An Argument for RC Paper...

WarEaglemtn said:

"nothing produces black like RC gloss."

Try a ferrotyped glossy fibre print. Looks great also.

Washing fibre papers does not have to be an exercise in running water for so long. Use hypo clear along with soak and dump methods and you can get by with minimal water use. David Vestal had some nice test results some time back using this method and it is still valid.

No fine printer around uses RC paper. Too many have tried it and gotten bit when unforseen problems started to show up.

RC is fine for quick work, news and comercial work and anything you don't really care about. Yes, it can make some beautiful prints with tremendous range from white to black. But what is gained by printing on materials that are not the best around?

Click to expand...

I suppose the thread is "an argument for RC". But in light of that I agree with everything you have said. I have used RC for everything under the sun, because it was an affordable paper. But now I can afford the finer product. It's worth the extra labor and the added cost to work with the paper that gives the finest results.

Mark Layne said:

How about a Vauxhall 10 and a Morris 8. Maybe that's why I think RC has the appeal of a plastic wine bottle with a rubber cork.
Mark

Click to expand...

Fine vehicles though they were in their day (and I still wouldn't mind either!) things have moved on a bit since then in the fields of both cars and photography.

Steve

DannL said:

I suppose the thread is "an argument for RC". But in light of that I agree with everything you have said. I have used RC for everything under the sun, because it was an affordable paper. But now I can afford the finer product. It's worth the extra labor and the added cost to work with the paper that gives the finest results.

Click to expand...

But does it?

Tradition and mythology say so, but does FB give the "finest" results? By what criteria? I'm not saying you may not be correct, but how is it the finest?

Paul Verizzo said:

But does it?

Tradition and mythology say so, but does FB give the "finest" results? By what criteria? I'm not saying you may not be correct, but how is it the finest?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, yes. The definition for the word "fine" equates to how I feel about the results . . . delicate, subtle, or sensitive in quality, perception, or discrimination. The cost and labor justifies the result. You can't make a silk purse from a bolt of polyester.

DannL said:

In my opinion, yes. The definition for the word "fine" equates to how I feel about the results . . . delicate, subtle, or sensitive in quality, perception, or discrimination. The cost and labor justifies the result. You can't make a silk purse from a bolt of polyester.

Click to expand...

As long as you know which medium you are looking at, and you have a preference, you will find FB superior.

But all the words in the world don't change the fact that in many cases it's the exact same emulsion only with different undercoat, PE or barium sulfate. Neither are pure, often having other chemicals added, usually for whiteness. There is no difference in the response to exposure except as a human eye and brain chooses to see it. It's the same curve, it's the same Dmax.

I realized a few minutes ago that museums didn't take ANY photographs a hundred years ago. They were certainly right in not taking RC paper photographs 30-40 years ago. RC was uncharted territory. Just as baryta once was. Before that it was glass or tin.

Use what you want because you like it, by all means. But don't lay mythical qualities onto what is undistinguishable in blind tests.

With a slight change to the addage, "Man is a rationalizing being."

Even me.

Well, darn. If the papers are the same, there's no need for a discussion .

pentaxuser said:

...we had atleast one APUGer suggesting that 60 mins of running water was about right - at a gallon a minute...

Click to expand...

My Summitek Cascade washer can handle 32 8x10s and requires a 250ml/min. flow rate. That's less than three standard US 1.6 gallon toilet flushes per hour. I do consider 60 minutes about right for double-weight paper with the local tap water's alkalinity. That can be shortened with a wash aid, but there's so little water involved I don't bother.

Chazzy said:

Would anyone notice the difference between RC and fiber behind glass?...

Click to expand...

Easily if the prints were framed behind AR-coated, low-iron glass. Such glazing is practically invisible.

I have primarily printed on RC paper but I have done some FB. On one particular print, I loved the unquantifiable depth on the FB print that was not apparent on the RC print. Other than that, I avoid the need to stack old textbooks on my blotter by sticking to RC.

I don't get the "plastic" feel with RC 8x10. However, the handful of 11x14 RC prints I have done do give me the feel of having printed a placemat. Maybe it's just that 11x14 is the same size as the placemats for the kids. ;-)

I'm not an emulsion elite (I use both surfaces), but I have to comment.

Paul Verizzo said:

6. I agree that the longetivity of photographs is very important for family matters. I am blessed with thousands - all on fiber, of course (and not selenium toned) - going back to the 1880's. But let's face it. Every print coming out of one's darkroom is not a "keeper." In fact, probably 95% have no value beyond the emotional one of the photographer. The world and our future generations are, for the most part, not waiting with bated breath for your latest. (Nor mine, I most humbly concur.)

Click to expand...

If you're going to be pedantic, I'm going to be pedantic. "Every print...is not a 'keeper'" does not mean the same as "Not every print... is a 'keeper'". Some of my prints are keepers. I don't always know when I make them which ones will be. If I print all of my prints well, they will last if it's important that they last. Unless the cost to make them is significantly higher, why wouldn't one err on the side of caution? Using this logic, one could choose to be sloppy on exposure on the grounds that there is a 95% chance (using your numbers) that accurate exposure won't matter anyway, since the image won't be a keeper.

Paul Verizzo said:

9. Polyethylene is one of the most stable, inert substances known to man. It will be in the landfills for thousands of years. If the PE barrier is well made, there is no reason that the emulsion should ever suffer effects of any low grade paper behind it. And do you really think that the FB paper companies selling to Ilford and Foma and everyone never have batch variations in quality, ISO 9001 not withstanding?

Click to expand...

*If*. Products can be and frequently are made defectively. What defects can be introduced into fibre-based papers that would cause degradation? Probably there are some, but they are much fewer.

Paul Verizzo said:

13. Kodak claims, for their latest papers, "Over 100 years in typical home display , Over 200 years in dark storage." Sounds pretty damned long term to me. Heck, my longest term dark storage is about 120 years only now. I ask, would The Great Yellow Father lie to you?

Click to expand...

No, but the Great Yellow Father has an economic incentive for us to buy its products. I understand that accelerated aging tests can be made that will give an idea as to the longevity of a paper, but the only way to know if a print on a certain paper will last 100 or 200 years is to make a bunch of prints and store them for 100 or 200 years. Niépce's prints from the 1830s still exist (at least a handful of them), giving evidence that, even with the horridly incomplete knowledge of the time, silver-based photographic images can be stable for centuries. The jury is still out on the longevity of RC papers. We know for a fact that some RC papers have been horribly unarchival. We know for a fact that today's RC papers do not closely resemble those papers. We do not know for certain that the changes made absolutely solve the problem. We strongly suspect that they do, but we cannot and will not know for a long time.

Paul Verizzo said:

Hey, I love the feel of fiber, too. I print “keepers” on FB, too. It just seems like the right thing to do, no doubt some deep, gene based compelling reason. It doesn’t mean that that is the superior thing to do.

Click to expand...

I think it can be argued that it's superior. There is nothing inherently wrong with superiority and inferiority. Fresh British Columbia wild salmon kicks the posterior of canned sockeye. The latter, however, is much more convenient, more readily available here far from the ocean, and much cheaper. It's vastly inferior but, for some applications, still adequate. I'll let the photographers of this site decide how inferior RC is to fibre for themselves, but if we are using the archival properties as our lens, there is reason to believe fibre is superior. For many images the tonality is superior (this is very easily tested). There is also a certain cachet incurred with using it, which has nothing to do with how desirable it is as a medium, but no doubt contributes to the debate. Once an image is framed, people can't tell if my images are RC or fibre (maybe some of you could, but usually not) so the cachet argument is rather moot, too.

I like the fact that RC glossy has much better dmax and contrast, I wish FB had the same characteristics. I also think that people are too hung up on "not-so-glossy" surface. I have a couple of glossy prints behind the glass. The glare is a problem of the glass. The only people who care about the surface are photographers and collectors. Other people that buy or you give gifts to don't care. Also if you work with color film and do optical prints, your only choice is RC. I've never heard any photographers who use color bitch about RC surface.

Archival characteristic is a different story. The FB and color papers are just going to last longer than B&W RC if properly processed.

I am an emotional observer, so a lot of it comes down to how a print 'feels' for me. I print on RC sometimes, but prefer fiber. I just like how it feels. I can't necessarily explain it.
My print washer is such that it takes the same amount of water to wash fourteen prints as it does to wash one. So I print a lot every time I'm in the dark, and that spreads out the amount of water per print used to a minimum. I do think of water as being a precious resource, and did a cost / benefit analysis, and I have to confess I was a bit selfish.
I just don't feel anything special when holding an RC print in my hands, no matter how beautiful it is.

- Thomas

strangepics said:

Archival characteristic is a different story. The FB and color papers are just going to last longer than B&W RC if properly processed.

Click to expand...

I don't think I have heard the argument that colour( I presume you refer to RA4 paper here) will last longer than B&W RC. What's the evidence for this?

Thanks

pentaxuser

Photo Jim

Your points are valid and well taken.

I understand things like accelerated aging perhaps not being the same as the real thing, etc.

I like your word "cache" for FB. Fits perfectly.

Thanks for your further thoughts.

I like the fact that RC glossy has much better dmax and contrast, I wish FB had the same characteristics. I also think that people are too hung up on "not-so-glossy" surface. I have a couple of glossy prints behind the glass. The glare is a problem of the glass if you frames with glass. The only people who care about the surface are photographers and collectors. Other people that buy or you give gifts to don't care. Also if you work with color film and do optical prints, your only choice is plastic paper, often glossy. I've never heard any photographers who use color bitch about plasticky surface.

Archival characteristic is a different story. The FB and color papers are just going to last longer than B&W RC if properly processed, which probably does not matter for most people. I have been told RC lasts at least 20 years without fading.

"I don't think I have heard the argument that colour( I presume you refer to RA4 paper here) will last longer than B&W RC."

Sorry about double posting. I forgot that I submitted the first post. The evidence is research. Much more research goes into making color paper last very long. Fuji swears their color paper will last a hundred years.

"I just don't feel anything special when holding an RC print in my hands, no matter how beautiful it is."

Sure FB might give you more touchy-feely satisfaction when you wash it, but isn't photography about images? I don't feel anything special with any paper. The bigger issue, I think, is archival time and retouching. FB is better for that. You aren't going to feel anything but glass once the print is behind glass, hanging on the wall. People don't go around feeling the paper pictures are printed on, they look at them.

I like the fact that RC glossy has much better dmax and contrast, I wish FB had the same characteristics.

Ferrotype a good fibre glossy paper and you will see how good it can look. One thing the fine fibre papers do not have that RC papers have are titanium dioxide whiteners... that will gradually die or leach out or disappear over time. No, I don't know, just what the scientific guys in the photo lab areas tell me.

Every time in the past we have had the makers tell us 'RC is as good as Fibre based paper' we have gotten bit. Name a few top printers who use RC paper. Now name some who 'used to use it' but no longer do. Take a really good look at the reasons for the change and then get back to us.

It has nothing to do with 'silver rich' or how it displays because many RC papers are beautiful to look it and display well. They handle more easily, use less wet time and are nice for a lot of printing, especially commercial work. RC does not do the job. That is the reason most do not use it. Having to reprint images when the clients come back to complain of various problems is a strong incentive to switch back to fibre papers. A few labs went out of business in the past rather than have to reprint many images on fibre. The RC prints did not hold up for watever reason.

So start checking with the guys and gals who have used RC and gone over to fibre and find out why. Both work but when your living is making the finest images possible you want what works, not what is 'promised' by the current iteration of marketing types.

WarEaglemtn said:

Every time in the past we have had the makers tell us 'RC is as good as Fibre based paper' we have gotten bit. Name a few top printers who use RC paper. Now name some who 'used to use it' but no longer do. Take a really good look at the reasons for the change and then get back to us.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree about arhival characteristics of RC. Even Ilford recommends FB over RC for longer archival time.

This also brings up the question about archival characteristics of FB. How sure are we that the particular former SU block paper you buy from Freestyle or whoever has been made up to standards? Not contaminated to yellow and fade 20 years from now, etc? Their film quality control, for instance, is far worse than Kodak, Ilford, or Fuji's. What about the paper? I have several packs of Fortepan 100 120 I bought from Freestyle that has pinholes

Remember that the best ingredients that are used to make RC so stable are patented by Kodak, Fuji and Ilford. Third tier companies cannot use the best of the best therefore unless by agreement with one of the big 3.

RC must be made to be stable, but FB is inherently stable.

PE

WarEaglemtn said:

I like the fact that RC glossy has much better dmax
and contrast, I wish FB had the same characteristics.

Click to expand...

I doubt that. It would depend upon which papers.
I've worked with a few of each variety and apart from
instrumental determinations, IMO, telling the one from
the other is not possible. Much better? Hardly

Of the three papers I'm now working with Emaks and
Kentmere Bromide when mat dried have a very high
sheen while the Slavich is a bit dull. The last a good
pic where high sheen is of no advantage. Dan

WarEaglemtn said:

So start checking with the guys and gals who have used RC and gone over to fibre and find out why.

Click to expand...

Very good idea. I'd like to hear stories from folks who have switched from RC exclusively to FB and why.

Photo Engineer said:

Remember that the best ingredients that are used to make RC so stable are patented by Kodak, Fuji and Ilford. Third tier companies cannot use the best of the best therefore unless by agreement with one of the big 3.
PE

Click to expand...

Are you saying that any FB, even from third tier manufacturers is pefectly stable?

Thanks.

One of the criteria that isn't being given enough weight in this discussion is the ability of the paper to withstand handling. RC paper is quite tough. If a photograph is to be mounted, using archival methods and materials, and framed thereafter, a FB paper may very well be preferred. If, instead, it is to be handed around and admired/criticized at the next family get-together/camera club meeting, then RC has some advantages.

RC is much more practical in my bathroom/darkroom. As I get back into more of my own printing, I'm able to get more out of it than I used to be able to.

It would be equally interesting to see the results, if some of the long time expert FB printers here spent some significant time perfecting thier use of RC. I expect that much of the difference between the results relates to the familiarity with the materials.

Or to put it another way, I expect that the difference is smaller than we think, if one is to exclude the role that familiarity with the FB material plays.

The ironic thing is that if we are speaking about sheer volume of printing, the arithmetic majority of the (B & W) prints I have done have been on FB paper, because it was cheaper!

(this undoubtably shows how old I am).

Matt

strangepics said:

Are you saying that any FB, even from third tier manufacturers is pefectly stable?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

This is a complex picture.

Most papers in Europe come from Schoeller, both FB and RC. Therefore they use the same paper stock and chemical ingredients. This paper is made to a manufacturers specification and formula. If Schoeller has the rights to the stabilzers then all of the papers would be good. If a company gets support outside of Schoeller, then all bets are off. IDK what they have in them.

FB paper is not perfectly stable, it is just that in its native state (no addenda) it is more stable than RC in its native state (no addenda). But, the means of making FB stable have been known for many years, whereas stabilization of RC papers is ongoing research. After all, FB has been around since the times of Egypt, literally, when you consider papyrus documents which are an early form of FB (cellulose or plant fibre) based papers.

RC has only been around for about 50 or so years.

So, unless a company gets the RC from a top notch supplier, then it is likely less stable than one from another source. FB varies too, but less so AFAIK, due to the fact that its manufacture is well established.

All things are relative.

PE

i like both fiber and rc paper

BUT

i have had trouble with rc paper
gluing itself to glass in a picture frame
( sorry cheap frame and no mat between glass and photo)
and other rc prints "silvering out"

do fiber based prints have these problems as well?
i have never seen a fiber print that is silvered out
and i have never had a problem with a fiber print
heating up and sticking itself to glass ...

maybe i have been lucky?

john