle that situation. The removed paragraph I was trying to reinstate contained a reference to andrewprokos.com, which is in the spam blacklist. Perhaps this is what Hu12 was trying to fix. Perhaps he should have included an actual explanation for his edit, rather than copying his new text into the edit summary. Anyway, I've reverted his edit by replacing the offending reference with a {{cn}}. --Imroy (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)