Fibre Only?

[modafoto]

Here you got fibre...go print on it...performs well in almost all developers and cream cheese

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Is there anyone producing top quality B&W that prints their exhibition/for sale work on RC? I know a number of photogs who have done so & lost their shirt when the RC went bad. Same with some labs.
With all the promises & promos from the makers, the stuff just doesn't cut it when the images have to last.

 

[donbga]

Here you got fibre...go print on it...performs well in almost all developers and cream cheese

Things in Denmark are obviously quite boring these days.

Don Bryant

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I have found very little use for RC papers other than quick and dirty prints, contact sheets for 35mm and Postcards.

The knowledge gained in printing an RC print is in no way useful or applicable to the FB print. The RC print may suggest burning/dodging is necessary but the amount or degree is not transferable.

A print that maxs' out in 1 minute of development cannot reveal the nuance's of a FB print that can be split developed or where the amount of development directly applies to the final print.

That's what I think this week.

 

[titrisol]

RC also contains silver.... so it's the real deal
FB is more classic

 

[Flotsam]

I do my workprints on RC and, if I decide that the neg has potential, I do the final print on FB. This means that I have a lot of experience printing the same neg on both papers

You can make excellent prints on RC but there is no doubt in my mind that FB still produces a perceptably a better print exhibiting crisper tones.

 

[Jim Moore]

Although I use RC for "work" prints all of my final prints that "go out the door" (with the exception of the postcard exchange) are printed on fiber.

 

[Scott Edwards]

I used to print exclusively on RC paper and exhibit these prints in galleries. One can really get a pleasing effect with decent RC paper, but now, however, I use only fiber for several reasons: FB retouches much easier, has a more pleasing glossy surface, looks much better when mounted due to the thickness of the paper which absorbs the texture of the mounting board rather than showing bumpiness, and most importantly, FB has withstood the real test of time. RC pearl still looks like photolab quality paper to me, and the RC glossy reveals hairline scratches and collects dust like crazy.
My $.02.

 

[SteveGangi]

I voted the second choice - both are real. I use both, depending on what I have on hand.

 

[Dorothy Blum Cooper]

I have to agree with a few of the posts in that both tend to work in their own way for the situation I need them.

The fine art limited edition prints are fiber all the way. However...when exhibiting certain prints that are mounted for display purposes only (no glass/frame), I use RC for a bit more 'resistance' to the elements. Besides...I've always prefered the look my prints have on RC paper under certain gallery light.

Do I 'personally' think fiber is better paper? Yes...I do. But do I like RC for certain occasions? Yes...so I really can't vote. Just wanted to toss out another .02 cents on the topic.

 

[Claude]

I prefer fiber or better since a few time Azo, blacks are deeper and the grey range is bigger (IMHO).
Regards
Claude

 

[TPPhotog]

Morten I think sometimes the fetish prints can look better on RC Glossy as it adds to the look of the paper. Don't think my Fibre is made out of Rye though as there's too many holes

 

[rbarker]

Morten I think sometimes the fetish prints can look better on RC Glossy . . .

Wouldn't fiber-base with a wax coating, lustfully hand applied and slavishly buffed to a high sheen, be better?

 

[BruceN]

I voted "Yes, of course RC is real." As I understand it, it wasn't a question of preferring one over the other. I like, and use, both of them. I will say that I prefer the feel of FB for prints that aren't going to be mounted, but I don't tend to hand those around. For friends and family that are always bugging me to "Bring some prints over!" RC Pearl is the order of the day. They're just going to hand them around and get fingerprints, slobber and godknowswhat all over them anyway. MGIV RC Pearl seems to handle that kind of treatment pretty well. Anything glossy looks like crap after the first or second person has handled it.

 

[Flotsam]

When I get a few negs together, I spend an evening in the darkroom printing them on 5x7 RC. This lets me check them for contrast and sharpness and are big enough to map out any needed burns and dodges. RC paper processes, washes and dries quickly and conveniently which speeds up that phase of the workflow tremendously. On another night I'll print the negs that I feel are worthy and do full sized prints on fiber. The information gained from having already handled the negative in the RC session makes printing the fiber much quicker, better and more economical.
The RC 5x7s that I don't choose to enlarge onto fiber are still very good prints that I am glad to have. They just aren't neccessarily the cream of my efforts.

I'd hate to not have both types of paper in my darkroom

 

[TPPhotog]

Wouldn't fiber-base with a wax coating, lustfully hand applied and slavishly buffed to a high sheen, be better?

Very possibly but I haven't got around to trying wax coating yet