Advice for new guy, RC or Fiber

[polyglot]

Yeah, you need to calibrate the basic sensitivity of your papers. I've found though that contrast is a pretty good match and of course dodges/burns are identical in effect when expressed as stops.

I've thought of testing out a suit press, one of the things that looks like a double-sided heated ironing board as used by professional laundries. However I suspect that they don't get hot enough.

I suspect the answer will be a couple of big metal (Al?) plates, a bunch of heatsink-compatible power resistors and a PID controller.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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 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...

this certainly works as long as both papers are calibrated toISO speed and contrast.

 

[Dr Croubie]

this certainly works as long as both papers are calibrated toISO speed and contrast.

Yeah, that was my mistake, I just thought that being both Ilford MG they'd be the same speed. The RC was 'MG IV RC Deluxe' (pearl I think) and the FB I think was 'MG FB Classic' (matte). Only after it came out darker did I RTFM and it had something about 'this FB paper is faster' on it.

Is it safe to presume 'MG IV RC Deluxe' and 'MG IV FB Fiber' would be the same speed instead? (although according to the Ilford website the 'FB Classic' has replaced the 'FB Fiber', so maybe that's a moot question).

 

[Steve Smith]

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

It certainly is. The Ilford semi-matt (whatever they call it) is my favourite. I prefer it to fibre (especially when it comes to paying for it!).

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

Why should this be the case if the emulsion is the same? I have heard this comment before but never understood it.


Steve.

 

[DanielStone]

I would START(as in get "back in gear/up to speed") with RC. Probably a few months of getting back into the hang of things.
But definitely give fiber a try.

KEEP GOOD NOTES(that is, if you intend to have repeatable results, especially if dodging/burning!)

You'll need to test your papers out so you know what a "base" exposure is, approximately. Of course, different films have different densities, so each film/paper combo will be slightly different(potentially).

HAVE FUN!

-Dan

 

[baachitraka]

Try to get 10 or 25 sheets of FB and RC. First print with RC and do the same with FB.

FB may need longer washing times and may need to put under heavy books to bring it flat.

 

[polyglot]

Why should this be the case if the emulsion is the same? I have heard this comment before but never understood it.

I don't know either. It would seem though that the emulsion isn't quite the same, the speeds differ at least within the MGIV line.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Thank you everyone, I tend to find films and papers, processes etc that i like and then I stick with them. It sounds like RC has come a long way since i was last in the Darkroom. That is where I will start and then experiment with Fiber as I become more comfortable. Someone asked me why i am I interested in fiber. Well i really like the surface and the tonality always caught my eye.

 

[RPC]

Someone asked me why i am I interested in fiber. Well i really like the surface and the tonality always caught my eye.

I used MGIV RC Glossy for a long time then tried the MGIV FB Glossy. The FB just looks cleaner to me and with more sparkle and not too glossy and not too flat. I have switched to it for my serious work.

 

[removed account4]

ilford portfolio rc paper is something to behold
i'd print on that, and who knows, if don't seal the
images under glass, they say RC will outlive fb ...

 

[timor]

Start with RC, but first of all start with own film development, otherwise the best print paper won't help.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I do my own film if i only have a couple rolls but honestly a good Lab can do anything i can do and they have a dip and dunk tank. So if i have ten or twenty rolls of film to process i send them off.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

RC papers have improved so much that I would not hesitate to use them. However, some galleries or collectors refuse to accept such prints.

 

[Dr Croubie]

RC papers have improved so much that I would not hesitate to use them. However, some galleries or collectors refuse to accept such prints.

Some people refuse to use AF, some refuse to use TTL metering, some refuse to use Digital (I suppose there's a few of them around here). I think it's the Library of Congress (or some other important repository) that only started accepting any 35mm-digital files for submission a few short years ago (not sure, but I think the Leica M9 was one of the first), before that it was only MF digital or film.
Let people accept what they want, most of the time it's easier to find new customers than to win over hard-headed ones...

 

[madgardener]

Starting out, use RC, it's got a lot less of a learning curve and is cheaper. In fact I would even suggest getting 25 sheets or so of the absolutely cheapest stuff you can find and use that until "it all comes back" and then get some good stuff. FB is really nice, but for someone just starting out/restarting after a long absence, FB has an expensive learning curve.

 

[timor]

"Absolutely cheapest stuff" should be in the closet of every one. Even hard core FB guys. I am always on the outlook for really old, fogging paper, usually for free. Helps to set up the print, especially when comes to detecting dust and such. This way I avoid wasting of a good stuff.

 

[fotch]

RC = Right Choice

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Also beginner ( not one year yet in DR).
RC is the only option to me for now. FB costs almost twice at the store. Tap water is very expensive here, in Ontario, even if we have a lot of it in the nature.
Glossy RC seems to be worst in terms of how cheap results looks like. But satin and matte are OK. IMO.

 

[piu58]

> I do all my work prints on RC ... in order to get the print as good as it can be. Once the print is all sorted I may then consider making an FB copy.

That's the way I do it. For getting an "exposure plan" I uses RC. If the print is good enough I make a larger one on FB.

 

[miha]

I'm considering switching to RC completely. This will unfortunately rule out Foma papers but there are many great RC papers from Harman and Adox that I need to explore.

 

[RPC]

OP, since you have had darkroom experience before, and plan to use fiber eventually, you probably don't want to buy a big box of RC to practice with. Start with a small box and then if it all comes back to you quickly, and you switch to fiber, you won't have a big box of RC you don't want to use. That's what happened to me. On the other hand if you find RC suits you you can always buy more. But I think you will find fiber has the better look.

 

[Maris]

I started with RC as a beginner just to learnt the ropes but I very soon went over to FB. Now I use FB exclusively because RC slows me up too much.

Both kinds of paper process to a fixed image in the same time but then what? The RC has to be washed individually, say 4 minutes, and put somewhere to dry. Then it's on to the next sheet.
The FB paper doesn't get washed individually. The sheets go into a big water-bath and stay there until the last one of the day's production goes in too. This could involve a wet time of 5 or 6 hours for the first sheet which doesn't hurt FB but does hurt RC. The FB batch goes into an archival washer which is controlled by a timer and works unsupervised. At the end of the cycle the washer is unloaded and the photographs are laid out on screens to dry. If I make a batch of 50 8x10s in a day's work I'm out of the darkroom nearly 2 hours earlier using FB over RC.

FB doesn't have to be expensive. An advertiser here, Photo Warehouse, offers variable contrast FB 8x10 sheets for 70 cents each!

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Thank you ,

I wont be making more than a few prints at a time. I have about 10 prints from my Vietnam trip i want to make and the about 10 more of various other shoots. I do shoot all the time pretty much on a daily basis but i am really picky what i print out. What i want is to get to the point that i can make some truly beautiful very high quality prints. I already know that i prefer the look and feel of Fiber so that is where i will end up for sure. However i also know that i have much to learn and i don't want to spend a bunch of money in fiber that will just end up on the trash.

Funny enough the first print i ever made was on Fiber. About 1978 or so when i was a young teen. My new step dad gave me and old Kodak Brownie camera and some old film he had .He set up his Enlarger in my bathroom told me how to develop my film and how to make a print. Him and mom went to the store and by the time he got back i had already shot the film processed it and had my first ever print under running water in the bathroom sink. It suprised the hell out of him that i got a print just from his one description how to do it. I know it sounds cliche but the magic of seeing my first print hooked me forever.

 

[cliveh]

I started with RC as a beginner just to learnt the ropes but I very soon went over to FB. Now I use FB exclusively because RC slows me up too much.

Both kinds of paper process to a fixed image in the same time but then what? The RC has to be washed individually, say 4 minutes, and put somewhere to dry. Then it's on to the next sheet.
The FB paper doesn't get washed individually. The sheets go into a big water-bath and stay there until the last one of the day's production goes in too. This could involve a wet time of 5 or 6 hours for the first sheet which doesn't hurt FB but does hurt RC. The FB batch goes into an archival washer which is controlled by a timer and works unsupervised. At the end of the cycle the washer is unloaded and the photographs are laid out on screens to dry. If I make a batch of 50 8x10s in a day's work I'm out of the darkroom nearly 2 hours earlier using FB over RC.

FB doesn't have to be expensive. An advertiser here, Photo Warehouse, offers variable contrast FB 8x10 sheets for 70 cents each!

Maris, you could probably wash RC for 6 hours in the same way you wash FB without any adverse effects, should you so wish.

 

[Maris]

RC paper can have problems with extended wet times. Back in the 1980s I encountered brightener wash-out and edge penetration leading to slight delamination. The bad edges could be trimmed off but the brightener was gone for ever. Maybe the latest RC papers are better but I haven't used any this century.