An Argument for RC Paper...

Edwardv · Jun 7, 2008

RC prints for others. Fiber prints for me

brian steinberger · Jun 7, 2008

jnanian said:
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

John,

You need to use a mat between the print and glass. RC papers, especially glossy are notorious for sticking to glass. If you want to be inexpensive, go up to the next size frame (ex. 8x10 up 11x14) and get a framer to cut you a mat to the outside size of the frame with a window to match your image.

I have seen fiber papers silver out, but they were very very old prints, and who knows how well processed they were. But I have never seen modern FB papers do so, unless again of course they were sloppily processed.

Paul. · Jun 7, 2008

I use both RC and FB papers, lots more RC because it is half the price of FB so I get twice as much fun for my money.

I use the paper that will give me the print I want, sometimes one sometimes the other. As I will likely be dead and buried before either of the materials fade I care not. If someone feels strongly enough the negs are there so they can reprint and see how long their print lasts.

Regards Paul.

strangepics · Jun 7, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
This is a complex picture.

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

Thanks for the info, appreciate in.

removed account4 · Jun 7, 2008

brian steinberger said:
John,

You need to use a mat between the print and glass. RC papers, especially glossy are notorious for sticking to glass. If you want to be inexpensive, go up to the next size frame (ex. 8x10 up 11x14) and get a framer to cut you a mat to the outside size of the frame with a window to match your image.

I have seen fiber papers silver out, but they were very very old prints, and who knows how well processed they were. But I have never seen modern FB papers do so, unless again of course they were sloppily processed.

hi brian

yeah, hindsight is always 20/20
i know we should have put the prints in itty bitty windows

(thanks for reminding me) <g>
john

Paul Verizzo · Jun 9, 2008

What is "silvering out?"

I have old prints that have a gloss in some of the darkest places of the image. It's sort of - very sort of - a solarization look.

All the papers are FB, non-glossy, warmtone, WWII and before. Is that what you are referring to?

Thomas Bertilsson · Jun 9, 2008

But you see, to me that is important. I like to hold the print in my hands when I view them. Behind glass is good for display, but for myself, I don't really like looking at them that way.
You assume that everyone looks at photographs the same way you do.

- Thomas

strangepics said:
"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.

Vaughn · Jun 9, 2008

Thomas Bertilsson said:
But you see, to me that is important. I like to hold the print in my hands when I view them. Behind glass is good for display, but for myself, I don't really like looking at them that way.
You assume that everyone looks at photographs the same way you do.

- Thomas

I feel the same way, Thomas. I see myself as much as a print-maker as I do as an image-maker. The print as an object is just as important as the image on it. This is one of the reasons I work primarily with carbon printing and Platinum printing.

But this is just how I look at my own work...and I can see how someone else who is more image-orientated than print-orientated could be pleased with a RC print, an ink jet print, or even an image on a computer screen as the final product of their photography.

Vaughn

Dave Miller · Jun 9, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
I have old prints that have a gloss in some of the darkest places of the image. It's sort of - very sort of - a solarization look.

All the papers are FB, non-glossy, warmtone, WWII and before. Is that what you are referring to?

Yes Paul, that's what I understand by "silvering".

panastasia · Jun 9, 2008

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

I don't have a story to tell but I'm one that switched to FB, exclusively, after using both types of paper for years. My reason was this: finding some of my RC prints with cracks in the surface and others severely curled after about 15 years was a horror, especially when they were important prints. I flatten my FB prints with a hot press and after 45 years they still look the same, and they remained flat, no curling corners.

I'm only an expert on my own opinion. I believe FB is stable material and RC is not.

Photo Engineer · Jun 9, 2008

I have samples of both FB and RC from nearly 40 years ago that are perfectly flat. I have some FB prints that have cracks in them thoough, but no cracks in RC prints.

PE

Paul Verizzo · Jun 9, 2008

Dave Miller said:
Yes Paul, that's what I understand by "silvering".

Thanks. What causes this? Notice that the subject papers in which it's happened are all non-glossy and warm tone. I guess that's logical because the area IS glossy and such wouldn't show in a glossy print.

Rolleijoe · Jun 16, 2008

brian steinberger said:
I've been printing with RC papers a lot lately and I really enjoy using them. The ease of use and quick washing makes them very favorable. I'm using Ilford's pearl paper which is a beautiful surface, not plasticy like the glossy surface.

I know the argument from others about fiber base papers permanence, but properly processed RC prints have to last much longer than this ink-jet garbage that is being produced now, right?

I have produced some gorgeous prints on RC paper. I love Ilford's warmtone RC pearl paper. It selenium and sepia tones beautifully. I am not printing for museums or galleries. I would like my work to last, but not necessarily for centuries.

How many others are printing on RC and creating beautiful work and how is it being accepted by other photographers?

BTW.. I do print my absolute best work on fiber base paper. I have plenty of experience with FB paper.

I was Agfa MCC, then went with Varycon Fiber (wonderful paper), but now an doing more printing on Fomatone WA RC MG. In LPD it's fantastic. I highly recommend giving it a try. I'm using the "velvet" surface.

Next will be the Fomatone 542 chamois to try. It's fiber, but with another look that might come in handy.

srs5694 · Jun 16, 2008

jnanian said:
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"

FWIW, I've only been doing my own B&W printing for about four years now, mostly on RC paper. I haven't yet delved into "serious" framing -- I just slap the prints into cheap frames and figure if they go bad I can make more prints. Over the past year or so I've had several prints silver out. Every one of them has been printed on Foma's VC RC glossy paper. Prints made on Agfa VC RC glossy paper, which has been my mainstay until my supply ran out, have been fine (so far -- knock on wood). In fact, I believe that every one of my Foma prints that I've framed and hung has now silvered out, with the exception of one very recent one (about six months old). I therefore strongly suspect that Foma's paper is more prone to silvering out than Agfa's (and presumably other top brands, such as Ilford).

I've heard that Kodak Brown toner can help minimize the risk of silvering out. Any comments on this? I have yet to do any toning, but it's about time I start experimenting with this aspect of photography....

Rolleijoe · Jun 16, 2008

srs5694 said:
FWIW, I've only been doing my own B&W printing for about four years now, mostly on RC paper. I haven't yet delved into "serious" framing -- I just slap the prints into cheap frames and figure if they go bad I can make more prints. Over the past year or so I've had several prints silver out. Every one of them has been printed on Foma's VC RC glossy paper. Prints made on Agfa VC RC glossy paper, which has been my mainstay until my supply ran out, have been fine (so far -- knock on wood). In fact, I believe that every one of my Foma prints that I've framed and hung has now silvered out, with the exception of one very recent one (about six months old). I therefore strongly suspect that Foma's paper is more prone to silvering out than Agfa's (and presumably other top brands, such as Ilford).

I've heard that Kodak Brown toner can help minimize the risk of silvering out. Any comments on this? I have yet to do any toning, but it's about time I start experimenting with this aspect of photography....

Try the Fomatone papers, (I use velvet surface). Pics always matted, and there's never a problem. Even prints I made 2 years ago on Foma (something something III VC RC) have been fine (these are 16x20s).

Try the other (fomatone), and see the difference for yourself.

Dave Miller · Jun 17, 2008

Paul Verizzo said:
Thanks. What causes this? Notice that the subject papers in which it's happened are all non-glossy and warm tone. I guess that's logical because the area IS glossy and such wouldn't show in a glossy print.

I've no idea what the cause is, it's not something that has ever been a problem to me. Perhaps others with direct knowledge will provide the answer.

Lee Shively · Jun 19, 2008

I've been using FB papers exclusively for the past several years but I think I'll use RC when I get around to mixing new chemicals and printing the pile of negatives that have been accumulating for months. RC papers have come a long way. The current papers inherited an undeserved bad reputation because of their truly wretched predecessors. Today's RC papers look great to me and the shortened processing time, fast drying time and flat final prints make RC very appealing. While the archival argument is probably valid, the fact remains that most of our prints will eventually end up in a landfill anyway.

jfish · Jun 19, 2008

"...and there is a lot of evidence that they are not too different archivally than FB, despite their bad press when they originated."

Actually this isn't correct, at least if you plan on framing or storing it in and type of enclosed situation. I don't have the article, month or even year of the article, but Ctein has tested and researched extensively on the subject and his article on the subject was in View Camera back in the mid to late 80's...and RC paper hasn't changed that much since then. The paper degraded quite a bit when framed and behind either glass or plexi, although I think one slightly less than the other. Granted as one poster said, most prints will end up in the round file, if you ae serious about the longevity of your images on paper, FB is your best choice.

Photo Engineer · Jun 19, 2008

Jfish;

I have mentioned the Ctein article before here. Your "quote" of his reference is not accurate. The paper was not a problem, it was the wash conditions. The bottom line is that you can overwash both FB and RC papers. Please review it again and repost.

PE

pentaxuser · Jun 19, 2008

There appears to have been a point or probably more accurately a period in time when great improvements were made in RC paper. Almost everyone agrees on this whether they believe that FB is still superior or not.

It would be interesting to hear from those involved when and what the improvements were. I also wonder if it is true that no further improvements have been made since the mid to late 80s.

Clearly Ilford, Kentmere and Kodak amongst others would have details of changes made to RC and what the benefits were and more importantly the dates of those changes.

I'd be interested in a potted history of the chronology of such changes. More facts = less room for genuinely held but potentially wrong beliefs

pentaxuser

Paul Verizzo · Jun 20, 2008

Here's some good info

While searching for some of Ctein's work, I came across a pretty good thread here: Dead Link Removed

Explores experiences with "silvering out" and it appearances on both RC and FB, both in light and darkness, though less so. All of the silvered out images I have from the 1930's-1940's are on warm tone papers, I'm pretty sure.

Frankly, despite reading a hundred thousand words on titanium dioxide in RC papers, I still at a loss to know if the T2O is in the emulsion, the PE coating, or the paper. If in the paper, how in the world would it effect the emulsion with a PE barrier in between?

Isn't it ironic that RC papers might have problems with silver based images, but none with dye (i.e., color)?

Photo Engineer · Jun 20, 2008

TiO2 is NOT in the emulsion layer.

PE

Paul Verizzo · Jun 20, 2008

Photo Engineer said:
TiO2 is NOT in the emulsion layer.

PE

I've always presumed, but I didn't want to be totally presumptous. So, one down and two to go.

papermaker · Jun 22, 2008

As PE stated, TiO2 is Not in the emulsion layer. TiO2 is in the RC layer and may or may not be in the raw paper base. The function for TiO2 in the RC is to provide a reflective surface to improve sharpness. TiO2 may serve several functions in the raw base such as whiteness or opacity. There is an implication in another post that it is not understood how TiO2 in the raw base could influence the emulsion with the RC layer in place between them. Speaking only for Kodak papers, the TiO2 in the raw base was not there to influence the emulsion layer (either in B&W or color papers). However, other functional chemisty can be placed in the raw base which will influence both RC and emulsion properties. One such case is the use of an antioxidant placed in the raw base which migrates into the RC layer to improve stability. There is a detailed description of this in the following paper: To RC or Not to RC, Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring 1979.

Paul Verizzo · Jun 23, 2008

Informative, thanks.

papermaker said:
As PE stated, TiO2 is Not in the emulsion layer. TiO2 is in the RC layer and may or may not be in the raw paper base. The function for TiO2 in the RC is to provide a reflective surface to improve sharpness. TiO2 may serve several functions in the raw base such as whiteness or opacity. There is an implication in another post that it is not understood how TiO2 in the raw base could influence the emulsion with the RC layer in place between them. Speaking only for Kodak papers, the TiO2 in the raw base was not there to influence the emulsion layer (either in B&W or color papers). However, other functional chemisty can be placed in the raw base which will influence both RC and emulsion properties. One such case is the use of an antioxidant placed in the raw base which migrates into the RC layer to improve stability. There is a detailed description of this in the following paper: To RC or Not to RC, Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, Spring 1979.

I presume by "raw base" you are referring to the actual paper inbetween the RC layers? Paper can be bleached pretty darned white all by itself, and/or fluorescents can be added. Just look at inkjet papers, they can make papers that appear whiter than white!

An Argument for RC Paper...

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency