Is Ilford's RC "Portfolio" now *the* premium enlarging paper?

[Dusty Negative]

I'm getting low on 8x10 paper, so I took a peek over at B&H. Here is a current comparison of 8x10 glossy in various formats:

1. Ilford MULTIGRADE RC Deluxe Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $129.00
2. Ilford Multigrade FB Classic Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $148.00
3. Ilford RC Portfolio Photo Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $183.50

So, the RC portfolio is about 25% more expensive than their *fiber* paper.

I like the RC portfolio because of its sturdiness and, of course, because of what one would normally expect out of RC, namely using less water than FB and curling much, much less than FB.

But .... it's still RC. So, either I've been under a rock for the past few years (very possible) or something in the supply chain has changed...or....? Has the portfolio always been the premium (price-wise, at least) option? Honestly, the large price difference is motivating me to go ahead open the (water) tap and get my heat press warmed up for that environment-killing FB...

 

[Dwayne Martin]

Makes no sense to me...

 

[GregY]

I'm getting low on 8x10 paper, so I took a peek over at B&H. Here is a current comparison of 8x10 glossy in various formats:

1. Ilford MULTIGRADE RC Deluxe Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $129.00
2. Ilford Multigrade FB Classic Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $148.00
3. Ilford RC Portfolio Photo Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $183.50

So, the RC portfolio is about 25% more expensive than their *fiber* paper.

I like the RC portfolio because of its sturdiness and, of course, because of what one would normally expect out of RC, namely using less water than FB and curling much, much less than FB.

But .... it's still RC. So, either I've been under a rock for the past few years (very possible) or something in the supply chain has changed...or....? Has the portfolio always been the premium (price-wise, at least) option? Honestly, the large price difference is motivating me to go ahead open the (water) tap and get my heat press warmed up for that environment-killing FB...

It might just be old stock/new stock price difference. A 100 sheets of 8x10 MG Warmtone FB is $228....

 

[MattKing]

The double-weight Portfolio substrate may be quite expensive to acquire.
It is very durable, and very nice to handle, so I would not be surprised if there is a "premium" market for it.

 

[Don_ih]

At the Canadian official distributor (Amplis), the Portfolio is special order and more expensive than the MGFB.

It is excellent paper, though. Sometimes, you can't really tell it's RC paper.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I'm getting low on 8x10 paper, so I took a peek over at B&H. Here is a current comparison of 8x10 glossy in various formats:

1. Ilford MULTIGRADE RC Deluxe Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $129.00
2. Ilford Multigrade FB Classic Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $148.00
3. Ilford RC Portfolio Photo Paper (Glossy, 8 x 10", 100 Sheets) - $183.50

So, the RC portfolio is about 25% more expensive than their *fiber* paper.

I like the RC portfolio because of its sturdiness and, of course, because of what one would normally expect out of RC, namely using less water than FB and curling much, much less than FB.

But .... it's still RC. So, either I've been under a rock for the past few years (very possible) or something in the supply chain has changed...or....? Has the portfolio always been the premium (price-wise, at least) option? Honestly, the large price difference is motivating me to go ahead open the (water) tap and get my heat press warmed up for that environment-killing FB...

At the prices you have quoted, I would go for the Classic FB.
Deluxe Portfolio is wonderful, but I'm not sure it's worth more than premium fibre based papers

 

[Rob Skeoch]

Interesting for sure. The only 'Portfolio' paper I ever purchased was the postcard paper, which is no longer made. If people were handling the prints I would want the thicker paper but if it's going in a frame would be happy with the regular RC. Having said that, I use FB for my gallery prints, and RC for work prints and contacts, but that doesn't mean it's any better, just that I'm living in the past.

 

[logan2z]

Having said that, I use FB for my gallery prints, and RC for work prints...

I was going to start using Ilford's RC paper for making work prints as a cost saving measure, but the price of a box of FB isn't that much more than a box of RC these days so I'm not sure it's worth the trouble. I haven't used Ilford's RC for years, are exposure times close to the Multigrade FB Classic?

 

[markbau]

The RC papers are a bit slower than FB. The warm tone RC is a lot slower.

 

[markbau]

I've not used the portfolio but I'm certain it would be an outstanding paper. Ilford paper is the best IMO. I'm getting older now and after 40 years of darkroom work I don't know if I'm up for faffing around with FB paper anymore when the RC papers are every bit as good. I have no intention of being exhibited in galleries so I really just make prints for me and my friends so printing RC is no biggie. I always buy 8 x 10 paper in boxes of 250, on my next purchase I will seriously consider RC. The only thing holding me back is I do love the finish of air dried glossy FB, glossy RC still looks a bit shiny to my eye. Mind you, Ilfords current glossy FB seems quite a bit more glossy than their older FB's.

 

[GregY]

I'll continue to be a hold out for FB paper, & as far as the paper base, i have beautiful prints made on single weight Azo, ....to me it's about the emulsion, not the substrate.

 

[mshchem]

This is essentially a double weight-like PE base paper similar in thickness to the old postcard stock. Thicker for whatever reason you want, this would be a nice feel for a portfolio to show one's work to a potential client.

Makes nice postcards too. It's just a premium RC paper

 

[DREW WILEY]

Nothing RC can realistically be described as premium quality. You might pay more for a thicker paper; but Ilford's top tier product is unquestionably MGWT FB.

 

[markbau]

Nothing RC can realistically be described as premium quality. You might pay more for a thicker paper; but Ilford's top tier product is unquestionably MGWT FB.

It's all a matter of opinion. I used to poo poo RC paper but the current Ilford RC is every bit as good as their FB IMO. In fact, I recently did a test regarding 2 filter printing (no burning or dodging) and in the test found that the RC paper held a bit more highlight detail than the FB. It surprised me. I am confident that if I showed you a an RC print and a FB print, and put them behind low reflectance glass you wouldn't be able to tell me which was RC and which was FB.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

Nothing RC can realistically be described as premium quality. You might pay more for a thicker paper; but Ilford's top tier product is unquestionably MGWT FB.

Until lit's behind glass, and then you're just stuck with the picture.

 

[pentaxuser]

Just an impression but as one who has looked at the price of Ilford RC paper over the years since about 2005, Portfolio always was at a considerable premium compared to other RC paper and was always pretty close to Ilford FB prices

pentaxuser

 

[Dusty Negative]

So, Adorama is showing the 8x10 FB Glossy at $177.55. Still CHEAPER than the RC Portfolio, although not by much.

So, perhaps as @GregY says might be too much stock of FB at the moment?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'd spot the difference in a heartbeat. The only advantage RC provides is that it wouldn't curl as bad in an album or stack of unmounted prints. You can't drymount it; so it's not of value in bigger sizes.

I don't know what is meant by "low reflectance glass". If you mean frosted picture glass, well, then nothing looks crisp behind that. If you mean optically-coated nonglare glass, you must have a pretty large budget in mind, and even tiny differences in surface sheen or print flatness will be apparent.

 

[NB23]

I’m still crying for the discontinued ilfospeed graded matte rc papers. I have never used such a good paper, everything about it was perfect. The tooth, the weight, the feel, the tones.

 

[MattKing]

I'd spot the difference in a heartbeat. The only advantage RC provides is that it wouldn't curl as bad in an album or stack of unmounted prints. You can't drymount it; so it's not of value in bigger sizes.

You can drymount RC, if you have the right lower temperature tissue.

 

[Keith Tapscott.]

I’m still crying for the discontinued ilfospeed graded matte rc papers. I have never used such a good paper, everything about it was perfect. The tooth, the weight, the feel, the tones.

That was a lovely paper.
I also sometimes used Kentmere Kenthene papers in a Stipple surface.
The Kenthene gave about a grade more contrast than the Ilfospeed papers.

 

[markbau]

I'd spot the difference in a heartbeat. The only advantage RC provides is that it wouldn't curl as bad in an album or stack of unmounted prints. You can't drymount it; so it's not of value in bigger sizes.

I don't know what is meant by "low reflectance glass". If you mean frosted picture glass, well, then nothing looks crisp behind that. If you mean optically-coated nonglare glass, you must have a pretty large budget in mind, and even tiny differences in surface sheen or print flatness will be apparent.

Most picture framers will recommend an anti reflective or more properly called low reflectance glass, UltraVue UV 70 is a very common and popular glass. I do framing and can't recall the last time a photographer didn't want a glass like UV 70. It is actually well priced when compared to "normal" glass which often makes viewing tough unless the picture, light source and objects nearby are very carefully arranged to prevent reflections.

Anyway, our paths will probably never cross but if they did I doubt you'd be able to tell them apart (RC and FB) once they are behind glass.

And BTW, dry mounting is totally out of fashion now. Galleries and museums don't want anything to do with it but you can dry mount RC with lower melt tissue as MattKing said. My dry mount press is only used to flatten FB prints these days.

 

[DREW WILEY]

First of all, I don't know of a single museum around here which looks down on drymounting. And this is the neighborhood of some of the most famous black and white photographers who have ever lived, and their primary collections. Properly done, drymounting actually protects the print. It's almost impossible to make a decent presentation of any kind of large print without some kind of truly flat mounting (with certain exceptions, like hand-coated emulsions on watercolor papers, deckle-edged pt/pd prints, etc).

I personally supplied museum display shops with all kinds of specialized equipment and advice for three decades, and was even offered a role in one of them after I retired, which I politely declined - have other things to do. I also interacted with a commercial frame shop doing custom work on a scale that could amount to $40,000 US for a single frame alone, so have an acute understanding of all the expansion and contraction stresses and thermal issues, etc. So I'm pretty well informed about the factors at play.

Cold mounting is way more tricky. I have special presses for that too. Then there's old school wet mounting using glue. But that only works reliably for fiber based papers; and like permanent cold mounting, is very unforgiving of any mistakes.

"Low heat" tissues aren't all that reliable; yet the heat which is involved tends to conform any RC print - color or b&w - to any unevenness of the substate itself. Also heat can lead to sheen mottling on RC. Hence the combination of RC prints and hot mounting is quite rare. I did test it. I tested all kinds of things.

I have the capacity in my own shop to handle sheet glass up to six feet wide; and have tested optically coated non-glare glass since its inception. But it has two enormous Achilles heels : first, it is glass, and generally of a thin variety, and breaks, with potential shipping issues in framed prints. Second, glass is a poor thermal insulator and prone to condensation and mildew behind it in humid climates or when aggressive diurnal temperature swings occur, particularly in commercial buildings. One needs to keep in mind the specific actual display or storage environments involved, and never make generalized assumptions.

The alternate, optically coated acrylic, is very expensive. I'd have to add a thousand dollars to the price of framing alone for the typical size image I generally handled (probably even more now). The problem with acrylic is that it bows somewhat. I often work with true high gloss prints (Cibachrome and Fuji Supergloss), so am painfully aware of the need for glare control.
I have my own proprietary techniques; but again, the cost of the supplies involved has gone up so dramatically in the past few years that it's becoming unrealistic to continue doing except on special demand.

I'm not anti-RC per se, in a black and white context. But whether based on fact or fiction, it's still a pariah among collectors here. I have used it for quickie commercial prints destined for offset press repro, in albums, etc.