Move from RC to FB paper

[photobackpacker]

It has been many years now since I printed on RC paper. I do remember the pleasant surprise when I took the plunge and bought my first boxes of 8x10 Seagull graded paper. The blacks that jumped off the page and whites that glowed had me convinced that Ansel would have been proud. (In retrospect, he wouldn't have but it was a fun thought.)

My daughter-in-law came took a photography class and, of course, all students used RC. She walked away with a "Best Image" award for her work - very promising. We will be reprinting her favorite negatives on FB soon and I look forward to watching her reaction.

 

[George Papantoniou]

I never printed on RC paper. How is it ??? ;-)

 

[dancqu]

I never printed on RC paper. How is it ??? ;-)

Stiff. Dan

 

[geraldatwork]

Much quicker. Half the time in development and fixer and just a few minutes in washing. Visually I feel the RC paper just doesn't have the "punch" of fiber but great for doing work prints to see what you have.

 

[photobackpacker]

Cheap, quick but IMHO limiting.

 

[Claire Senft]

Find it hard to understand

I know that Apug has members that use Rc as a serious medium for fine art work. I believe that one can achieve a very high quality print on RC that is beautiful. I very appreciate that RC paper is less expensive in time, cash outlay and resource usage. I am convinced that with toning and Sistan that the LE of the print is improved.

I myself do not consider my work to be art. I do hope that it is expressive and nicely crafted. At 64 years of age I find myself thinking of leaving a photographic legacy. I am extremely concerned about making prints that should last. I can not afford to work in either carbon or platinum therefore, irrespective of any other consideration, this old dog is not going to learn any RC tricks and I will continue to use fiber based paper that is toned and thoroughly washed.

 

[Peter Schrager]

RC?

What exactly is RC? I thought they made that stuff for bathroom mats. Only jokin' folks!
Regards, Peter

 

[George Papantoniou]

Peter, Claire, Gerald, Dan and Bruce, thanks for the replies but in fact I was just being cynical...

I only use RC for contacts, never used it for anything else. Couldn't agree more with you all...

Cheers

George

 

[dancqu]

I am extremely concerned about making prints that should last.
I can not afford to work in either carbon or platinum ...

How about Gold? Have you considered Nelson's Gold Toner? I've
reason to believe it is the least expensive of toners and the equal
of sepia or hypo-alum for archival purposes. Dan

 

[sergio caetano]

Dan
Hypo alum is not archival.

 

[ann]

Sergio,

I would beg to differ that Hypo ALum is not archival, please check page 33 of Tim Rudman"s book on toning where he discusses hypo alum toning. "they involve the depostion of silver sulphide and as such are archival toners."

This toner falls into the sulphide toner class, including sepia, thiocarbamide ; which are all considered archival. In fact the full name , altho not frequently used , is Hypo ALum Sepia Toner.

Then of course there are the polysulphides which are all archival and considered by the IPI to be at the top of the archival chain of toners.

p.s. it just came to mind that if one is not toning to completion, there is possible archival issues. Then consister a Sistan bath after toning.

If split toning, either with gold or selenium the additional toners along with the hypo alum should provide protection

 

[WarEaglemtn]

"I can not afford to work in either carbon or platinum"

Take a look at the Bostick & Sullivan site & order a Ziatype kit and some Platinotype paper. It makes beautiful prints & is not difficult to work with.

 

[George Papantoniou]

Hey, we're getting more and more away from the thread starter's philosophy here...
On Saturday I went to the B&W store to buy some RC paper I use for contacts. You can guess what happened... The store owner (a friend), started to make fun of me, saying that he'll let the word out that I'm printing on RC and things like that, ridiculising me in front of the clientelle (there were two young female photography students in the shop)... Since I have been writing about BW papers in the past, praising the qualities of the baryta based ones (of course), you understand that I felt really awful. I wrapped my RC packets in a brown bag and rushed out of the store in a hurry.
Next time I will be out of paper for contacts, I will either go to another store (and be disguised) or order it from an online store (those ones that guarantee total discretion etc).
Do you have any other ideas ? How do you do your RC paper provisions (if you do any)? Should I start doing my contacts on single weight FB again (like in the good old times)?

 

[Bob F.]

From what I have read (not been around photography that long) old style, i.e. pre Ilford MG-IV era, RC paper was seriously lacking in good tonal response, especially in the shadows. If you have not tried RC for many years, it may be worth getting a box and trying it. However, whatever the emulsion qualities, IMO the surface appearance can't come close to fibre: I find the plastic surface quite ugly. Once mounted behind glass, I do find the surface sheen is less obvious and therefore more acceptable but I think fibre still has the edge.

I use RC for messing about in the darkroom but always switch to fibre for a "serious" print...


Bob.

 

[Claire Senft]

I have not tried gold toning either as a protective solution or al 'Nelson' et al.
Never before have I heard someone express the opinion that gold is less expensive than selenium. I do not take issue with the accuracy of the statement.

Perhaps you could layout your cost comparison for the benefit of all.

 

[ann]

I would like to second claire's request for a comparsion.

we use a wide variety of gold toners and it has not been my experience that any toner with gold is cheaper. Including those mixed from bulk chemicals, let alone kits

 

[Deckled Edge]

I would like to second claire's request for a comparsion.

we use a wide variety of gold toners and it has not been my experience that any toner with gold is cheaper. Including those mixed from bulk chemicals, let alone kits

For the cost of a teeny little bottle of gold toner, you can buy a medium sized bottle of KRST, which is mixed 1:9 or greater and lasts seemingly forever. I'm using the same 1:9 soln. that I mixed 8 months (90 prints) ago, and still have 3/4 of a bottle of the original. Gold toner does not last that long, tones fewer prints, and just is NOT cheaper, any way you figgur it.