Anyone use double weight RC paper?

[Arcturus]

Ilford offers a double weight RC paper that looks interesting. Does anyone have any experience with this paper? I've been getting good results with RC paper and am mulling over a switch to fiber paper but don't know if it's worth the extra cost and effort. Is double weight RC paper a viable alternative, or is there no substitute for fiber paper?

 

[miha]

Ilford Portfolio is my preferred RC paper, but it's even dearer that their FB paper. I have no experience with the new version of this paper which was released two years ago.

 

[MattKing]

The Ilford Postcard paper is on the double weight Portfolio stock. If you join in the APUG Postcard exchanges you will get to see how it holds up to the rigours of the postal system.

The heavier paper is nice to work with, and more durable if the prints are going to be handles a lot. Otherwise, the regular Ilford RC paper is of similar, very high quality.

 

[BMbikerider]

The double weight RC paper is almost the same price as FB paper so there is no competition really except it takes a lot less washing afterwards

 

[Arcturus]

That sounds good, I think I'll give it a try.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

if you intent to sell your prints,there is no substitude to FBpaper.has to do with perceived valueand your reputation as a printer.it's worth the extra money and effort.you cannot advertise 'archival'quality otherwise.

 

[Arcturus]

if you intent to sell your prints,there is no substitude to FBpaper.has to do with perceived valueand your reputation as a printer.it's worth the extra money and effort.you cannot advertise 'archival'quality otherwise.

I've thought about this and doing some research I found that most people don't know anything about paper and are more interested in the photo than the process. Even some people who claim to be photographers know pretty much nothing about paper. Only collectors will note things like paper type, and being an almost unknown I am well out of their area of interest. I think I will still switch to FB paper eventually, but I feel the extra effort will be lost on most.

 

[ROL]

Well, if you believe the proselytizing ad nauseum in this ponderous video, regarding the archival nature of platinum prints, I would say fiber gets you a lot closer to archival, whatever that is, than RC.

 

[eddie]

I think I will still switch to FB paper eventually, but I feel the extra effort will be lost on most.

It may be lost on most, but shouldn't be lost on you. The creation of the photo has to please you, and your requirements. If you're intent is to produce the finest image your eye/ability allows, fiber is the only choice. I don't see the use of fiber as "extra effort". I see the use of RC (with the exception of proof sheets) as a lack of proper effort, shortchanging the image's potential. If an image is worth printing, it's worth printing on fiber.

 

[Arcturus]

It may be lost on most, but shouldn't be lost on you. The creation of the photo has to please you, and your requirements. If you're intent is to produce the finest image your eye/ability allows, fiber is the only choice. I don't see the use of fiber as "extra effort". I see the use of RC (with the exception of proof sheets) as a lack of proper effort, shortchanging the image's potential. If an image is worth printing, it's worth printing on fiber.

Is there a difference in the actual image? I've never used FB paper before, but I thought the main differences were in how they felt. If the image quality is better I will be switching as soon as I can. My prints are all framed though, I feel it's important to the presentation. So if no one can tell the difference without holding it in their hands would it still be worthwhile to use FB paper?

 

[eddie]

I think there is, although it's less noticeable under glass. There is a difference in print longevity, though. The extra time in producing a fiber print will ensure that it lasts. In the grand scheme of things, the extra effort involved in making fiber prints isn't that much, when considering the print's lifespan. For me, the few minutes saved, using RC paper, isn't worth the potential loss of image quality over the decades to come.

 

[Arcturus]

I think there is, although it's less noticeable under glass. There is a difference in print longevity, though. The extra time in producing a fiber print will ensure that it lasts. In the grand scheme of things, the extra effort involved in making fiber prints isn't that much, when considering the print's lifespan. For me, the few minutes saved, using RC paper, isn't worth the potential loss of image quality over the decades to come.

Interesting, I'll give FB a try after I run out of RC this time.

 

[MattKing]

On the subject of longevity....

Fibre based papers have the history that proves their potential longevity, whereas modern, quality RC papers are the subject of projections that assert they will be long lasting.

There are adverse conditions that RC may withstand better than fibre based paper.

In either case, if you properly process and finish and store/present your prints, they will last for a long time.

I print RC almost exclusively. I like the results I obtain. If I had a dedicated darkroom and a reasonable amount of space, I would use both.

 

[Arcturus]

I went to a gallery showing today and they had a number of prints of musicians from all different time periods. They were all framed and the process labeled. They were all large prints, over 20 inches, and I really didn't notice a difference from RC or FB paper. There were RC portraits from the 1970's that were side by side to FB and "archival pigment transfer prints" which I think were modern inkjet prints. I didn't see any noticeable difference or degradation of the RC paper, and that was old paper from the 70's. It was labeled as RC, but that was the only visible difference, at least to me.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

also, RC PAPERS ARE MORE FORGIVING to processing mistakes such as under washing than FB papers.

 

[brian steinberger]

I'm a seasoned FB printer but appreciate RC's ease of use and nice flat laying qualities and feel. Nice for small prints, 8x10 and 5x7. Larger prints look and feel better on FB. But I've been intrigued by Portfolio RC for sometime and may have to try it out. It may change me over to RC for most of my work, as my time of late is much more limited.