Fiber vs RC

[rowghani]

What are some of the reasons people use Fiber? Not too worried about longevity of print etc but would like to know if there are visual advantages such as deeper blacks, better tonality, sharper image etc. Thanks in advance.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

What are some of the reasons people use Fiber? Not too worried about longevity of print etc but would like to know if there are visual advantages such as deeper blacks, better tonality, sharper image etc. Thanks in advance.

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.

 

[spijker]

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.

 

[tedr1]

I think it is a choice of the image quality. At the moment I prefer Ilford Multigrade fiberbase warmtone for these reasons. The paper has a subtle color, it isn't black it is a very dark warm brown rather than neutral or cold black. This is accompanied by an ivory shade to the paper base which goes well with the warm black tone. It has a thick paper base that doesn't bleed the image underneath it when laid on the desk. The "glossy surface" when air-dried it has a satin surface sheen that is in between the full "mirror gloss" of RC glossy and the full mat of mat paper. Being glossy it gives deeper blacks than mat papers, it provides a good deep black without being reflective like a mirror.

Compared to RC paper it is more expensive and a pain to process, however it is worth it.

 

[Luis-F-S]

Paper vs plastic!

 

[removed account4]

rowghani,
i think it is a line people draw in the sand.
the claims that RC paper is unstable or won't last as long
is from RC paper 30 or 40 years ago. wilhelm ? ( image permanency institute )
and kodak did tests IDK 15 years ago that suggested RC paper would outlast its FB cousin.
some don't like the "plasticy feel" rc prints have and FB has to be better because it is FB, and not RC ..
under glass you probably can't tell the difference between the two. i've printed a lot of rc, and a lot of fb paper over
the years, all my rc prints from 35 <?> years ago look like they just came out of the wash ...
i like rc paper, its easy to use, easy to print on dries fast and is flat. ilford has a rc portfolio paper that is double weight
or something, and has more of a heft to it, i really enjoy using that ! ... i don't like rc for other reasons, not because
of the quality of the image that can be printed on it &c but because often times it has a watermark by the manufacturer so it is hard
to make contact prints from RC negatives, and because it is a pain paint on, use crayon on, write on the front or back, of an rc print.
these issues won't keep me from printing on it though ...

 

[John Wiegerink]

rowghani,
i think it is a line people draw in the sand.
the claims that RC paper is unstable or won't last as long
is from RC paper 30 or 40 years ago. wilhelm ? ( image permanency institute )
and kodak did tests IDK 15 years ago that suggested RC paper would outlast its FB cousin.
some don't like the "plasticy feel" rc prints have and FB has to be better because it is FB, and not RC ..
under glass you probably can't tell the difference between the two. i've printed a lot of rc, and a lot of fb paper over
the years, all my rc prints from 35 <?> years ago look like they just came out of the wash ...
i like rc paper, its easy to use, easy to print on dries fast and is flat. ilford has a rc portfolio paper that is double weight
or something, and has more of a heft to it, i really enjoy using that ! ... i don't like rc for other reasons, not because
of the quality of the image that can be printed on it &c but because often times it has a watermark by the manufacturer so it is hard
to make contact prints from RC negatives, and because it is a pain paint on, use crayon on, write on the front or back, of an rc print.
these issues won't keep me from printing on it though ...

+1

 

[xtolsniffer]

I think fiber is way better if you can touch and feel it, it feels like a proper material. RC multigrade is light, it doesn't feel 'proper'. On the other hand it's cheaper and easier to work with. Faster to wash, dries flat. I've printed the same negative on both (Fiber and pearl RC to 12"x16") and behind glass side by side they are totally indistinguishable. If it's going in a frame behind glass I use Pearl RC. If it's in an album, fiber glossy. So from an image point of view, I don't think it makes much difference. From a tactile aesthetic, fiber is nice.

 

[rowghani]

Thanks guys. I appreciate the info.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

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.

 

[MattKing]

My experience with modern RC papers has been excellent. Ten year old prints look just as good as the ones done in 2016.
I've had a couple of people who either print only on FB paper or do alternative and traditional prints, comment with some surprise at how good some of my (usually) toned RC prints appear.
Usually that means either Pearl or Satin surfaces, but for a relatively few special subjects, glossy RC can work.
It definitely feels different from FB, but when the print is on the wall ....
Whatever material you choose, you can get excellent results from it if you learn it its strengths and weaknesses.
In my case, if I was transitioning to FB paper, I would be forced to do much less printing, so I'm confident that concentrating on RC is the best choice for me.

 

[faberryman]

I think FB is only feasible if you have a dry mount press. Fortunately, I have one.

 

[Wayne]

I've not used RC paper in 30 years...until recently. I have mostly done color printing over those years and there aint no fiber based color AFAIK so I was being a bit of a hypocrite being snobbish about RC. Having tried it again recently I appreciate that it cuts my solution times in half or more than half, which means more prints! And the image quality is outstanding IMO. I won't stop using fiber for really serious work but RC definitely has a place in my darkroom.

 

[asdfmatt]

My experience is FB papers tend to dry a little darker and RC stay somewhat true to form wet vs dry, at least it's a little less exaggerated.

I've only used RC pearl/matte and FB semi-gloss, aesthetically I prefer semi-gloss. I've also used higher quality Ilford FB papers comparing to Arista RC so that quality adjustment may be accounted for there.

Frankly it's a matter of efficiency and managing your margins of error - if I were doing a lot of prints that I needed quicker, the fast washing time of RC was preferred. If I wanted to put a lot of effort and be really meticulous (time & patience), FB wins.

 

[Luckless]

There is only so much that opinions written on the internet can tell you about the products, and even then you're going to get a wild range of conflicting opinions that swing back and forth between the "Yeah, I love it, and it is all I use", to the "No it is terrible, and 'no real photographer' would waste their time with it these days."

If you aren't getting your hands on some for your own work, then you're missing out on making a decision for yourself.


Ask yourself what properties You feel are important. Or talk to others about what properties there are and which are actually useful.

There are reasons why both are still on the market: They both have great things to offer and produce excellent end products. Play with different papers as you get the chance to. Even if you settle on a favoured option, keep buying a bit of 'something else' now and then to give a try. Tastes change over time after all.

 

[NJH]

I think FB is only feasible if you have a dry mount press. Fortunately, I have one.

This is why this printing newb is sticking to Ilford MGIV RC for the time being, I hang mine from a clothes horse I have appropriated, the stuff dries completely and utterly flat. Tempted to try a warmtone FB paper but its the stories about getting it flat which worries me.

 

[R.Gould]

This is why this printing newb is sticking to Ilford MGIV RC for the time being, I hang mine from a clothes horse I have appropriated, the stuff dries completely and utterly flat. Tempted to try a warmtone FB paper but its the stories about getting it flat which worries me.

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

 

[iakustov]

I do see the difference between RC and FB print mounted under glass. Although printing on RC is easier than on FB, RC print looks flat and this is the main reason why I use print on fiber paper only.

 

[Wayne]

some people use a clothes iron

 

[removed account4]

here's some more food tor thought...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
https://archivesandspecialcollectio...of-photographic-degradation-silver-mirroring/

it seems silvering out happens to fb and rc prints ...

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This is why this printing newb is sticking to Ilford MGIV RC for the time being, I hang mine from a clothes horse I have appropriated, the stuff dries completely and utterly flat. Tempted to try a warmtone FB paper but its the stories about getting it flat which worries me.

I went to see Garry Winogrand prints in 2016. FB prints. They weren't perfectly flat. But they were perfect. I asked local professional who has done printing for living and now one of the managers in the local camera store. She doesn't care either. Apparently we are using same method. The corner of the table and keep it under press for few days. Good enough.

 

[howardpan]

I absolutely agree with his comment. I think you can tell the difference as soon as you make a few prints. I would print the same image on both RC and FB paper. I would recommend that you also explore warmtone and semi-matte too. My current favorite is Ilford FB warmtone semi-matte. I simply prefer the way it looks, and I think it's worth the extra trouble. My wife prefers
the glossy surface. My friend prefers the Fujifilm warmtone RC. Everyone may have their own favorite. Sometime it's not based on an objective criteria.

There is only so much that opinions written on the internet can tell you about the products, and even then you're going to get a wild range of conflicting opinions that swing back and forth between the "Yeah, I love it, and it is all I use", to the "No it is terrible, and 'no real photographer' would waste their time with it these days."

If you aren't getting your hands on some for your own work, then you're missing out on making a decision for yourself.


Ask yourself what properties You feel are important. Or talk to others about what properties there are and which are actually useful.

There are reasons why both are still on the market: They both have great things to offer and produce excellent end products. Play with different papers as you get the chance to. Even if you settle on a favoured option, keep buying a bit of 'something else' now and then to give a try. Tastes change over time after all.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have polycontrast prints from the mid 70 that are just as I printed them, on the other hand early GAF RC prints are not holding up as well, GAF fiber prints are still good. I print with both RC and FB depending the negative. In general I print proof sheets and work prints on RC then decide on either RC or FB for the final print.

 

[rthollenbeck]

There is only so much that opinions written on the internet can tell you about the products, and even then you're going to get a wild range of conflicting opinions that swing back and forth between the "Yeah, I love it, and it is all I use", to the "No it is terrible, and 'no real photographer' would waste their time with it these days."

Yea, seems like there has always been this problem with OPINIONS. Before the Internet you may have had a more difficult time getting your opinion published.....but just because it was printed didn't mean it wasn't self serving BS.

 

[removed account4]

IDK

one person's BS is another person's truth ...
usually when i read what someone says on the internets, i look into who is saying what. if they have a website or images posted someplace i look at them,
i read other things they might have said to gain an understanding about what they are talking about rather than take what they say as gospel. the people on a website who use
an obscure user name, have no images posted anywhere and just say "stuff" ... the other folks might be a bit more persuasive ...