RC paper, how unarchival is it?

[avandesande]

Well that's enough for me. I don't mind the surface on the agfa and kentmere rc papers, but the ilford had a nasty metermism. I guess I don't want to play RC roulette. I just hate dbweight paper.

 

[blansky]

Here's a troll.


When you display a fiber print next to a RC print, the RC looks like it is digital.


Michael

 

[Dave Miller]

Here's a troll.


When you display a fiber print next to a RC print, the RC looks like it is digital.


Michael

Rubbish; but we've been here before.

Put them behind a sheet of glass and you cannot tell the difference.

 

[fhovie]

Funny thing about that - I did some portraits of my neice and shot them in 8x10 and contact printed on rc paper (till I had more prints to do worth mixing Amidol and using AZO) My wife - put it (RC) "under glass" and hung it up. I later made my AZO/Amidol prints and replaced the one she put up - "under glass" with an AZO print. She told me how much better the AZO print looked. Now we are talking about a Glossy 8x10 contact printed on both RC and AZO. My wife thinks APS enlargements look good - SHE noticed the big difference. She said - the other one (RC) looks like it has a haze over it - it makes it look less sharp. That haze would be the PLASTIC film that covers all RC images from birth to death. It is like looking at your cell phone with the shipping plastic over the lens - kind of hazy. I use RC paper to evaluate images and make quick photos for people that won't know any better or care that much. I use a lot of RC paper. It is silly to say that there isn't a difference. Glossy fiber paper is black on the top of the surface and it has a 3d look to it. The sharpness is unhindered by anything.

Rubbish; but we've been here before.

Put them behind a sheet of glass and you cannot tell the difference.

 

[Ed Sukach]

Funny thing about that - ...
... She said - the other one (RC) looks like it has a haze over it - it makes it look less sharp. That haze would be the PLASTIC film that covers all RC images from birth to death. It is like looking at your cell phone with the shipping plastic over the lens - kind of hazy.

I was about to say the heck with it ... that is a matter of aesthetics ... when I realized .... the plastic (PE) layer encapsulates the BASE (that is usually fiber, but can be plastic) - NOT the emulsion, in RC paper. If the emulsion itself was covered with polyethylene, the developer, and all, couldn't get to it... just as it does not get to the base in RC prints, therefore reducing washing time and curling in drying.

One major difference is in the layer immediately below the emulsion: "Fiber" prints have Baryta, a white clay; while RC uses Titanium Oxide.
Both look awfully damned white to me, but others may see them differently.

 

[df cardwell]

Leaving my disagreement to the side, I'll ask one question: Why can you produce a greater number of fiber prints than RC?

I've learned my craft ?

 

[fschifano]

I use a lot of RC paper, and relatively little FB paper. I'm a cheapskate and can't see using the relatively more expensive FB paper for work prints and such. Having said that however, when I do have an image that I think is worth the extra expense and effort, it goes to FB paper. It simply looks nicer. I can't argue one way or the other about the archival qualities of RC paper. Some of my old prints are still good, and some are deteriorating badly. But those are all on older RC papers; and to be honest, I wasn't always careful about proper washing and storage. Today's materials might be better and I'm a lot more careful about washing and storage.

 

[Dave Miller]

Ed got there in one; well two actually.

R/C for ever. But I still do my exhibition prints on fibre, because they don't go behind glass.

Seriously I find R/C best for work/test prints before doing the keeper on fibre. Having said that some prints just look better on R/C, some don't.

 

[df cardwell]

:confused: This is an eye-opening conversation.

To me, there is as much difference between fiber and RC as there is between fiber and Platinum.

No, not true. With the right negative, and development technique, fiber can be indistinguishable from platinum.

To me, RC is like listening to a cheap radio while fiber is a live performance.
( and through the whole RC era, following correct procedure, I've had RC prints that have silvered-out, stained, all sorts of things. )

Well, whatever works. We're all different, and we know what is the right material for our pictures.

( but I prefer acoustic instruments to amplification, so.... )

.

 

[avandesande]

Df, i am new to enlarging, and i have burned up several boxes of rc learning to print. I hardly ever change off of my grade 3 filter, should I go fiber multigrade or just go to graded papers? (semi-stand rodinal makes things easy)

 

[Photo Engineer]

I heard this same argument about FB about 50 years ago when people had problems with FP prints bronzing, turning yellow and had the baryta crack and craze.

Then FB got better and complaints diminished, but I have FB prints from the 20's that look like crap!

PE

 

[Lee Shively]

I think it comes down to who you want to trust. I realize, these days, people have problems trusting anyone about anything because most of what we're told is BS.

Fiber paper has been around and has a good track record so I trust it is, at least, relatively stable when properly processed. Of course, fiber has changed over the years. Who's to say if the papers from 2006 will last until 2106 as well as the papers from 1906 lasted until 2006?

The first RC papers I used from the early 1970's were garbage. Of the few prints I kept--and I kept them in boxes, not displayed in the open--most silvered out. Later on, the newspaper where I worked bought a Kodak Royal Print Processor. The RC prints from that looked okay and they still look okay today, 20 years later.

Today's RC papers look every bit as good as the fiber papers, in my opinion. I expect they'll probably last a long time as well. But I still trust fiber paper on longevity due to its track record.

 

[David Brown]

Seriously I find R/C best for work/test prints before doing the keeper on fibre. Having said that some prints just look better on R/C, some don't.

Can't say it any better.

Cheers,

David

 

[Daniel Lawton]

When I first started printing and switched from RC to fiber, I showed them to some family members. Many had never really seen a traditional fiber print up close and they all said how they loved that "kind" of paper. I think the outside world looks at an RC print and probably thinks it was machine processed in a minilab whereas a fiber print screams "handmade." I use RC for its advantages (quick and easy processing) and use it for all my proof sheets. Anything that matters however gets printed on fiber.

 

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

I am no expert in the longevity of images, although we have a few people who are, after speaking to them I would state our case.

Firstly RC is very, very good and has progressively been significantly improved, but it was primariliy developed for convenience and ease of use, the key element to maximise its stability and permanence is to fix and wash it properly...simple. Should it last 50 years or more without significant deterioration..yes it should.

FB or Fibre base papers, correctly fixed and washed, should last longer than an RC print and if it is then then toned ( usually, but not exclusively, with a selenium toner ) is in our opinion a print that 'should' last the longest. How long...we really do not know...accelerated tests are just that, accelerated tests, without wishing to sound flippant..only time will truly tell. A good guess is in in excess of one hundred years, can we guarantee it ?..no we can not.

But we miss one of the most, probably THE most important factor... the correct storage is incredibly important in the longevity of images. Most people do not store images in line with the accepted practice in Museums for the archival permanence and preservation of photographic images, and debate continues as to ' best practice'. If you need to do that plenty of info is available.

The billions of images in shoe boxes in wardrobes,sideboards or under beds around the World are testament to that storage system, and it works well, normally dry, normally dark, no contaminents present, rarely handled, no massive temperature changes...We also guess thats what most of our paper boxes are used for when empty.

If you look at our paper sales by volume, when the RC's were launched in the 70's sales went through the roof, and FB declined to very low levels, now, obviously volumes of all photo papers have declined, RC sales are still many times that of FB, but FB has not declined in percentage terms by as much as RC and indeed is very stable by volume, and with the introduction of new products like WARMTONE FB is likely to stay that way.

Finally, and this is my own view, and I print on both, nothing looks better to me than a 20x16 mounted monochrome fibre base print, with a white border and a black frame...as long as the image is good...and perhaps just that the image to you...is good.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

 

[Bob Carnie]

At our Lab , we noticed that RC prints that were framed would cause us problems, with de - silvering.
We use a rapid transport machine for RC as most labs world wide do.
If you did a hypo check on these machines I think the results would be surprisingly poor.
On the other side , properly fixed and washed in trays, I cannot say if the same desilvering exists.
The encapsalated enviournment that a frame creates seems to be the accelerator of this de-silvering process.

I have never seen a fibre print de-silver, therefore since 1994 we do not offer RC prints for framing purposes.

Someone mentioned Ctein , who docummented his blues with RC prints. Well worth the read.

I would agree with the above that storage conditions play heavily on archival aspects of B&W , rc or fibre.

 

[claytume]

At our Lab , we noticed that RC prints that were framed would cause us problems, with de - silvering.
We use a rapid transport machine for RC as most labs world wide do.
If you did a hypo check on these machines I think the results would be surprisingly poor.
On the other side , properly fixed and washed in trays, I cannot say if the same desilvering exists.
The encapsalated enviournment that a frame creates seems to be the accelerator of this de-silvering process.

I have never seen a fibre print de-silver, therefore since 1994 we do not offer RC prints for framing purposes.

.

Bob

I wondered how labs handled RC machine prints as I too have had problems with them framed. I've had identical prints processed the same time, one framed, the other in a box and the framed print has turned brown or gone spotty.

I check silver content in the fix and always keep it at low levels. I've since set up a processor to selenium tone them and so far the framed prints have been ok. Big hassle though.

I wondered if labs have processors setup with sistan baths, haven't found one yet.

I don't have the option of printing fibre, I wouldn't be able to handle the volume and cost through the extra labour would increase dramatically.


Clayton

 

[claytume]

Dear All,

I am no expert in the longevity of images, although we have a few people who are, after speaking to them I would state our case.

Firstly RC is very, very good and has progressively been significantly improved, but it was primariliy developed for convenience and ease of use, the key element to maximise its stability and permanence is to fix and wash it properly...simple. Should it last 50 years or more without significant deterioration..yes it should.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Simon

can you comment on machine processing RC paper? Afterall Ilford does sell RC for machine processing and did also sell processors specifically for processing their paper. While Ilfords data sheets state toning should be undertaken for long term display, the machines they sold were never capable of toning the paper.

Clayton

 

[Dave Miller]

Dear All,


The billions of images in shoe boxes in wardrobes,sideboards or under beds around the World are testament to that storage system, and it works well, normally dry, normally dark, no contaminents present, rarely handled, no massive temperature changes...We also guess thats what most of our paper boxes are used for when empty.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Well, that’s a relief Simon; for one moment there I thought you were going to tell me to buy a new shoe box!

 

[DKT]

I can't speak for Ilford, but I have used one of their machines since about 1993 at the museum photo studio/lab I work for. I have made thousands of prints in this time, and very few of them have actually failed. The ones that did happened on display, and I can think of two reasons. In one instance, an adhesive like liquid nails was used to attach the mount substrate to a wall and it eventually ate through the mount and formed this particularly nasty peroxide stain on the front of the image. Another time, someone used a solvent to clean the front of a print on display and it had some problems after that....the other instances came from mechanical breakdowns inside the processor, mainly a solenoid going out that controlled the flowrate to the wash tank.

I think the prints are probably processed to a "commercial" standard, which would allow for a quicker wash. You have to remember that they move quickly through the tanks, at an elevated temp (95F for the 2150). the rollers in the rack, through their design & pressure squeegee off the soln. as the prints move from one tank to the next, and they exit the wash tank and move under a spray bar. The problems with the processors come when the chemistry is overused, or when the wash water is overwhelmed by throughput--I drain the tank every day to keep it fresh, and I'm pretty conservative with the chemistry as well.

I have never sent one of the prints to the lab to have a methylene blue test done on it, but I probably could I guess, since they test the microfilm like this. I have made selenium, and sepia toned prints though--by turning the dryer off and then taking the damp print and rewetting it in a tray of water and then toning & finishing it off like a regular print, and I never had any staining problems, so I always figured the wash was adequate, if not good enough. I have to make about 60 16x20s for an exhibit pretty soon, and I'm going to selenium tone them because the show will travel someday and I'd rather not have to replace one of them out on the road some place. I'm not too worried about their run in the gallery though, and honestly they would probably do fine outside as well. In any event, if there was a problem, we always print an extra set and keep it stored away just in case, and we have all the negs and originals as well, so see--the prints are not "master" files.

most of the archive & museum labs I have had the opportunity to visit, or talk with the staff have been using RC processors for years now. The prints are mostly used not as files or records, but for access to other files, records, objects etc, since the master files are archived on film. There are RC prints that are collected though, coming in from the outside world, and there are some programs that make them as well and store them to the ansi stds. which basically state that both matrerials will have similar life expectancy (LE) rates in the controlled storage & handling environments.

The Nat'l Historic Register was one of these programs--they went over to RC in the early 80s, and there was this shift to the use of it in these labs all over the country. there were huge amounts of rc papers and relatively small amounts of fiber being used. Now, this is going to change, as the NHR has gone over to digital and even the use of RC will begin to decline. By this point in the game, I'm all for using whatever is available and whatever looks good to me at the time. The archival argument doesn't interest me much outside of work, and the concern for me there is not about RC paper, but about digital imaging.

KT

my opinions only as always, not my employers.

 

[Bob Carnie]

I have worked in Large Photo Labs for the majority of my career. I also was able to visit major NA Labs during this period of my life. I can assure you the last thing the bulk of these labs are doing is checking the fix for exhaustion . Out of site out of mind. There is a disclaimer on every counter basically saying they are not responsible for images that change.

Now that I have a small custom lab of my own , I decided not to print RC , and only use it for contact sheets.
We frame the bulk of the work that we produce , therefore I am really insistant upon a proper workflow for fibre prints.

I am pointing out that the majority of labs doing RC work are assuming short shelf life of the imagery that they crank out. If in doubt , go to your local lab and ask for a 20-30 year gauruntee on RC prints and see what they say.

 

[claytume]

Bob

I thought as much. Labs here won't print fibre, their workflow is set up for production. Most are printing B&W onto RA 4 paper with or without a colour cast. They have a take it or leave it approach.

Clayton

 

[Bob Carnie]

Hi Clayton

Sounds like there could be a opportunity for someone to open a small custom film processing, fibre printing and frame shop there in New Zealand.

Now with King Kong off the island there should be no enlarger shake with him beating the shit out of your local dinasours.
Also with all those hobbits running around you should be able to get cheap labour for darkroom clean up.

 

[fhovie]

I have to admit - the market doesn't really care - it is only artists who care. People buy double prints - toss half of them and loose or give away the rest. They are happy with blurry (motion blur mostly) poorly composed and poorly exposed images. They come into a lab with 3 prints and ask for a digital manipulation to put uncle henry and aunt gurdy in a shot and then remove their last girlfriend. The result never happend and looks contrived at best. The market place is perfect for digital. No permanance - quick delete of unwanted images and, like cellphones - everyone has one and no one can use one well. What even amazes me is when they order a "sepia" print! wow - now that is art - take out the chroma and make it all brown and print it on plastic paper. Doesn't that feel nastalgic!

I have portraits in my house - 8x10 AZO contact prints - they look 3d. Out of a hundred different people that have looked at them, only one really saw them and was amazed. He spent 10 minutes in awe at the sharpness, the clarity and the way they have depth. The kind of stuff I look for as a requirement - most people don't even notice. Most people don't notice the plastic haze over an RC print. They don't care. What they want to know is ..... How much? That is it.

 

[DKT]

I am pointing out that the majority of labs doing RC work are assuming short shelf life of the imagery that they crank out. If in doubt , go to your local lab and ask for a 20-30 year gauruntee on RC prints and see what they say.

oh, I agree, but then again you probably couldn't get an "archival" guarantee on a fiber based print either, in the same way the manufacturer's themselves won't guarantee the materials without the exceptions of the display, handling and storage conditions. No manufacutrer would come out and say their material lasts forever--kodak tried it, and got into some hot water over their ad campaign, but no...memories might last forever, but anything organic and on paper will eventually fade or fail. It's a fact of life, and why there's a burgeoning cottage industry in cold storage and underground vaults. Because our photographic "heritage" is on unstable materials, be it nitrate or acetate, paper based or resin coated. It's all unstable eventually unless it's frozen forever and handled by a selected few.

That's what an "archive" is--a selection out of many. Someone--the archivist--selects the material to collect and culls it out the masses and then selects the housing material & methods. It is archived. The life expectancy--how long it lasts and what it does to the material stored within--the LE (ANSI)? It isn't open ended. It doesn't last forever. nothing does. Nobody can guarantee it if the other half is not upheld--the environment. Like everything else, some things do better than others under certain conditions. Does this make them better or worse? I dunno. really. I stand by what I produce though.