Do you wish RC papers were thicker?

[miha]

I find them too thin. Old AGFA RC paper were on par with todays Portfolio paper from Ilford, everything elese on the market is thinner.
I would use much more of RC paper if thicker as I rarely frame finished prints.

 

[ndrs]

I do. Portfolio is just right.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

You could be right, but I never had a problem with RC paper being to thin.

Jeff

 

[Klainmeister]

I do. I think modern RC papers seem to be pretty darn capable and potentially as archival (??), but cannot stand using such a thin sheet! Drives me nuts.

 

[Zelph]

Why, since RC is mainly for work prints, quick commercial and handout head shots. No serious B&W fine printer used RC for finished work.

 

[miha]

Some prefer RC to FB, serious or not

 

[miha]

I do. Portfolio is just right.

Have you tried the new one, released in 2011? It is said to be on an even thicker base.

 

[removed account4]

I do. Portfolio is just right.

+1

 

[Roger Cole]

Why, since RC is mainly for work prints, quick commercial and handout head shots. No serious B&W fine printer used RC for finished work.

Simple "we've always done it this way and the early RC papers were awful" bias.

I do print my finished prints intended for framing on FB, but today's best RC papers are do darn good I often wonder why I bother with the hassle. This is especially true of 16x20s and the ease with which thoroughly wet DWFB is creased or otherwise damaged in handling.

 

[Klainmeister]

Simple "we've always done it this way and the early RC papers were awful" bias.

I do print my finished prints intended for framing on FB, but today's best RC papers are do darn good I often wonder why I bother with the hassle. This is especially true of 16x20s and the ease with which thoroughly wet DWFB is creased or otherwise damaged in handling.

^ This

 

[Photo Engineer]

RC paper used to be thicker, but economic factors cause it to lose weight!

PE

 

[miha]

RC paper used to be thicker, but economic factors cause it to lose weight!

PE

I can hardly understand that. Wiki say that polyethylene is the most common plastic with the annual production of 80 million metric tons.

 

[Klainmeister]

That's just on the surface. The weight is due to the paper thickness, not the coating.

 

[miha]

Surface and back. Are you saying these two layers can't be made thicker?

 

[tkamiya]

Why not just dry mount a museum board on keeper prints if thickness bothers you? Up to 11x14, RC thickness does not bother me. I wish 16x20 could be a little thicker.

 

[David Brown]

When RC papers came out, they were labeled "medium weight". Fiber papers generally came in single and double weight and the RC was somewhere in the middle thickness-wise. Today's fiber papers are essentially the old double weight thickness. I haven't seen single weight paper in decades. Others may know of some.

If you think RC paper is thin, you'd hate the old single weight papers. Find some old prints from up through the 1960s - even old family snapshots. That's probably single weight paper.

 

[miha]

tkamiya, that's not really a solution for me as I have many keepers and I like having prints in my hands.

 

[miha]

If you think RC paper is thin, you'd hate the old single weight papers. Find some old prints from up through the 1960s - even old family snapshots. That's probably single weight paper.

I'm not that young, you know I still remember printing on AGFA MCC 1 - a single weight variant of the more popular 111 version. Funnily enough, I like SW FB prints.

 

[erikg]

I like Portfolio a lot, but for contact sheets I want something thinner to save space in the neg binders. I'd use single weight if it still existed. Last time I saw it was POP paper and Azo. Single weight was great for paper negatives.

 

[miha]

Since there are obviously many portfolio users among us, I'm still interested in the new version of the paper - I read that that there is a slight ripple to the emulsion on 1M. Anyone want to comment?

 

[MartinP]

The biggest format I have found for the Portfolio weight paper is only 5x7" !! I'm sure it must be packed in larger sizes, but it would need to be ordered specially I suppose. I have used both the 5x7" and the postcard size - and both in 'pearl' (lustre, semi-gloss) finish.

 

[Graham06]

Prints that are as stiff as a board

In my search for finding a way to get flat fibre prints, I tried the suggestion to dry mount a test print to the back of a finished print, and I discovered last weekend that it works remarkably well. The result is much stiffer than I would have imagined and the print stays flat. I don't have an expensive dry mount press. I bought some mounting tissue (DuraCraft DuraMount Dry Mounting Tissue ) and use a clothes iron.

So far I have only mounted the test print with the emulsion on the outside, but I don't see any problem with mounting the test print with the emulsion hidden. If you're so good that you don't have a large enough supply of not good enough prints, you could buy some heavy card stock.

 

[erikg]

In my search for finding a way to get flat fibre prints, I tried the suggestion to dry mount a test print to the back of a finished print, and I discovered last weekend that it works remarkably well. The result is much stiffer than I would have imagined and the print stays flat. I don't have an expensive dry mount press. I bought some mounting tissue (DuraCraft DuraMount Dry Mounting Tissue ) and use a clothes iron.

So far I have only mounted the test print with the emulsion on the outside, but I don't see any problem with mounting the test print with the emulsion hidden. If you're so good that you don't have a large enough supply of not good enough prints, you could buy some heavy card stock.

I used to do exactly this. Great to make a little book, or for prints that were to be handled in anyway, like a view book. I'd print with a wide border, mount back to back with fixed and washed paper. Old stuff that is fogged is great to use. The curl gets canceled out. Works great.

 

[pentaxuser]

I do. Portfolio is just right.

Just a pity that the price premium on Ilford Portfolio paper compared to MGIV is so large. I assume that the extra thickness consists entirely of paper which is slightly thicker and adds about 60 gms per square metre. I think the figures are 190 for MGIV and about 250 for Portfolio. On that basis Portfolio is about 30% heavier. Assuming that all other constituents of Portfolio are the same you might expect therefore a 30 % increase in price but it is much more than this.

Postcard paper which is almost 6x4 inch Portfolio paper with a printed postcard back is over double the price of 7x5 inch MGIV( Postcard paper is now available at about £45 per box of 100) and thus quite a bit more than double the price of 6x4 MGIV.

I need to add that I am referring here to U.K. prices. Other countries' prices may be different.

pentaxuser

 

[miha]

Indeed, portfolio is more expensive than multigrade FB. But then it saves time, fixer and water.