A few years ago....
...an APUGer or maybe photo.net person did some FB and RC prints as a teaching excercise with his daughter. They were indeed surprised to find out that they, and others, liked the RC better. I think it was Agfa, no idea of surface.
I composed a response but never posted it. Here is what I wrote.
I "love" this RC v. FB debate. That's cynical, if you didn’t catch that. There is so much subjectivity and snobbism stated as facts on this much debated topic. Bad science. Tradition and what the museums want (FB) is not a good objective guideline. Call me a contrarian to “everyone knows” “facts.” (And I’ve done well with stocks because of that!)
1. The RC products of the 1970's and 1980's are NOT the products of today. Is your car? Yes, there was a learning curve to make a better product. Don't forget, Kodak's own advice on toning for permanence after many years was found to be wrong. We learn as we go along.
2. As to the feel of the different media, well, yessssss. Silly me, I thought photographs were to look at, not fondle.
3. If RC is so bad, apparently no museum will buy a new color print. Maybe there is FB color paper out there and I don't know about it. Dye transfer is dead. Everything color now is RC, I think.
4. Photographers are notorious, at least by my observation, of having a high rate of asthma. That's my conclusion after hearing so much "sniffing", an air of knowing everything with great superiority, infected by mentors and distrust of the new. FB costs more, takes more time to process, uses much more water, and is an older technology. Therefore, superior? Bad science.
5. The Emulsion Elites sometimes STILL lay claim to that old saw about the "polyethylene coating over the emulsion." I refuse to spend one more second responding to technological idiots like this.
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.)
7. All this *sniff* highlight shadow midrange detail perceived differences...come on, 1 more or fewer seconds of enlarger exposure can account for that, or the freshness of the developer or or or.....if it is really there at all. The number of variables in the total process is mind boggling. To think you have all of them under perfect control, except for the paper type, is arrogant. And just like FB to FB emulsion differences, that’s probably all you are seeing, an emulsion difference with no bearing about the substrate. Our eyes are not great objective judges. And when you know which paper is which in a test, forget it. That’s why they run double blind tests for pharms, you know.
8. (Deleted.)
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?
10. The only way to tell of a visual superiority of a paper is by a, ahem, blind test. That's what started this whole discussion. By blind test people liked the RC better. And there can still be preferences; those individuals that like shiny objects might be drawn to the highest gloss papers, I wouldn't be. No more of this "deeper blacks" (hey, it's all Dmax 2.20 or something), "more soulful", "a luminosity that RC can't match", what *sniff* BS. (Rough paraphrases of things I've read.) With my 1980 Kodak Darkroom Guide open to 9 different paper surfaces, with an angle set for no glare, the samples all look exactly the same! Same thing is true for RC v FB, many factors other than the type can create a perceptual shift.
11. Notice the reports earlier in the thread of forum members with RC prints in the sun for many years. Yet others just dismiss that because they have a print that was either obviously mis-processed or of the earliest days of RC. Experience trumps conjecture! Always.
12. I just went and checked an album, pictures under plastic, from 1981. These were mostly 110 snapshots processed at the local grocery stores. Some prints have color faded a lot, some haven't at all (no brand markings on the back) but NONE have any other degradation.
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?
14. Side by side vs. Solo. All kinds of perceptions and conclusions may be had when two prints (or women, or colors, or surfaces....) are compared A to B. I’ve yet to see a gallery exhibit where one print was labeled “Printed on Kodabromide” and a companion print labeled “Printed on Kodak Polycontrast.” Without a reference, your mind wanders and reaches conclusions that may or may not be accurate. Every print stands alone!
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.
Don’t mix up subjectivity and mythology and call it objective or science.
