RC paper, how unarchival is it?

[avandesande]

We have all heard that RC paper isn't archival, but materials have improved immensely over the last 30 years. Has there been any recent stability studies on RC paper?

 

[jim appleyard]

One of the problems here is the question, "How long is archival?" I won't get into that, but I have RC prints going back 28 years (one-bath fix, proper wash, no toning) and they look fine. Now I am a bit more careful; two-bath fix, proper wash and selenium, sepia or gold toning.

Prints like this will probably outlive all of us.

 

[blansky]

That's the ongoing debate. To most people's minds fiber is more archival than RC. But a lot has to do with how the print is viewed/stored/presented. Archival matts, no direct sunlight, etc have a lot to do with it.

The other thing that makes a difference on both fiber and RC is toning with things like selenium as well as the use of Sistan (which is still a ?).

The bottom line for most people is that they like the look and feel of fiber more than RC so if they have the ability and facilities to do fiber, that would be their choice.


MIchael

 

[Oren Grad]

This may be of interest - follow the replies:

http://www.thecranes.org/pure-silver/200408/msg00564.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

There is a long article on this by Ctein. I suggest you all read it.

I think that a big concern is not the image itself, but rather the stability of the resin used in RC paper. It can crack and craze due to the titanox coated in it. Antioxidants and UV absorbers help, but this may still be a problem years from now.

PE

 

[Gerald Koch]

A couple of years ago, both Kodak and Ilford stated that the archival permanance of their RC papers was now equal to that of their FB papers. I personally will take their word over hearsay.

 

[removed account4]

i posed the same question to kodak's customer service guys at good olde extension 19 ... they quoted "the image permanency institute" whatever that is and told me that rc prints are more archival than fiber.

i don't believe them at all.

 

[Don Mills]

I was a very lucky guy and got a copy of Tim Rudman's " Toning Book" for Christmas. On page 154 he has a paragraph regarding choice of paper. He says that FB "should probably still be preferred for archival printmaking". He goes on to say that RC had a bad reputation for early deteriation, but says that RC papers of the last 10 - 15 years contain a scavenger which increases the papers longevity. He goes on to say that"there is an opinion that believes scavengers may be self-generating; in which case they might last indefinitely".

 

[pentaxuser]

A couple of years ago, both Kodak and Ilford stated that the archival permanance of their RC papers was now equal to that of their FB papers. I personally will take their word over hearsay.

This raises interesting questions about how reliable testing procedures to simulate a long period isand why we have doubts.

When vehicle manufacturers test new ways of priming and protecting metal for vehicle bodies or test how long a door hinge should last in normal use they simulate say 6 years of weather in a matter of weeks or 6 years of door closing in maybe a matter of days and then confidently predict the life of the product. In the case of vehicle bodies they may then give a guarantee of say 6 years rust free as a result of the improvement they believe they have made.

We seem to accept these findings and the method of testing which compresses time. Yet we seem to be saying that the only proof in the case of RC paper is to wait and see and current RC paper which has been presumably tested to allow the statements above to be made by the manufacturers still has some unknowns which Kodak and Ilford have either not taken into account or choose not to mention.

We don't seem to have the same issue with say films where no-one is saying that the Ilford Delta range may not last as long as the older films such as HP5+.

So while Delta is a different film why are there no doubts about its difference resulting in "unknown" which may effect is longevity. We would presumably say that the difference in this case has no effect on what determines longevity.

So why are we so sure that there is something in RC paper which does affect longevity?

In posing the above questions and using the above analogies I am trying to be a seeker of wisdom and truth rather than be Perry Mason contesting district attorney Hamilton Burger's case for the people.

Pentaxuser

 

[jovo]

There is a long article on this by Ctein. I suggest you all read it.

Back in late 70's I made some RC prints that did exactly what Ctein's article described, i.e. they silvered out and deteriorated. It took a number of years, but indeed they degraded significantly. I stopped photographing then for over fifteen years. (But not because of the RC paper!)

When I resumed my photography addiction in the late 90's, I spent a number of years making only RC prints. All were Ilford and all have been absolutely stable in all respects since. They are matted and framed and living in several houses other than my own. All have lived happily ever after.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I had some RC prints made on Ilford MGIII RC from the early 1990s that silvered out framed and on display, but prints from the same period in dark storage are still good. I prefer the look of fiber in general, anyway, but I'd be hesitant to make a B&W print for display on RC. I use RC for prints for reproduction or prints that are going to be passed around or that don't need to stick around for too long.

 

[Photo Engineer]

There has indeed been a vast improvement in RC paper supports in the last two decades and even before that by the use of what is called a 'free radical chain stopper' in the RC and Titanox.

I did some of the testing in the mid 60s and early 70s of the paper supports and the color dye images coated on them.

The 'quick' tests beg the issue of what happens to film and paper or other products in the real world.

For example, car door openings and closings can be far simpler to predict in effect as there is little effect of time on the result. Say a series of 10 in a day vs a series of 100 in a day trying to predict the effects of 2 in a day over 5 or 50 days. In film and paper we have many more factors involved such as oxygen diffusion, reaction rates of chemicals and temperature.

In other words reconsider the car door example and the effects of 10 door closings in 1 second at 500 deg C. How does that affect the validity of the extension of car door openings and closings to the real world? It changes the picture entirely. The metal is hot and made hotter by the violent rapid swings in this latter test.

This is what the analogy might be with accelerated tests on photographic materials. Heat it up and give it a huge blast of light and moisture. Now project that into years and years of normal keeping.... Can it be done? Yes. Can it be done well. We hope so and so does Wilhelm and his institute.

RC and FB papers will deteriorate. At what rate and how badly, no one knows. FB prints are around that are 100 years old, but they show their age. I have prints from the 20s that were done professionally on FB paper and that have deteriorated badly. I have some RC prints that are nearly 50 years old that look as nice as the day they were made and these were made on some of the very first RC papers ever produced by Kodak.

PE

 

[dancqu]

A couple of years ago, both Kodak and Ilford stated that ...

I don't think they were doing anybody any service by
stating that. The IPI with Mr. Wilhelm, and Ctein have
found good reason to fault claims of RC's archival
qualities. From Google enter, ipi wilhelm rc . Lots
to pick from readings.

RC papers were brought into being to feed the 24 now
1 hour machine processing labs. I'm not going to trust
anything I'd like to last for generations to ANY plastic
coated both sides stiff to work with paper. Dan

 

[esanford]

We have all heard that RC paper isn't archival, but materials have improved immensely over the last 30 years. Has there been any recent stability studies on RC paper?

I'd like to take a different tact here. Why does RC paper even exist? Answer: because it is easier to work with. Is this starting to sound familiar??? Fiber based paper is damned hard to work with and it takes a lot of skill, craftsmanship and attention to detail to use. The reward for doing all that hard work is that you end up with a superior image with deep rich blacks and sparkling whites. This was achieved long before RC was ever invented. To my eyes, FB is just a superior product. That's one reason why it costs more. The reason why you even have this debate is that there needs to be a reason to justify the use of RC. There is no required justification to use fiber base because it was here first and it always works.

Also, we have colleagues creating platinum/palladium, bromoil and other "alternative processes (a century ago they were mainstream) that are extremely difficult to execute. They undertake this work becaue of the quality images that can be made using these difficult processes.

Bottom line: for me using RC paper to print good photography is like serving Crepe Suzettes on a paper plate. We know that Fiber based paper is archival because we have prints from the old masters to prove it. Most of the fine printers on this site use Fiber Base. To me using RC is the major reason photographers go to digital.... because it's easy

 

[Photo Engineer]

RC paper was designed to reduce the need for water wash, and to allow for shorter processing times. It was an ecological move in main part.

RC paper is also easier to coat on than FB paper.

Glossy RC and Glossy FB are approximately equal in overall result - for the most part... I think I can agree with this having seen hundreds of comparison tests. They are pretty close.

Matte and other surfaces in the two products differ substantially IMHO.

The ecological goals of RC have been met and there is no question in my mind that this is worth-while. The artistic merits are still not readily observable. We will probably be judged by future generations on this.

PE

 

[esanford]

Glossy RC and Glossy FB are approximately equal in overall result - for the most part... I think I can agree with this having seen hundreds of comparison tests. They are pretty close.
PE

On this we will have to agree to disagree. I started with RC because that was how I was taught. Shortly after I started printing on Fiber base I either gave away or trashed all of the RC that I had simply because I could see with my own two eyes a far superior image quality in FB that I was able to achieve. So, I took on the burden of multiple fixing, toning and long washing because., to me, it was worth the effort. I will never go back....

As far as environmental concerns, I will yield to your knowledge. But, then if we are all so concerned about the environment, we should all do the right thing and go digital.....

 

[blansky]

As I alluded to previously, if a person frames their prints compared to one who stores them some other way, I think can make a difference in their choices of paper.

I have had silvering out with RC that I haven't had with fiber. All my prints are framed and out in the world.

For me that is the test.


Michael

 

[esanford]

silvering out
Michael

I am not familiar with that term.... What does it mean???

 

[Photo Engineer]

As far as environmental concerns, I will yield to your knowledge. But, then if we are all so concerned about the environment, we should all do the right thing and go digital.....

Digital is far more harmful to the environment than conventional.

Just consider the lead, selenium and arsenic dopants used in solid state devices and viewing screens. Conventional has become relatively benign by comparison.

Dump sites of used digital equipment, computers and monitors in particular, are becoming a great concern among environmentalists due to leaching out of many toxic chemicals.

As for silvering out, try reading Ctein's article for the description and his suggestion for a cure.

PE

 

[blansky]

I am not familiar with that term.... What does it mean???

It is the progressive tense of silvered out.

It is where the silver that behaves itself on a normal print and remains hidden, decides that it wants to be the star and foists itself onto the public.

Worst case scenario is when it not only wants to be the star but also wants to direct.



Michael

 

[Konical]

Good Evening,

Since I started doing darkroom work in the 1970's, all my contact sheets have been on Kodak Kodabrome RC. To date, I can't detect any deterioration.

Konical

 

[msage]

Wow
I thought this debate was long over! I second PE's suggestion of reading Ctein's article.
I have used fiber and RC for 30+ years. I have NEVER had a FB print with a problem, but have problems with RC prints printed as recently as six months ago. All were processed properly. It could be storage, environmental or ?
I feel that I can't "trust" RC. I use the alkaline/non-harding fixer shorter wash procedure for processing for fiber. Air dry and press if needed. It does need that much time or water if done correctly.
Michael

 

[msage]

Wow
I thought this debate was long over! I second PE's suggestion of reading Ctein's article.
I have used fiber and RC for 30+ years. I have NEVER had a FB print with a problem, but have problems with RC prints printed as recently as six months ago. All were processed properly. It could be storage, environmental or ?
I feel that I can't "trust" RC. I use the alkaline/non-harding fixer shorter wash procedure for processing for fiber. Air dry and press if needed. It does need that much time or water if done correctly.
Michael

Sorry, It does not need that much more time or water if done correctly.

 

[df cardwell]

My work is done on fiber, fixed in TF4. Working in relaxed manner, I have more finished FIBER prints at the end of the day then I could have with RC. The fact, alone, that no development control is possible with RC disqualifies it for serious use.

Every step in the system can be adjusted to make fiber very effcient. And if you don't add acid to the paper, you save lots of water and time trying to remove it.

RC offers a false economy of time, and material. It makes inferior prints. It does not have predictable or dependable lasting charecteristics.

My experience, my judgement, my responsibility. Fiber.

 

[Ed Sukach]

My work is done on fiber, fixed in TF4. Working in relaxed manner, I have more finished FIBER prints at the end of the day then I could have with RC. The fact, alone, that no development control is possible with RC disqualifies it for serious use.

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