Fiber vs RC

[rthollenbeck]

While it seems like people levitate towards others that share there preference in an uncompromising way that sometimes borders on hostility, there definitely seems to be room for both RC & FB. All though we will probably never decide which one tastes great vs which is less filling.
Imho FB feels better and has a better look so far as the base material is concerned. Personally I have always decidedly preferred the matt/canvas like look available on FB. It also seems like FB is more able in most cases to transmit that look that RC.
On the other hand (while and taking into account my bias toward that matt look) I still often wonder if the FB is worth the extra effort on an veryday basis over RC. I'd probably compromise in favor of RC most of the time.....if I hadn't went even another direction.
I might be wrong, but other than the look of the base, I don't think there is any difference.
That what I think. Opinions may vary.

 

[rthollenbeck]

I wonder if this could be used as a dry mount press.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Heat-Press-...561398?hash=item2eee109b76:g:kXQAAOSwhRxXKXbm

I image so. Seal makes presses that do both functions. So long as it has an appropriate temp range and you select the right materials to use inside, I can't see why not.

 

[MattKing]

I wonder if this could be used as a dry mount press.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Heat-Press-...561398?hash=item2eee109b76:g:kXQAAOSwhRxXKXbm

Looks possible, although it wouldn't be ideal for anything larger than 15" x 15" (like a 16" x 20" mat).

 

[Tony-S]

I image so. Seal makes presses that do both functions. So long as it has an appropriate temp range and you select the right materials to use inside, I can't see why not.

Just looking at B&H, the cheapest dry mount press is US$1600. The eBay one is less than $200 - much more attractive price.

Looks possible, although it wouldn't be ideal for anything larger than 15" x 15" (like a 16" x 20" mat).

I don't do anything more than 11x14 so that would be good, so long as the temp is consistent across the surface.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have always printed fibre base , the only time I used rc paper is for contact sheets and Live Entertainment promo shots... when my company first started I had a partner who also printed for our customers, he used RC against my wishes for a group of clients. Within a few years
the prints that were framed using this paper came back with de silvering. By this time my partner had left the business and I had to replace each order with Fibre prints.
I also do not like the look of rc glossy , but the matt paper is ok. Today I still only print fibre and now pt pd and gum overs.

I particularly like the look and feel of textured fibre base papers, over glossy fibre papers. I think the scientists here can debate the longevity of both prints, but I must say bad processing is usually the cause of fading and browning, no matter if you are using RC or Fibre.

 

[faberryman]

Looks possible, although it wouldn't be ideal for anything larger than 15" x 15" (like a 16" x 20" mat).

I am not sure that both platens are heated on the eBay item.

 

[destroya]

i use pearl RC paper for contact sheets and when i want to do a quick printing session. mainly to get a good idea of what a neg looks like at such and such a size. also with the lack of rain in norther Ca (but looks like we are passed the drought stage upstate now) it uses a lot less water. if i like the print I'll reprint on fiber. i usually have been doing fiber sessions twice a year in marathon like sessions when i get get many 3 day weekends or the like.

but I gotta say, a good pearl RC print looks really good to me when framed. I did a little experiment with some friends. did 2 identical straight prints, 1 on RC and 1 on fiber. showed them to some friends and they all liked the tactile feel of the fiber paper, so thats what made them pick the fiber print. but when they came back next time they were both framed behind glass and there was no clear favorite between them. so for myself i dont mind a good framed print that I do regardless of the paper, or better said, i wouldn't be afraid to make RC prints for myself.

this is just one mans opinion.

 

[lantau]

Perhaps it may be of some use for the OP to hear the first impressions of a beginner in printing. At that stage there may be more objective observation than biased perception. I've started printing in August, having bought the enlarger the October before that, which was when I started with film (been developing ever since).

I think I had a maximum of about a dozen print sessions so far and I do straight prints only at the moment. Local manipulation (dodging, burning, whether in the darkroom or in Lightroom) is not a natural talent of mine, I couldn't paint if my live depended on it. I did like technical drawing (blueprints) at school, however, being a geek.

Anyway, I have done my first few FB prints now. I didn't do any comparison of RC vs FB using the same negative yet, so I cannot say if the quality of the resulting image is really different. For me, so far, it is really just a matter of diversity and personal preference. I will continue using both.

Unlike some traditionalists I like RC very much, I grew up with it and was always fascinated with the texture of the backside of RC prints (the cheap RA4 consumer prints) since childhood. So smooth and yet something rough to it. Perhaps shark skin is like that. And as a beginner RC is really easy to work with.

FB paper has the same kind of attraction vs RC that film photography has vs digital (I like all photography and find the undertone towards digital in this community quite unpleasant, btw). It is more in the mind. More tangible is the carton strength and the 'novelty' (hehe) of the uncoated paper base on the back. All in all the haptics are objectively a bit more high grade than the single weight RC paper. Not that I would think of any silver print as cheap!

When it comes to the surface I like matte RC the best. I use two manufacturers: Adox (MCP, MCC) and Foma (Fomatone, RC and Classic). Fomatone RC matte is my favourite, followed by MCP (semi) matte. I haven't used Fomatone FB matte yet, however. Then there is a gap the size of the grand canyon and all the rest is quite close together again.

Surprisingly I'm not all that amazed by MCC matte. It lacks that magic sheen that RC paper has. OTOH it is quite perfect in a technical sense, as it really absorbs most reflections. Functional and neutral in character. I just can't decide yet if I like it or not.

A total surpise was the character of glossy FB. I really like it, but I wouldn't even call it glossy but rather non-matte. It is quite irregular with large 'pores'. I've tried a small sheet of Fomabrom (my first FB print, I got some free samples of it with a direct order from Foma) and Adox MCC. The surface is similar, hence I guess that all glossy FB look like it. I wonder if it can become as glossy as RC when heated in a FB paper drying press. I bought one at the same time as the enlarger. I was on an ebay binge for darkroom supplies then...

That all being said I was very happy when I succeeded with my first RC prints and recently my first FB prints, similar to the delight of the first roll (tx400) of film that I developed myself about 14 month ago. And my FB prints are very regular and nearly as flat as RC, except for a slight, regular curl of the kind that it already has out of the box.

My curl, or rather slight bend, is from corner to corner as I hang it from a corner to dry from wet to moist (30-40 min) before putting it into a blotter book with something heavy on top for two days. I took them out earlier for viewing, but I felt the curl kept building up and so replaced them under the weight. Also I noticed that letting them dry for too long before blotting and pressing will increase the waviness of the edges. In any case those waves disappeared after cropping a few milimeters. I guess I didn't dry for too long before blotting/pressing on that one occasion were I observed the wavy edges developing. Works fine with MCC 24x30 (cm^2) paper so far. Haven't had the time to try out Fomatone Classic, yet.

I hope these naive observations of someone who just started will be a useful data point for others who contemplate getting into the darkroom. It was quite straight forward to learn. Mastering it is another matter, of course. But I'm not concerned with becoming a master printer or an artist, though I do try, within reason, to improve. Ultimately I'm only in it for the enjoyment of my hobby.

 

[kreeger]

I started darkroom traditional printing around 1972. The oldest RC print I have is one I made on Kodak Polycontrast Rapid RC N 8x10. I share this as an artifact of RC paper longevity from 1972.

Thumbnail below.


This print has had less than ideal storage and handling in 45 years, and my processes wasn't close to archival, really I bet many things like weak fixer, lack of good wash were present in making this.
Yet this print is still presentable, I would say 90% fine, but the print isn't very good of the negative (man have I learned alot in 45 years).

Some of the de-silvering mentioned is happening near the edges, upper right hand corner of the photo, mostly where it has been handled many times.

I strongly believe my selection of photo papers should be judged by their palette of greys and their surface first before deciding whether RC or FB is to be discussed.

MAKE THE BEST PRINT YOU CAN MAKE !!!


P.S. John Sexton, in the most recent edition of Steve Anchell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" on page 105, makes reference to using a teapot, steaming the back side of the print 8-10" from the print to flatten FB prints. This method was used also to micro swell the emulsion to enhance the surface, and it helps hide dyes from typical spotting procedures.

 

[Peter Schrager]

I started darkroom traditional printing around 1972. The oldest RC print I have is one I made on Kodak Polycontrast Rapid RC N 8x10. I share this as an artifact of RC paper longevity from 1972.

Thumbnail below.
View attachment 172154

This print has had less than ideal storage and handling in 45 years, and my processes wasn't close to archival, really I bet many things like weak fixer, lack of good wash were present in making this.
Yet this print is still presentable, I would say 90% fine, but the print isn't very good of the negative (man have I learned alot in 45 years).

Some of the de-silvering mentioned is happening near the edges, upper right hand corner of the photo, mostly where it has been handled many times.

I strongly believe my selection of photo papers should be judged by their palette of greys and their surface first before deciding whether RC or FB is to be discussed.

MAKE THE BEST PRINT YOU CAN MAKE !!!


P.S. John Sexton, in the most recent edition of Steve Anchell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" on page 105, makes reference to using a teapot, steaming the back side of the print 8-10" from the print to flatten FB prints. This method was used also to micro swell the emulsion to enhance the surface, and it helps hide dyes from typical spotting procedures.

thanks for the spotting tip from John sexton..always willing to learn something!!

 

[chip j]

I use hypo-clear w/all my prints, RC or FB. I dry my FB in a Kodak blotter roll overnight--no issues.

 

[MartinP]

One professional photographer wrote me once what RC is good only for proofs. He is 100% right.
Almost half of the prints I printed on RC are turning grey after sometime. I have tried different safe lights (including this LED which is recommended here), different common developers, standard fixer, following manufacturer instructions, yet, it is turning grey after while at half of my prints. Old, not so old, new RC doesn't matter. I'm using exactly the same for old FB and absolutely no problem. Once I'll finish remaining RC paper I have, I'm done with it. And it looks cheap on RC, IMO. Small prints up to 5x7 are fine, but 8x10 and lager RC is plastic.

Then there is something different between the process for one half of your prints compared to the other half! Was there a difference in manufacturer? Fixing? Washing? "Turning grey" sounds very much like a fixing problem. My oldest RC prints are over forty years old, looking ok and all I did was follow the instructions on the packets of chemicals (which possibly means that I threw away a lot of usable fixer, but never mind).

Fortunately, film negatives last well -- if fixed and washed.

[Edit: Having said all that, if you want to preserve your wallet, don't try cotton-based Ilford ART300. It is gorgeous.]

 

[MartinP]

I reckon both RC and FB papers can make good looking photographs but I use FB exclusively. Why? RC slows me down too much. In a darkroom session (typically 30 sheets) I store the FB pictures in a waterbath as I make them. Then they go as a batch through hypo-clear. Then they go as a batch through the archival washer. RC papers have edge penetration problems with long wet times. They have to be done, start to finish, one by one and that's slower than doing FB in batches.

For test prints, aka work prints, if you are finding problems with long wet times, it is possible to make the prints in a batch, then process them in a batch. If necessary, one can make exposure adjustments down to half, or maybe a quarter, stop by looking at the contacts. It works well enough when there is time pressure. Happily it is a long time since I had to do this (it's not my job anymore!) but it is an option.

 

[Helinophoto]

Getting FB paper flat is no problem, peg the prints back to back on the line and the paper dries very nearly flat, then put the prints face to face between 2 shetts of mounting board, or any other board, put some books, or, as I do, a few boxes of paper on top, a day or 2 and the prints are perfectly flat

That is not correct at all, at least not for me

I've done that, tried glass, tried blotting-books with every single book in the house on-top, for 2 weeks, the goddamn FB-paper is still not flat, the edges curl and ripples and the prints are not suitable for anything than being used as dodging-tools in the darkroom.

My 'pegs' are hangers for trousers (with two clips), pinned in the corners and fastened, so that the print is held tightly in the horizontal direction, another hanger on the bottom the same way.

Neuuuuu........still looks like curled office-paper after it has nearly dried, always, no exceptions.

Expensive waste!

I even bought a clothes press, so simulate a dry-press, prints were better, but compared to RC, absolutely appalling.

Final solution, was to use the clothes-press and then mount the thing to a cardboard, with a glue-sheet below (comes in rolls, meant to mount photos), using a clothes-iron to melt the glue/attach it.
Then, finally, the prints were flat, or acceptable flat, the edges still show some ripples in the right/wrong light.

I still have FB paper that I cannot use, heck I even have Slavick 50*60 cm sheets laying unused, all of my current prints are on Ilford and Adox RC paper, and they do look great (and flat as pancakes, from edge to edge).

Sad really, as I feel the various tone options in FB-paper may be more versatile than RC (I may be wrong).

 

[Helinophoto]

P.S. John Sexton, in the most recent edition of Steve Anchell's "The Darkroom Cookbook" on page 105, makes reference to using a teapot, steaming the back side of the print 8-10" from the print to flatten FB prints. This method was used also to micro swell the emulsion to enhance the surface, and it helps hide dyes from typical spotting procedures.

Interesting, I got one of those shirt-steamers for Christmas (not this Christmas), from my mom.
I am not into ironing shirts and certainly not steaming them, so I may just give one of my FB a try with this.

Do you know if the prints will not just shrink back to the usual curly self after this treatment?

 

[R.Gould]

That is not correct at all, at least not for me

I've done that, tried glass, tried blotting-books with every single book in the house on-top, for 2 weeks, the goddamn FB-paper is still not flat, the edges curl and ripples and the prints are not suitable for anything than being used as dodging-tools in the darkroom.

My 'pegs' are hangers for trousers (with two clips), pinned in the corners and fastened, so that the print is held tightly in the horizontal direction, another hanger on the bottom the same way.

Neuuuuu........still looks like curled office-paper after it has nearly dried, always, no exceptions.

Expensive waste!

I even bought a clothes press, so simulate a dry-press, prints were better, but compared to RC, absolutely appalling.

Final solution, was to use the clothes-press and then mount the thing to a cardboard, with a glue-sheet below (comes in rolls, meant to mount photos), using a clothes-iron to melt the glue/attach it.
Then, finally, the prints were flat, or acceptable flat, the edges still show some ripples in the right/wrong light.

I still have FB paper that I cannot use, heck I even have Slavick 50*60 cm sheets laying unused, all of my current prints are on Ilford and Adox RC paper, and they do look great (and flat as pancakes, from edge to edge).

Sad really, as I feel the various tone options in FB-paper may be more versatile than RC (I may be wrong).

It works for me every time, it takes 5 wooden clothes pegs, (Or pins for the USA), 1 peg on each corner of the prints and two pegs to peg the pegs to the line, for some reason it does not work as well with plastic pins, Another method is to leave bigger margins to your prints and to tape all 4 sides with strong tape, not masking tape, to a sheet of glass and leave the to dry, again I have tried this methop and it works every time for me, but also if I have say 7 prints to dry I peg 6 back to back then then the one left is pegged, and although this is curly, putting the prints between 2 sheet of Mounting board face to face to avoid damage then putting, last time 7 boxes of paper on top of the boards for few days and the prints are fine, in fact I have just scanned some for my blog an mounted them, they have been sitting here for a few days waiting, and they are perfectly flat, Do you leave the prints to dry at darkroom temps, if you try to hurry the drying then yes, the can vurl, but even then they should flatten fine under weight, I have been drying FB paper for 60 years or more and the method above works every time, Some times I do get edge wave, in summer, and I allow for that so that I can trim the edges so that the print is perfectly flat, but this time of year, it is colder and the prints are flat edge to edge

 

[Helinophoto]

Thanks for the information and tips. (I need to look into this at some point anyway, since I do have FB paper that I don't feel like throwing away).

I dry mine in regular room temperature. (in the living-room actually)
However, it is a very dry climate here, especially in the winter, not sure how that affect things.

 

[pentaxuser]

The advocates of FB make reference to its feel which may or may not be tied up with its extra weight, stiffness etc. I wonder if anyone has compared the feel, weight etc with Ilford RC Portfolio Pearl paper which is close to FB's weight, surface sheen etc. The back of Ilford Portfolio Postcard paper even has a paper feel to its back on which you can write. I wonder if 100 people were asked to examine a set of 6x4 Postcard and 6x4 FB without the benefit of seeing the lined backing how many could tell FB from RC and how many would prefer FB to RC?

Just curious

pentaxuser

 

[R.Gould]

Thanks for the information and tips. (I need to look into this at some point anyway, since I do have FB paper that I don't feel like throwing away).

I dry mine in regular room temperature. (in the living-room actually)
However, it is a very dry climate here, especially in the winter, not sure how that affect things.

The tapeing method works every time, but it is not easy,you need clean glass and if you can find it the gummed parcel tape, the old paper type not the modern shiny parcel tape, over here most art and craft shops stock it,firstly lay the print face down on the glass, then with chamois leather wipe the back of the print, then turn the print over and wipe surplus water of of the face of the print carefully, remember that a wet print surface is delicate, next dry the glass, then lay the print face up on the glass, next tear off a length of tape and make sure that it well stuck, you will need at least 4mm of print edge all round for the paper to stick to, repeat on all sides, next put aside till the next day, then you will find the print is drum tight and flat, cut away around the edge of the tape and Voila, flat print,it is a long process, which is why I prefer the peg back to back method, which gives almost flat prints, the reason that it works is due to the fact that each wet print pulls against the other, and putting the prints between sheets of mounting board with heave weight is that the smooth board spreads the weight evenly, also, make sure that whatever weighs the board down is the same size as the prints, I print on 9 1/2 by 12 paper, and use boxes of the same size paper as the weight, and I leave it sometimes for a week, as I said, you will sometimes get frilled edges using this method so increase the border size to allow you to trim this off if needed, but the main thing is the image area is flat, and unmounted prints stay flat for months, any unmounted FB paper will again curl a little bit over time, it is just the nature of the beast,

 

[Doremus Scudder]

I like fiber-base paper because when I make a really bad print, I can have the satisfaction of ferociously tearing it into tiny pieces and destroying it completely. I can't do that with RC...

Doremus

 

[piu58]

> tried blotting-books with every single book in the house on-top, for 2 weeks, the goddamn FB-paper is still not flat, the edges curl and ripples and the prints are not suitable for anything than being used as dodging-tools in the darkroom.

I needed some time to get large sheets flat. I usually use 30x40cm². My precedure:
- Hang at a clamp for around 15 minutes to getdamp, not wet photographs
- I use a blootting book for one day. After that they are nearly dry and still slightly wavy
- Put it in a changing frame with passepartout for a day ors.

After that they are completely flat.

 

[fiddle]

I like fiber-base paper because when I make a really bad print, I can have the satisfaction of ferociously tearing it into tiny pieces and destroying it completely. I can't do that with RC...

Doremus

Bravo..
Haven't used fiber yet, only been printing for a bit, figured I'd get practice with RC first, but I can see how this can be a plus for fiber.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I miss ferrotyping fiber base paper. I have done that in decades. But the gloss is truly unbeatable.

 

[MattKing]

I like fiber-base paper because when I make a really bad print, I can have the satisfaction of ferociously tearing it into tiny pieces and destroying it completely. I can't do that with RC...

Doremus

Scissors are your friend Doremus

 

[Katherine J Gillis]

Same here. Just like the look of the of air-dried glossy Fiber paper best. The thicker paper base is also a plus (once you got it flat ). I think that RC glossy will give you the sharpest image.

Are you familiar with or have you done any carbon transfer processing? Curious and learning about it from a retoucher's prospective.