Advice for new guy, RC or Fiber

[Terry Breedlove]

So i have been shooting film again and sending it off for processing. Last sunday i bought a really nice Durst f60 for cheap because i want to start making my own prints. I haven't been in the dark room since 1997 and i am a little rusty. My question is should i start with the cheaper RC paper or should i jump straight to Fiber. That is where i will eventually be anyway. Your opinions would be much appreciated.

 

[ic-racer]

Start with RC

 

[Rick A]

RC is a great place to tune up your skills.

 

[Hatchetman]

RC until you get your "legs" back. cheap, easy, and fast.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

thank you guys that is what i was thinking. This confirms it for me.

 

[BradS]

Started with RC 35 years ago. Tried fiber once....never went back.

 

[cliveh]

May I ask why you want to use FB? What's wrong with RC?

 

[summicron1]

i use both -- rc for quick and prints that are just to show folks pictures. I print fb when I want crisper whites and blacks for display.

 

[Gimenosaiz]

I've just started ... with RC 2 ;-)

Regards

 

[cliveh]

Gloss will always give better blacks.

 

[snapguy]

my opine

RC paper is like digital -- quick and easy but boring. Fiber is the real deal.

 

[MattKing]

I've used a lot of both over the years.

I am using RC exclusively now (Ilford and Oriental, except for a box of Kodak postcard paper that I recently finished).

Modern RC is so much better than it used to be.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Hmmm, so I can see about 10 answers, and maybe 1 or 2 reasons: FB is crisper and RC is cheaper.
Certainly RC doesn't kill your water bill, and it dries flat on its own.

Anyone have more detail to expand on why or when to use one or the other?

 

[snapguy]

q and d

RC is great for "quick and dirty" prints when you are in a hurry. Cars are better now than when the 1955 Chevy or the 1968 Mustang came out. Did I mention the 1954 Austin-Healey 100?

 

[adelorenzo]

For me it comes down to one word: flattening. RC paper gives me a flat photographic print that actually feels like a photograph. Fiber paper comes out wavy and stiff and feels like a giant potato chip, no matter what technique I try to flatten it out.

So for all my everyday printing I've stopped using fiber and gone with RC. I really like the Ilford RC Portfolio which is double weight. I still have lots of fiber paper but no reason to use it.

 

[MattKing]

My best prints - the ones I spend a lot of time on - are all RC. Most of the people I know who print on fibre based paper put the same amount of time into their fibre prints, but rarely put the same amount of time into their RC prints (if they do any).

They might be surprised.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Start with RC.

Jeff

 

[Mark_S]

To me, a lot of what I like about a fine print is the texture of the print. A glossy fiber print has a surface with whites that jump out at you and blacks that you can fall into. The surface of the paper looks real - organic. For me, that is a lot of what I like about photography - the organic nature of it. RC is much easier to use, faster and less expensive, but for me, the result looks like a piece of plastic and it is harder for me to relate to the image.

Some people have mentioned how RC is easier to flatten, and this is true. A fiber print hates to stay flat. Any print that I am happy with gets dry mounted to mat board, and they remain flat like this. Prints that I am not happy with mostly go into the trash, and I suppose that I could fit more in there if they were more flat, but I can always just empty my trash can more often.

FWIW, I use fiber for most things. I use RC for contact sheets, and sometimes for postcards.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

So i have been shooting film again and sending it off for processing. Last sunday i bought a really nice Durst f60 for cheap because i want to start making my own prints. I haven't been in the dark room since 1997 and i am a little rusty. My question is should i start with the cheaper RC paper or should i jump straight to Fiber. That is where i will eventually be anyway. Your opinions would be much appreciated.

welcome back!printing FB is identical to RC but,RC is a bit easier and more forgiving in processing.neverthe less You'll likely will end up printing FB anyway.So, I'd start with FB.

 

[polyglot]

I do all my work prints on RC - dodge/burn experiments, etc, in order to get the print as good as it can be. Once the print is all sorted (exposures, contrast, manipulations), I may then consider making an FB copy. If you're making little prints to hand around, use RC. If you're making formal cards, then FB is what you want.

When we say "RC is faster", it's a huge difference. RC develops in 2/3 of the time (important when you're doing lots of test strips), doesn't have drydown issues, doesn't need 2-bath fixing, only needs 4 minutes of washing (vs 30+) and no HCA, it's dry in an hour or so (vs overnight or longer) and can be easily hinge-mounted whereas FB kind of needs to be drymounted or otherwise glued down. FB is a HUGE EFFING HASSLE in comparison to RC.

They both have longevity risks. I recently had some RC prints start bronzing after just 2 years (I should have used Sistan apparently), and FB prints are infamously easy to under-wash and then see them go yellow in a few years due to fixer retention.

FB papers often respond more-interestingly to toners but that's not universally true.

 

[MartinP]

To get yourself in the mood again, I'd suggest RC for all the reasons mentioned above. I'd also recommend that you choose a lustre or semi-matt (description depends on the vendor) surface for your 'nice' prints, as it is much more attractive than the high-gloss. That might mean all of the prints of course, if you buy one pack of paper - and if you do that, then make sure the size is big enough to contact print a roll of film, so 10x8" or 12x9 1/2". You can always chop those sheets in half but you can't practically stick smaller sheets together...

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Fiber paper comes out wavy and stiff and feels like a giant potato chip, no matter what technique I try to flatten it out...

Have you tried a dry mount press? Not mounting, just flattening in the hot press between a couple of mat board pieces, then cooling under a weight. I've not encountered any fiber-based paper that doesn't become completely flat after that sequence.

 

[Hatchetman]

I'm not very experienced with toners, but can RC be toned for aesthetic purposes?

 

[polyglot]

Have you tried a dry mount press? Not mounting, just flattening in the hot press between a couple of mat board pieces, then cooling under a weight. I've not encountered any fiber-based paper that doesn't become completely flat after that sequence.

Nice theory, but they're unobtainium in much of the world. I'd love to have a drymount press, but they just are not available here unless you want to spend well into 4 digits.

It's getting to the point that I may have to build one, or do some experiments with a clothes iron.

 

[Dr Croubie]

It's getting to the point that I may have to build one, or do some experiments with a clothes iron.

Actually, my mum has (no kidding), what she calls a 'linen press'. Basically a big heated roller with a clamp thing on for ironing sheets. Like the kind of thing you might find in an old-school hotel. Built into a cupboard, fold-down leg and all. Would have been the ultimate housewives' accessory in the late 60s when they built the house, don't think she ever used it much. I've been meaning to take some FB over to her place to see how flat I can get them (maybe with a slight overall curl, but better than the regular FB scalloped edges).

I do all my work prints on RC - dodge/burn experiments, etc, in order to get the print as good as it can be. Once the print is all sorted (exposures, contrast, manipulations), I may then consider making an FB copy.
When we say "RC is faster", it's a huge difference.

I made that mistake once, did a whole lot of tests on RC (MGiv), got it all looking perfect with split-grade and all, then did a final print on FB (also Ilford MG). Whoops! Seems the FB is a lot more sensitive than the RC, my carefully worked-out times didn't translate to FB and the whole thing was rather too dark...