RC glossy paper

[jmal]

Hello,

I'm looking for recommendations for a glossy RC paper. I have been using Ilford MGIV and also tried their pearl, which I didn't like at all. Some one described it as looking like prints from the drugstore. I would agree; the prints looked cheap. Anyhow, I'm just curious if any other brands of glossy RC really stand out above the crowd. The MGIV glossy is workable, but I'm interested in your opinions on some of the other brands currently available. Thanks.

Jmal

 

[Bob F.]

You might try the Forte Polywarmtone for a very different look to the MGIV. Ilford of course also do Warmtone and Coldtone versions of MGIV RC. My image in the gallery ((there was a url link here which no longer exists)) uses the Polywarmtone semi-matt RC.

I'm not a fan of glossy RC, it's too plastic for my tastes, but I have been looking at a few semi-matt RC papers the last couple of weeks. Rather than the MGIV Pearl, which I too am not a fan of, have a look at the MGIV Satin finish. The Satin has a flatter finish without the pronounced mechanical texture that the Pearl has - much closer to an air dried FB paper.

Cheers, Bob.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Be aware that RC papers have excellent applications for short life, commercial and handout work. Some have a greater Dmax than fibre papers and the gloss papers can be excellent for short use work.

No fine printer works with RC for work they want to last. It is good for many things but if you want your work to hang around you will go with fibre papers and careful darkroom practice. RC does not fill the bill in this market.

 

[dancqu]

Be aware that RC papers have excellent applications for
short life, commercial and handout work.

SW paper WAS the norm for those purposes. Then came
the machine age and 24 hour labs; now 1. Dan

 

[firecracker]

I have been using Ilford MGIV and also tried their pearl, which I didn't like at all. Some one described it as looking like prints from the drugstore. I would agree; the prints looked cheap.

I think the pearl-finished RC paper is just a good alternative to the glossy FB paper, which is not nearly as glossy as the glossy RC paper. Before I print on the FB, I often run tests with the pearl RC because it's so quick.

Fuji makes glossy RC, and so does Oriental as far as I know. You might want to try them. But I think you should stick to the one you can get easily if you find the diferences in quality are not great.

 

[Gerald Koch]

Be aware that RC papers have excellent applications for short life, commercial and handout work. Some have a greater Dmax than fibre papers and the gloss papers can be excellent for short use work.

No fine printer works with RC for work they want to last. It is good for many things but if you want your work to hang around you will go with fibre papers and careful darkroom practice. RC does not fill the bill in this market.

Before Kodak went out of the paper business they rated their RC papers as comparable in permanence to their FB papers. I believe that Ilford had a similar comment about their papers. Vast improvements had been made in RC papers in the last 5 - 10 years. The US government accepts RC prints under their 75 year permanence standard. As for "archival permanence", there is no such thing since people cannot agree on the meaning of "archival".

Of course, gallery owners remain unconvinced. As we all know they are the only ones that know anything about photography.

 

[Neal]

Dear Jmal,

If you, as I do, find MGIV a little warm, give Ilford Cooltone RC paper a try.

Neal Wydra

 

[Dave Miller]

Before Kodak went out of the paper business they rated their RC papers as comparable in permanence to their FB papers. I believe that Ilford had a similar comment about their papers. Vast improvements had been made in RC papers in the last 5 - 10 years. The US government accepts RC prints under their 75 year permanence standard. As for "archival permanence", there is no such thing since people cannot agree on the meaning of "archival".

Of course, gallery owners remain unconvinced. As we all know they are the only ones that know anything about photography.

Very well put Gerald. In fact Ilford continue to take this stance, there being do demonstrable difference in longlevity between the two types. It therefore remains a question of personal choice or gallery hype.

 

[Paul.]

Hello,

I'm looking for recommendations for a glossy RC paper. I have been using Ilford MGIV and also tried their pearl, which I didn't like at all. Some one described it as looking like prints from the drugstore. I would agree; the prints looked cheap. Anyhow, I'm just curious if any other brands of glossy RC really stand out above the crowd. The MGIV glossy is workable, but I'm interested in your opinions on some of the other brands currently available. Thanks.

Jmal

Dont know if you can get it states side, but I find Fotospeed an interesting alternative to Ilford. The Fotospeed base tends to be a little warmer and it prints a stop faster than Ilford MG1V. They do a gloss finish but I seldon use gloss so can't comment on it exept to say their satin finish paper is exelant.
Regards Paul.

 

[Dave Miller]

Dont know if you can get it states side, but I find Fotospeed an interesting alternative to Ilford. The Fotospeed base tends to be a little warmer and it prints a stop faster than Ilford MG1V. They do a gloss finish but I seldon use gloss so can't comment on it exept to say their satin finish paper is exelant.
Regards Paul.

It's good, but compare it to Kentmere, and then make your choice.

 

[Paul.]

It's good, but compare it to Kentmere, and then make your choice.

Willnot argue with you Dave, the only Kentmere paper I have used was a graded matt one that I loved for portrates. Haveing not used their VC cannot comment. It appears to be one to put on the list to try.
Regards Paul.

 

[dancqu]

...demonstrable difference in longlevity between the two types.

No demonstrable difference. Of course not. Plastics used
for RC papers post-date by generations some still existing
and in excellent condition FB silver-gelatine prints. Dan

 

[firecracker]

Fuji's #2 graded RC paper called WP FM2 is acutally not bad. I just happened to use it last night for the first time, and I like it.

I like the contrast of this paper, which is set soft but not too fuzzy. The shadows don't get too deep, which is easy to work with, and the highlights don't seem to pop too much. My test prints came out beautiful with Dektol diluted 1:3.

Since I have not used the Ilford glossy RC paper for a long time I cannot compare the two, but I'm assuming the difference is not much. Fuji makes its multicontrast RC paper, too, but since I'm happy with the graded paper (#2 is all I need), I don't think I'll have to bother.