A Switch to RC Paper - a relevation

Dave, no heresy
I like RC because it is convenient and becasue of the pearl or semi-matt finishes
I read somewhere that longevity is not an issue anymore, it was sometime in the 70s that the base was not properly done... but the learning curve was quick and in the late 80s it was good already.

Agfa MCP was a very interesting paper, nice to work with and in my opinion better than Ilford but always underrated
I used many boxes of it, and when it dissapearead I was very sad.

I emailed Oriental, they rate their RC 30 to 50 years fiber 140 +.

Well, it's probably just because of some processing snafu of mine back in the mid-1990's, but I have a paper negative (one of my nicer pinhole images, BTW), shot in 8"x8" format onto Ilford MG-RC-III, that now has a kind of 'grunge' happening inside the paper (or perhaps between the emulsion and the paper?) A surface scan looks normal; however, when trying to contact print this negative the outer portion of the printed image prints lighter, due to the increased density internal to the negative. The 'grunge' is most evident near the edge, and fades in toward the middle of the negative. You can easily see the problem when viewing the image back-lit.

I can't easily blame anything or anyone but myself; perhaps I didn't rinse adequately - or rinsed too long, which is also a problem with RC, as after leaching of liquid into the paper it's harder to remove than with fiber based. But after seeing this happening to some of my favorite images, it really has me concerned that perhaps my paper negative work should be transfered over to fiber-based negatives.

~Joe

I have been using Ilford MG IV RC Deluxe and do plan a shift to fiber. But, RC Deluxe has a very nice tonal range and I have been very happy with it. And, I tone all my RC prints in selenium 1:10; it does accept a tone that is very perceptable and gives the right print a very nice visual "pop". But I'm sure it will not tone as deeply fiber; however, selenium does, according to Steve Anchel's book "The Variable Contrast Pinting Manual", provide long term archival qualities to an RC print.

~Chuck

Steve Smith said:

What are the reasons for these claims?

Film is an emulsion coated onto a plastic base and it lasts a lot longer than that.


Steve.

Click to expand...

There was a long and thorough article by Ctein in PhotoTechniques a few years ago that articulated the limitations of RC print life. Notably, he cited 'silvering out' as a defect that could appear much sooner than expected in papers by several manufacturers. I can't cite the particulars adequately enough to add much more, but it's worth trying to find the article for the complete report.

I should add that all my photographic printing done in the first several years of my return to photography in the late 90's was done on RC paper,and every single print from that time is still in excellent condition despite a horrific range of storage conditions over the years since making the prints. However some of the prints made on RC from the early 80's have, indeed, suffered from some silvering out, although many have not.

I have two 5x7 RC prints in a trunk that holds odd darkroom stuff and the prints haven't changed a bit in about 30 years, they are Ilford RC prints. I don't use RC paper but they have lasted longer than I imagined.

Dave Miller said:

Come on Bob, now whose OD'ed on the wine. The plastic goes under the emulsion, difficult to develope otherwise

Click to expand...

You are not familiar with the pre-processing step I employ using cling-film and polyurethane varnish...

Oh, all right, I admit it: brain not in gear...

Still, the plastic look is what I meant of course - probably why I like satin: plastic not so obvious. Pity Ilford don't do Warmtone in satin.

Bob.

I had some RC prints on the wall (not under glass) for about 35 years before I moved recently. They stood up just as well as fiber. Ctein's observations and work that noted bronzing of the older RC prints when displayed under glass were a great service. Fortunately, the cause was discovered, and the problem seems to have been corrected.

Interesting ... the way I understand it, Ilford MGIV FB and RC share the same emulsion (I think the same is true for Agfa MCC and MCP). If the shadow / highlight separation is better for one paper than another, I would have thought it is more to do with the emulsion than the paper. Perhaps this is a wrong assumption!

Rob Archer said:

.... FB paper 'feels' quality and, to my mind gives better highlight and shadow separation.....

Rob

Click to expand...

titrisol said:

Dave, no heresy
I like RC because it is convenient and becasue of the pearl or semi-matt finishes
I read somewhere that longevity is not an issue anymore, it was sometime in the 70s that the base was not properly done... but the learning curve was quick and in the late 80s it was good already.

Agfa MCP was a very interesting paper, nice to work with and in my opinion better than Ilford but always underrated
I used many boxes of it, and when it dissapearead I was very sad.

Click to expand...

FYI - I bought 100 sheets of MCP from Photoco on Ebay. It arrived in a couple of days, and the box I received (judging by the more modern labels) is newer than the stuff I have (i.e. it should still be good). I haven't used it yet, but I suspect it is OK (I have been quite happy w/ Photoco in the past). There are two boxes left!

I use RC for all my prints unless the buyer specifically requests FB or I know that is their preference. All this BS back and forth is such a waste of time. Once you get RC behind glass the "plastic" look disappears in my experience. I've seen FB prints bronze as well. It almost always boils down to sloppy technique with todays papers. Just MHO.

tom_bw said:

Interesting ... the way I understand it, Ilford MGIV FB and RC share the same emulsion (I think the same is true for Agfa MCC and MCP). If the shadow / highlight separation is better for one paper than another, I would have thought it is more to do with the emulsion than the paper. Perhaps this is a wrong assumption!

Click to expand...

If the FB paper base is whiter than RC paper, that might account for the difference.

AFAIK it has (had) to do with the stuff they put in the paper to make it white: for fibre base its baryta (Bariumsulphate (?)), which is an inert compound. For RC paper they use(d) titaniumdioxide, which is a quite reactive compound by it self. Later additional compounds (scavengers) were added to counter the reactivity of TiO2

(correct me if I am wrong ,PE.... )

Best

dslater said:

If the FB paper base is whiter than RC paper, that might account for the difference.

Click to expand...

The last box I bought had a picture of 2 guys in black suits and a dog.

tom_bw said:

FYI - I bought 100 sheets of MCP from Photoco on Ebay. It arrived in a couple of days, and the box I received (judging by the more modern labels) is newer than the stuff I have (i.e. it should still be good). I haven't used it yet, but I suspect it is OK (I have been quite happy w/ Photoco in the past). There are two boxes left!

Click to expand...

Rob Archer said:

...If I put a picture into a competition or display at my local camera club I usually use RC and no-one there has picked me up on it yet. Perhaps that says more about my local CC than my choice of paper, though!Rob

Click to expand...

If your camera club is anything like the one I attend, your statement comes as no surprise. Works submitted for competition or critique are usually over-enlarged, over-sharpened, and over-saturated color prints originating from a digital camera. Interestingly, these works usually get a lot of attention and are considered by some to be "outstanding". To my eye, almost all of them suffer from either a lack of highlight and/or shadow detail, or from very flat lighting. Meanwhile, the very few of us working with film and in B&W, get little more than a passing glance and are occasionally dismissed as dinosaurs. (Hmmm. I've heard that said about mainframe computers and the people who administer them, but they're still around too.) With an audience like that, would you expect the differences between fiber based and resin coated papers to be noticed? I think not.

But getting back to the original topic, I like and use both resin coated and fiber based papers for my work. More often than not, resin coated papers are my first choice, simply because they are easier to work with and my darkroom time is very limited these days. These papers are also excellent proofing materials. They are less expensive to buy and process, and I can usually tell if an image will benefit by being printed on fiber based paper from the initial work prints made onto resin coated papers. Not many of my images make the cut; and, being the tightwad that I am, I feel better about not having wasted more than necessary. As for longevity, well, the jury is still out on that count. I have some resin coated prints that are more than 20 years old. I have some others that are substantially younger which are suffering badly from silvering out. I'm pretty sure that the bad ones are due more to my negligence than to poor materials.

if you call kodak, they will tell you rc prints will outlast fiber prints.

it doesn't matter to me one or the other. if something is printed and processed well
it will look on any paper, rc, fiber, hand coated ...
sounds like a to each their own sort of thing.

As a matter of interest, this exact theme on resin was the subject of a Reader's Workshop I did a few weeks ago for Black & White Magazine (UK), which I sometimes contribute to. I think it will be in the next issue, but if not, the one after that.
All the best
Mike

In an archival chamber, likely so, but RC prints use a plastic coating that is more prone to damage from UV and air contaminants than selenium toned FB prints. So far, it is an observable situation that is true for any RC materials I have used. Ten years on your wall will invariably demonstrate the difference. That is my experience so far. In ten more years I will be able to tell you about "todays" materials. I doubt they are much different. So this is anecdotal and not the sales brochure specification. Just what I have observed so far.

For me the choise is fiscal. RC is cheaper to buy costs me less to wash as I am on a water meter and the finishes give me the look I want, I think Ilfords satin finish is the equal of most of the FB papers I have used. RC dries flat in 5 min. and a print can be printed and mounted in half an hour.
I do use FB as the only short coming I find with RC is the lack of a truly matt finish.
As for longtivity, they will see me out and after I am gone who will care? FB might last 300 years and RC only 70 but if no one wants them they will end up in the land fill with all the other rubbish. It is an unnessisary ego trip to worry too much about the work we produce, it only has value if it is wanted.

Regards Paul.

It is not that I will me the next Ansel and my photos will need to last a hundred years. It is the passing on of a family legacy that involves materials that will be viable in 100 years. I have photos of my great grandfather from the late 1800s that look better than the photos my folks took of me as a kid. The color is shot and so is the rest of that paper is too. My mom and dad's wedding photo looks like it was taken yesterday. The materials I work with will allow me to create what is enduring, I am satisfied. 70 years is unacceptable for an important image of people and places that will be of interest to my great grand kids. Selling an image that goes on someones wall requires a material that has staying power in sunlight and smoke filled rooms. RC is convenient - It looks OK. To me the fiber looks like art and I can see the difference in aging on my walls. For longevity and looks, I choose FB properly fixed, toned and washed. Not for everything and not every day, but for those images that will hang for a while or those images that mark something of generational interest, it is my gift to my great grandkids to produce something that will give them a heritage.

Better to have your prints on any silver paper, fibre or RC, than floating in space as digital bits and bytes.

intangible and vulnerable those bits are

PHOTOTONE said:

Better to have your prints on any silver paper, fibre or RC, than floating in space as digital bits and bytes.

Click to expand...

Dear All,

Fhovie : here, here:

I think many of us underestimate the social history inherent in the photograph we create :

I have always believed that all photography is incredibly important...it may just be a picture, technically it may not be the best, but it tells a story and stays important to the person who took it and who or what it portrays and to a moment in time that can never be again.

I know our marketing director on occasions has referred to the advent of digital capture as the death of the shoebox in the cupboard..in other words, and in many cases the on-going story of a family...I guess we all have those boxes, and I guess some of those images are the most precious things you own, mono, colour, RC, fibre does it really matter ?

Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

If we're speaking purely in terms of image qualitative aspects, I tend to find that RC has better whites, while FB has better blacks. I always find that my FC print lack "meat" but I have to be very careful with FB not to let the whites go dull.

I usually push the sale of FB prints over RC for the extra quality in appearance and the fetishist delight in the object.

Simon's reply is spot on but the discussion on social photgraphy is a whole new thread

I usually proof on RC and if the image deserves it then I print on FB. However this weekend I was battling with a neg that had a very white sky. As much as I tried it wouldn't burn in sufficiently on RC and flashing the paper muddied the other tones just a little too much. I then printed it on FB (Ilford WT and Forte Polygrade) and managed to get a very nice burnt in tone in the areas that I couldn't with RC.

In terms of aesthetics a lot of punters, e.g. non photographers, prefer the look of my 5x7 glossy RC contact prints. Go figure:confused: