Are prints made on RC Ilford Paper Archival?

[Mahler_one]

As one begins to make prints from one's LF negatives a question arises as to which paper ( RC or FB ) one should conisder using. I realize that there are differing opinions as to the tonal advantages of using FB papers. What has become obvious to me is that FB papers are obviously more difficult to handle from the standpoint of curling during drying, and the need to use dry mount presses in order to mount and frame the prints correctly. When it comes to mounting and framing RC papers are easier to handle. Hence my question: If RC paper is washed and toned with selenium exactly as one would treat FB paper so as to render the print archival, will RC prints indeed be archival? If so, one might be willing to accept the slightly decreased tonal range in return for the ease in handling after processing.
Thanks.

Edwin

 

[PHOTOTONE]

The general feeling in the last few decades has been that the resin coating on RC paper is the factor in a shorter lifespan than fibre based paper. Personally, I don't find fibre based paper difficult to process and finish. Yes it takes more washing, and it takes flattening after it dries, but those things are trivial efforts in the overall scheme of things. There are also some paper choices in fibre that look so much better than RC.

 

[percepts]

what do you mean by archival? i.e. give us the true definition of archival and then we can all guess whether resin coated meets that defintion.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There was a recent lengthy thread on this topic that you can find by doing a search. Lots of discussion.

PE

 

[Oren Grad]

There's plenty of stuff on this in the archives, though much of it can be confusing to wade through.

The short answer is, it's hard to know. RC paper is subject to light-driven deterioration in ways that FB is not. The leading manufacturers figured out how to add additional compounds to the paper to suppress those reactions, and the available evidence suggests that protective toning, such as selenium or sulfide, and/or use of a silver stabilizer (Agfa Sistan) helps further. But nobody knows for sure how effective these countermeasures will be over the long run.

So I guess the bottom line is, RC papers should be very stable in dark storage under decent environmental conditions, but durability on framed display over the very long term is uncertain.

Unless you are doing work for which maximizing the odds of long-term stability under all possible conditions is an overriding consideration (e.g., documentary work intended for historical archives), I think you should make your choice based on what will maximize productivity and satisfaction in your work. I'm looking toward using more RC myself for both esthetic and logistical reasons, but the most important consideration is that it enables me to make many more prints for my available time and energy, and frankly, that's what my photography needs more than anything else right now.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I think Oren Grad offers a pretty good current perspective on this issue, which has been hashed out over and over again for the last 25 years or so even before there were internet forums.

I would only add that if one wants something to last for 150 years or more, is it any surprise that it might take a little more effort? Ars longa, vita brevis.

 

[Oren Grad]

Ars longa, vita brevis.

David, you left out the rest of it:

Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.

The potential contribution of RC to one's growth as a photographer lies especially in the way it helps mitigate the last four out of these five.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

David, you left out the rest of it:

Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.

Yes, but so did Goethe, so I figure I'm in good company, and after all, Goethe's art was longer than Hippocrates' I suspect (depending on whether you consider Hippocrates' art his writing, in which case he wins, or the results of his medical practice, in which case Goethe wins).

The potential contribution of RC to one's growth as a photographer lies especially in the way it helps mitigate the last four out of these five.

A fair point, but really, for that final print that's going in the frame as the original poster proposes, if one really wants it to last a long time and not just to be an exercise as the original poster proposes, what's a little extra wash time and flattening?

 

[Oren Grad]

or the results of his medical practice, in which case Goethe wins.

No question, Goethe wins.

Another point that may be relevant as the original poster thinks this through: Simon Galley of Ilford/Harman posted here that they are planning to tweak the formula for their FB papers to help them dry flatter. I don't know whether those changes have made it beyond the factory yet, or how much difference they'll make.

 

[Photo Engineer]

To make FB paper lie flatter, one of two means are commonly used. One involves addenda in the emulsion layer to help gelatin resist contraction and the other includes adding a back coat on the FB paper to oppose the contraction of the front. These are just two of 4 or 5 that came to mind after seeing what Simon said. None should affect image stability, but only time will tell.

I would have to say that if one were to look over previous threads on this subject, although confusing to some extent due to length and differing opinions, they will be no more confusing that this thread might end up for the same reasons. Everyone has a different opinion, but the results are not all in yet. I heartily recommend them to one truly interested in this topic.

Adding to the confusion here are the references to Goethe and Hippocrates. I am not a language major, nor a philosophy major as you know, but having had to read some of Goethe and Hegel in German for my courses, I found it totally confusing.

I'm more content remembering Ars Longa as the hero's horse in a novel I once read. And, at my age, I hate thinking of the fact that my art will outlive me. But then, maybe I should be happy or content if it does.

PE

 

[Mahler_one]

My hearty thanks to all who took the time and effort to respond. I will research the issue on this site.

As to the definition of archival: The question is well asked, and I'm not sure that I have found a really good defintion either. I suppose 30-50 years would suffice!

 

[Photo Engineer]

My hearty thanks to all who took the time and effort to respond. I will research the issue on this site.

As to the definition of archival: The question is well asked, and I'm not sure that I have found a really good defintion either. I suppose 30-50 years would suffice!

We would then be forced to ask whether you are defining this in a dark album or on a wall in a lit area, and then we would have to ask if it is in a home or an office (100 fc avg or 500 fc avg light intensity), and where they are kept (Fla is hotter and humid than the Antarctic for example).

You see how complex and complete your specification has to be?

PE

 

[Mark Layne]

David, you left out the rest of it:

Ars longa, vita brevis, occasio praeceps, experimentum periculosum, iudicium difficile.

The potential contribution of RC to one's growth as a photographer lies especially in the way it helps mitigate the last four out of these five.

The medical profession will be glad to hear of a cure for difficile
Mark

 

[Dave Miller]

My hearty thanks to all who took the time and effort to respond. I will research the issue on this site.

As to the definition of archival: The question is well asked, and I'm not sure that I have found a really good defintion either. I suppose 30-50 years would suffice!

I suggest that 50 years is no where long enough to be considered archival, I have family photographs that are 100 years old, and expect them to last at least another 100 years.

 

[pentaxuser]

If we assume that the problems with RC when it first came out have now been solved then we are talking about RC prints being not more than say 25 years old. So the jury by definition must still be out. Whereas FB prints have proved their longevity.

However the question is: How many of your prints will be in the "must be preserved" category and without wishing to be macabre how many in the opinion of your next of kin if you died tomorrow.

I shudder to think how few of mine my wife would keep but then again that may be as much a reflection on me as a photog as on my wife.

Even if RC prints have half the life of FB,say 50 years, you still have the means of re-printing the must keep ones if the negs have been preserved.

Of course that relies on their still being the means of printing from silver halide in the next 40/50 years and this is the unknown.

I worry about many things but needing to have archival prints hasn't yet exercised me too much.


pentaxuser

 

[Ryuji]

I don't think RC necessarily has poorer tonal range when compared to FB. I know many RC paper stock is not top level, but good ones give comparable or wider tonal range than FB.

The Dmax rating is mostly irrelevant in practice, since the richest black in normal display condition is affected by lighting and viewing condition. Also, many images do not need the Dmax in excess of 2. Even so, if you are so catalog-spec oriented, I may add that some good RC paper can approach Dmax of 2.2-2.4 range, just as high as the best FB paper.

The Dmin or bright white is often better with RC paper stock due to whiter paper base.

If you limit to RC papers made by leading manufacturers in past 10 years, I think they are well suited for work that requires long life. The method of making the pigment, and formulating the resin mixture for the sizing layer has improved a lot and most, if not all, of the old problems are solved. However, proper toning of the image (polysulfide is most well studied) and proper storage/display condition are very important regardless of the support material.

 

[bdial]

Let's all make sets of prints on fiber and RC, put them away and see what they look like in a hundred years or so, then pick up the thread again and discuss our results.

 

[wirehead]

If we assume that the problems with RC when it first came out have now been solved then we are talking about RC prints being not more than say 25 years old. So the jury by definition must still be out. Whereas FB prints have proved their longevity.

No, the recipe for FB prints back then has proven longevity. The recipe has changed since then. Also, the makeup of polution has changed. Marble statues were quite archival till acid rain came along.

There will likely be some very unplesant surprises 50 years from now from materials we thought to be archival. And there will also probably be corresponding plesant surprises 50 years from now from materials we thought to not be archival.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Regarding the look of FB vs RC, one thing differs between them. You don't appreciate it until you coat on FB stock and RC stock and compare the results.

Basically, RC prints have the image floating on top of the RC which is above the Titanox. An FB print has the emulsion embedded in the Baryta and mingled with it, and so there is a part of the image in the particles of Baryta. On old prints done before Baryta, or when Baryta was coated at a lower level, the paper fibres could be seen in the image itself almost like a painting or like grain.

Therefore, I would have to say that an FB print has a certain 'character' that cannot be expressed, and a certain 3D effect that RC does not have. The RC print OTOH has a 'floating' effect like an image on a pond to me.

They are just different! Only the artist or the viewer can judge which is better for them, but they are different and you cannot say they are the same or one is better or worse.

PE

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

No, the recipe for FB prints back then has proven longevity. The recipe has changed since then. Also, the makeup of polution has changed. Marble statues were quite archival till acid rain came along.

My ears also were set for longevity until "Purple Rain" came along

 

[eddym]

Therefore, I would have to say that an FB print has a certain 'character' that cannot be expressed, and a certain 3D effect that RC does not have. The RC print OTOH has a 'floating' effect like an image on a pond to me.

They are just different! Only the artist or the viewer can judge which is better for them, but they are different and you cannot say they are the same or one is better or worse.

PE

Very good point. The "look" of FB paper is what keeps me printing on it, and quite frankly, what brought me back to film photography after a brief (and expensive) flirtation with digital printing. There is nothing in the pixel world that can match the beauty of a fiber based silver gelatin print. An RC print looks like... plastic.

 

[momonga]

Plastic cannot be beautiful?

 

[eddym]

Plastic cannot be beautiful?

It's all relative.... I've never seen an RC print that looked as beautiful as a fiber based print.

 

[Maine-iac]

Like most of us who were around at the creatio of the RC universe, I experimented with it--Kodak's polycontrast version in those bygone days. All but a few of them look as good as the day I printed them, thirty+ years ago. I can't say what they'll look like thirty years from now, but it won't be my worry then. If I haven't "joined the choir invisibule" by then, I'll have advanced Alzheimer's and won't care.

A few of the RC's did deteriorate somewhat, developing a "brassy" sheen and showing signs of the coating breaking down. This may have been due to improper processing on my part--I was still a fledgling in those days and didn't know as much about fixer capacity, etc. Or it may be the fault of the RC paper, which has also seen many advances since then.

I only use it now for making contact prints, because the 8 1/2 X 11 size paper that I need for my 6X7 contacts (if I shoot all 10 frames; I often quit at 9) only comes in RC.

For my finish work, however, I exclusively use FB. I agree that it simply produces a more beautiful object, and that it's likely to last longer. I'm not so much worried about whether my wife will keep them; she comes from a "keeping" family. But I do want my grandchildren to be able to make the decision whether Pop-Pop's work was worthwhile.

Larry

 

[eddym]

I only use it now for making contact prints, because the 8 1/2 X 11 size paper that I need for my 6X7 contacts (if I shoot all 10 frames; I often quit at 9) only comes in RC.

Just curious... even on 8.5x11, how do you arrange your negs to get 10 6x7's on one page?
I haven't shot 6x7 since I sold my Linhof 220 several years ago, but I always had to contact 3 rows of 3 negs on an 8x10, and then do all the "10th frames" on another sheet.