Fiber vs RC

[rthollenbeck]

IDK

one person's BS is another person's truth ....

Kind of like ALTERNATIVE FACTS?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I just like the surface structure and sheen of air-dried glossy FB.It doesn't have deeper blacks or more longevity; just a matter of taste I guess.

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.

Along with the archiveability and the feel of a fiber print, this is the reason I use fiber paper.

 

[removed account4]

Kind of like ALTERNATIVE FACTS?

not sure ... maybe some people might look at it like that.

for example people say " i want golf ball size grain"
some folks say " process your film in DEKTOL"

they have never processed their film in that stuff and they say it makes excessive grain
because it is what they heard, facts they heard from someone else, that they
trusted for information and it is a truth to them, but BS to someone who uses DEKTOL as a film developer.

i use DEKTOL to process film, and i used another print developer before that ( ANSCO 130 ) .. i was told
never to use them, they would ruin my film, golf ball size grain &c &C, but it was the opposite.
DEKTOL gives nice full tonality, as does ANSCO130. the people who suggest it makes poor negatives
run off of their own facts, maybe not their own experience but something someone elses told them ( or they read ) ...

the person using DEKTOL thinks the person saying DON'T is spreading BS, and the person saying NOT to use DEKTOL thinks
the person using it is spreading BS and the "regular" photographer should be "careful".

with regards to RC paper ...
i have read " you can't get black with RC paper" and other "stuff" that ...
maybe it is "user error" ?

YMMV

 

[rthollenbeck]

the person using DEKTOL thinks the person saying DON'T is spreading BS, and the person saying NOT to use DEKTOL thinks the person using it is spreading BS and the "regular" photographer should be "careful".

YMMV

My only point was that BS can be just as readily spread by "respected sources" such as the news and in print as they can be on the internet.

I wasn't taking a jab at you Jnanian

 

[mandocaster]

I haven't done tests on this, but don't RC and FB papers react differently to various toners?
It's one of those things I've read but can't confirm.

 

[brian steinberger]

Ive been thinking of this RC vs fiber debate lately as my life is changing. My wife and I are expecting our first child in July and my time will be limited for sure. I'm trying to decide whether to stock up on RC or fiber paper for down the road when I do have some time to get in the darkroom. Do I print multiple images on RC or one or two keepers on fiber? So this thread has been appropriately timed and I'm enjoying the responses.

I'll add my opinion. I use both but prefer fiber. RCs main advantage besides drying flat is the time savings. It never amazes me how quickly I can crank out good RC prints. But in the end I find myself wanting it on fiber. Guess you can't have your cake and eat it too. Fiber just takes more time. But I have to add two more things. One, I agree with the poster above, once you get larger than 8x10 RC feels very plasticy and flimsy. And two, on the other hand, Ilfords warmtone RC paper is fantastic stuff!

 

[bernard_L]

for example people say " i want golf ball size grain"
some folks say " process your film in DEKTOL"
they have never processed their film in that stuff and they say it makes excessive grain
because it is what they heard, facts they heard from someone else, that they
trusted for information and it is a truth to them, but BS to someone who uses DEKTOL as a film developer.

+1
I got tired of rebutting what I call "Internet truths" spread by parrots. I spend too much time on forums, anyway; Should be in the lab printing.

 

[faberryman]

I haven't done tests on this, but don't RC and FB papers react differently to various toners?
It's one of those things I've read but can't confirm.

Different RC papers react differently to various toners. Different FB papers react differently to various toners. It follows that RC and FB papers react differently to various toners.

 

[MattKing]

I haven't done tests on this, but don't RC and FB papers react differently to various toners?
It's one of those things I've read but can't confirm.

Different RC papers react differently to various tones. Different FB papers react differently to various toners. It follows that RC and FB papers react differently to various toners.

What faberryman said.

One thing to keep in mind is that the expedited washing and drying for RC extends into the toning process.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I like to use RC for small proof prints of 5x7 or less, usually 3.5x5. It is great for that. Quick developing and it develops out and stops. Quick fixing, quick washing, quick drying. Easy. I can do a ton of proof prints in a short amount of time. The small prints are great for evaluation and organizing images.

I use fiber for finished prints. Fiber papers are more malleable in development and toning than RC papers. RC papers are more what you see is what you get. Fiber papers can also have a richness that is lacking with RC papers in comparison.

There is nothing wrong with using RC papers for finished prints if they deliver what you are looking for.

RC papers are a lot harder to get flat if they end up with a curl. You can't put them in a press and in my experience, putting them under weights doesn't help a whole lot since they are plastic. A minor thing, but one to mention if you have the problem. It varies by paper.

 

[removed account4]

I wasn't taking a jab at you Jnanian

no worries, i didn't take it as a jab

I got tired of rebutting what I call "Internet truths" spread by parrots. I spend too much time on forums, anyway; Should be in the lab printing.

couldn't agree more !

 

[John Wiegerink]

Yes, I'm afraid many folks take wrong turns or don't take the right turn after reading thing on the Internet that they take for Gospel. I never give advice on something if I haven't tried it myself. Even if I have tried something and formed an opinion I'll always try to close with YMMV. Now, I might say that I have heard other folks say this, that and the other, but always try to end with saying "I haven't tried it myself". It's not just on these forums or about photography either. Go to car/automobile, firearms, remodeling forums and you'll find experts all over out there who have no idea what they are actually talking about 'cause they ain't never done it!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

These days it is as much a matter of taste as anything else. It also depends on what your goal for your prints is - if you're selling them in a gallery (or want to) then you'd better print on fiber paper. If you are selling them out of a bin at the local craft market, print on whichever you want, but be clear when selling them as to which they are. Right or wrong, there are a lot of folks who buy photography who have very strong opinions about it and would get bent out of shape if they thought they were buying a fiber print but found out later it was RC.

To me, I prefer the look of fiber prints - I find RC glossy to be too glossy. I also find it is easier to manipulate the look of a fiber print (warmtone, cooltone, sepia, hand-colored, etc), which gives me more options when making a final print.

 

[Maris]

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.

 

[NJH]

Getting FB paper flat is no problem, peg the prints back to back on the line and the paper dries very nearly flat

Thanks for that tip, we have stacks of pegs and since I am drying by hanging it makes for an obvious inclusion in my process.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I just like the surface structure and sheen of air-dried glossy FB.It doesn't have deeper blacks or more longevity; just a matter of taste I guess.

Very true. Back in the 80's when I was an undergrad, a professor told me that RC paper didn't last as long as FB paper. He said that the plastic layer will separate within time. However, I have RC prints that are over 20 years old and they still look great. I thought about using RC paper because of it's short wash time because of California's drought. I'm just like you, I like the look of FB paper so I'm guessing it is just a matter of taste.

 

[Hatchetman]

Thanks for that tip, we have stacks of pegs and since I am drying by hanging it makes for an obvious inclusion in my process.

what are these "pegs" you are referring to?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

what are these "pegs" you are referring to?

I think they're clothes pins.

 

[MattKing]

I think they're clothes pins.

aka clothes pegs - in England and Canada at least.

 

[John Wiegerink]

aka clothes pegs - in England and Canada at least.

You folks peg your clothes and we pin them! I just put mine in the dryer and close the door. Truthfully, I have never tried the back-to-back thing, but I'm sure going to. Now, where the heck did I put those pegs........errr pins or whatever.

 

[Wayne]

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.

I have left RC prints in a holding tray for an hour or two while I finish my session without edge penetration/curl issues. But most of my sessions are only an hour or two so this suits me and doesn't slow me down, it speeds me up. I've definitely seen curl from leaving them in too long.

 

[M Carter]

I have some old forte warmtone RC semi matte, and I swear it's barely distinguishable from fiber. Liths like a mofo, too. Very pretty paper.

Other than that, never been happy trying to bleach or tone modern RC paper, and most of the RC I've tried just has too much of a "plastic" look, and always seems more grey than fiber. I use it for contact sheets, testing, "getting to know a neg" since it's cheap and quick.

As far as getting prints flat - for up to 11x14, I use a canvas flip-flop dryer - I love that thing. Yes, I removed the canvas and washed it, and I also use a 2nd sheet of canvas on top of the prints, since that's easy to wash and adds more tension. So I don't worry about pollution since I use residual hypo test, and I feel the way the water "steams" out pushes stuff up and out of my (very clean) canvas.

For 16x20, once the print is spotted, I mist the back very lightly with a spray bottle, really just a quick fog, stick it between two sheets of matte board, warm it a bit with a clothes iron, and then a stack of cardboard and books for a couple days. Works fine for me. If I'm framing the print I let the framer deal with it. I will get a dry mount press this year though.

 

[jrb]

I use RC for proofs and FB for good copies. I have done this for the last 7 or 8 years, ever since I did my own comparative testing by printing the same negatives with both RC and FB. To me (and anyone else I asked for an opinion), the FB prints invariably appeared to have more depth and richer, smoother tonal development.

 

[frank]

I'd love to hear Bob Carnie's opinions on FB and RC prints.

 

[Tony-S]

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