Are prints made on RC Ilford Paper Archival?

[Joe VanCleave]

White Polyester Film

I personally prefer FB papers over most, if not all, RC papers, just for that intangible surface quality that PE refers to. But RC is a bunch quicker to process.

But aside from image quality, I wish we had the option of graded silver gelatin print media coated on white opaque polyester film (i.e. Mylar or one of its competitors); this would be almost ideal, in terms of quick wash times, and unrivalled archival properties, at least for the base media. I've heard the figure of 500 years thrown around as a standard for polyester film's archival longevity.

Somewhere I recall someone mentioning that Fuji has a color print media based on white opaque polyester film, but I can't be sure if that's absolutely factual. Still, one can dream...

 

[David Brown]

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.

I can get 4 rows of negs (2-3-3-2) on the 8.5 inches, but you do loose about the last 1/8th inch of each end (on the "3s"). To me, it's better than using two sheets of 8x10.

 

[Maine-iac]

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.

I do it the same way as David Brown--2 3 3 2 with a little hangover on the edges. Not ideal. But the best we can do here in the U.S. where we don't make proper paper sizes. In Europe, I didn't have this problem with the standard 24X30 cm (9 1/2 X 12). It took a roll of 6X7's just fine. Plus, it's just a nicer size to mount and hang on the wall than 8X10. Where did we ever come up with this 8X10 or 11X14 size?

Much of the time now, I simply limit myself to shooting 9 frames instead of 6. This way, I waste a frame, but get all 9 on an 8X10 sheet.

Larry

 

[aldevo]

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.

Reading your last paragraph I was again struck by how two people will elect to employ dramatically different approaches in pursuit of the same goal - in this case, maximizing productivity and satisfaction in the final print.

At this particular time in my photographic development, I find myself believing that I am best served by producing fewer prints. I want to spend less time in the darkroom and more time in the field. In effect, I'm trying to develop a discipline that enables me to eyeball a contact sheet and dismiss - with conviction - what simply isn't worth printing.

When it does come time to print what I deem "print-worthy", however, I'll be reaching for FB paper for the esthetic reasons already cited by other posters. Having said that, I have to acknowledge that I am hard-pressed to tell the difference between an RC and FB print if both are under glass - unless the print has been toned.

As I expect to be producing more contact sheets through more days in the field, I suppose my utilization of RC paper could well increase. Well, ideally that's what would happen.

 

[Sparky]

As far as the 'archival' qualities of RC paper go... why can't someone just pay to have it tested?? This article, though a WEE bit techy towards the end... suggests a proven way to do this.

http://www.devicelink.com/mpb/archive/98/07/002.html

 

[percepts]

and who is going to pay to test that the test which tests RC is archival is a valid test. And who is going to pay to test that the test which tests that the test which tests RC as archival is valid........

Are you volunteering?