RC Paper Longevity

RalphLambrecht · Jan 5, 2014

sircarl said:
I know this topic has been done to death, but I thought I'd report on an interesting personal experience.

Just today I removed from their frames six RC prints of mine, produced in my darkroom on 12 X 16 Ilford Multigrade IV Pearl RC. They have been in frames in our two Philadelphia houses over the past three years, WITHOUT any glass or plexi covering -- because I prefer to exhibit them that way, but also because I had read somewhere online that RC prints can suffer if confined behind a cover. (Something about urban gases being trapped there, eating away at the print surface.) For two years they were hung in fairly subdued light, but this past year they were in a very bright location, with the sun actually shining directly on some of them for a couple of hours a day.

As it happens, I have virtually identical prints of these same photos, done at the same enlarger settings and processed in the same way, stored in an archival box. So I compared the prints removed from the frames with these boxed prints.

There was absolutely no difference.

Obviously, this is a particular set of circumstances, and I realize that RC prints exhibited in other circumstances may show deterioration over time. But I personally have never found any such deterioration, even in my prints done over ten years ago (all on the same paper). YMMV.

I have some experience withat because I moved from house to house quite a bit in the last 20 years. from my experience i can say:
the worst for printsRCor FB(butespecially Agfa and KodakRC)are fresh wall paintsand new carpets. I narrowed the problem further downfurther.in mycase deterioration happened to RC ore likely than FB but never to either of them even if onlymildly toned in poly sulphide.Now toning is part of my standard workflow.

miha · Jan 5, 2014

(Poly)sulphide toners are best but Viradon new is no longer available (I understand it's been banned). What would be a suitable alternative, something from Moersch perhaps?

Oren Grad · Jan 5, 2014

miha said:
Oren, I understand you use mostly RC now. What's your take on RC stability? Do you tone your prints?

The short version is that I think it's much more stable than many people give it credit for, but not so stable as we'd ideally prefer. But sweeping generalizations can be misleading - the details of how it's processed, displayed and stored are very important. I now tone all of my RC "keepers" with selenium. I don't mind, because the extra process step is not too much of a burden with RC, and because for my taste most RC emulsions look better with light to moderate selenium toning anyway.

I suspect the biggest long-term issue is the inherent stability of the PE layer and its adherence to the paper base, under long-term display or storage in environments that are poorly controlled for temperature and humidity - which is to say, the kind of environment where most of our prints will end up if they're saved at all.

It should be noted that the long-term stability of current FB papers is also an open question. We know almost nothing about the characteristics of the paper that is used, and whether and in what ways it has changed from papers used in the past. Long-term survival of prints made on FB papers many years ago may not tell us much about the stability of FB papers manufactured today.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 5, 2014

miha said:
(Poly)sulphide toners are best but Viradon new is no longer available (I understand it's been banned). What would be a suitable alternative, something from Moersch perhaps?

IthoughtViradon was available again from new Agfa or foto Impex in Berlinother than that any sulphide or poly sulphide toner will work.you can also make your own
View attachment BasicRecipesEd2.pdfif you are lucky enough to find liver of sulfer anywhere.

timor · Jan 5, 2014

MattKing said:
None of the current Ilford RC papers contain developer. Only the long discontinued rapid papers did.

Thanks for this info. I will check this out with very simple test one day. what I meant this inclusion of developer in early RC paper earned the negative rap for them from "real" photographers. I have one friend locally, who will not touch RC, and because I am using RC 95 % of the time, he keeps me in "lower echelon" of the craft. My stock of Berger RC paper is around 700 of 8X10, you can see my commitment.
But since we speaking about it, comparing Berger Prestige RC/VCM to current Ilford RC papers I see great difference in processing. Berger needs 4x more exposure and 2.5x more time in developer than Ilford. Berger will not develop in spent developer, while Ilford has no problems. How to explain that ?

Photo Engineer · Jan 5, 2014

Take a small sample of Ilford MGIV paper and in the light drop on some Sodium Hydroxde solution. It turns dark gray. This is a sign of incorporated developer.

I know that Ilford says there is none, but my tests show that there is a weak developing agent. Kodak papers turned black. Several others that I tested had no change at all.

PE

timor · Jan 5, 2014

Thanks PE.

MattKing · Jan 6, 2014

Even if there was any developer incorporated, that wouldn't affect the longevity of processed RC prints.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 6, 2014

I'm unaware of developer incorporated RC papersbut, yesmaybe.

Rafal Lukawiecki · Jan 6, 2014

fretlessdavis said:
Good tip. We actually live at the base of the Whetstone mountains (home of the famed Kartchner Caverns and likely many other caves.) So it is very likely that our water is quite high in carbonate. I never thought about it before, and just associated our water with horrible spotting on prints, and have been afraid to use it ever since. Maybe a wash in our well water with a final quick rinse in water with a wetting agent would work.

A small pack of FB paper and some more hypocheck will be on its way shortly!

Please don't change your working methods on the basis of a theoretical suggestion given by me. If you have found that your mineral-rich water caused spots, or other defects on your prints, then you ought to stick to what works for youthere are too many variables to consider without being there, at the base of your beautiful mountains. On the other hand, testing can be useful and interesting, if you have the time for it. By the way, if you are going to do a test, consider some sort of a filter, perhaps in-line, to reduce the insolubles in your water.

miha · Jan 6, 2014

Oren Grad said:
The short version is that I think it's much more stable than many people give it credit for, but not so stable as we'd ideally prefer. But sweeping generalizations can be misleading - the details of how it's processed, displayed and stored are very important. I now tone all of my RC "keepers" with selenium. I don't mind, because the extra process step is not too much of a burden with RC, and because for my taste most RC emulsions look better with light to moderate selenium toning anyway.

I suspect the biggest long-term issue is the inherent stability of the PE layer and its adherence to the paper base, under long-term display or storage in environments that are poorly controlled for temperature and humidity - which is to say, the kind of environment where most of our prints will end up if they're saved at all.

It should be noted that the long-term stability of current FB papers is also an open question. We know almost nothing about the characteristics of the paper that is used, and whether and in what ways it has changed from papers used in the past. Long-term survival of prints made on FB papers many years ago may not tell us much about the stability of FB papers manufactured today.

Thanks. Indeed we don't know the composition of the papers available to us, but they do, with few exceptions, come from the same supplier - Schoeller. I doubt, though, that FB would decline in quality.

miha · Jan 6, 2014

RalphLambrecht said:
IthoughtViradon was available again from new Agfa or foto Impex in Berlinother than that any sulphide or poly sulphide toner will work.you can also make your own
View attachment 79622if you are lucky enough to find liver of sulfer anywhere.

It was available again for a short time but discontinued again in 2011. Thanks for the link.

Photo Engineer · Jan 6, 2014

FYI;

Incorporated developers does not affect the life of the image, but can, in some circumstances affect the life of the raw paper itself. The emulsion can fog more rapidly for example.

As for paper stock itself, yes Scholler supplies most of the RC and FB nowdays, but supplies also come from the Ukraine and Russia as well as China and Japan. So, you cannot just pick on one supplier and say this is it! Also, I know that these companies tinker with their paper products, and so they change from time to time.

Scholler makes paper for Kodak Endura paper, and they make it to a Kodak standard.

PE

miha · Jan 6, 2014

Does that mean that all Shoeller supplied RC papers are now equally good in terms of stability? Or is the addenda that makes titanox stable still brand specific?

Photo Engineer · Jan 6, 2014

That depends on the patent situation which IDK.

If a stabilizer is patented, and if the patent is still in force, then that paper, containing that stabilizer is specific to the company that owns that patent. The patent can be licensed, but we don't know who uses what. So, papers can differ. It goes further than that. One company can specify a certain "filler" for the PE vs another company, or they can specify a certain thickness to the filler, the resin or the TiO2 subbing.

All of this creates a variety of products in the marketplace. It is not a product that we can buy directly. It is what the company that makes our photo products uses as a support. They determine what it is.

PE

miha · Jan 6, 2014

Thank you PE. No further questions

sircarl · Jan 6, 2014

As the OP I have followed this discussion with interest. I really thought I was beating a dead horse! I guess the RC longevity question is as unsettled as ever -- and I'm surprised to learn some people are questioning FB longevity, which I always thought had been settled long ago. Anyway, I wrote in only because I was so pleased to learn that my RC prints had held up well in less than ideal conditions. While I know this is only anecdotal evidence, I'd be interested in reading posts from other APUG members from time to time about their ongoing experiences -- good or bad -- with RC prints. As some here have suggested, RC may have gotten a bum rap in its early, bad old days that it has never been able to live down.

Photo Engineer · Jan 6, 2014

I've had some of the earliest Kodak RC papers here stored in different conditions for up to 40 years. Everything is just fine with them. I've also seen the losers and the winners in real tests. We all are fortunate to have some of the best RC papers available to us and they have been this stable for the life of some of you.

PE

RalphLambrecht · Jan 6, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
I've had some of the earliest Kodak RC papers here stored in different conditions for up to 40 years. Everything is just fine with them. I've also seen the losers and the winners in real tests. We all are fortunate to have some of the best RC papers available to us and they have been this stable for the life of some of you.

PE

photographers fade faster than their photographs

Photo Engineer · Jan 6, 2014

Very true Ralph. But, I have B&W going back 2 or 3 generations and color 2. So, I still have photos and my children and grandchildren have seen them so add 2 more generations.

The earliest one I have goes to the era of President Grant.

PE

Roger Cole · Jan 7, 2014

I have two mounted, framed (under glass) 8x10s I did in the early 90s printed on whatever Ilford MG was current then - III? Both were developed in LPD, fixed in Kodafix as specified for RC paper, toned in selenium 1+19 or so and washed per RC paper directions. Both are showing deterioration, in both cases mainly around the edges near the matt, making me wonder if the mount/matt has something to do with it, but one has discoloration far in from the edge. It's sort of a pinkish purple discoloring, much like selenium toning over done but lighter (it isn't that - all I saw was a very slight cooling and increase in d-max.)

I don't know WHY they are doing this, and certainly don't claim it's anything to do with the paper. I just don't know. Mounted under glass? Something in my long-ago processing that wasn't up to snuff? Dunno. I'll try to take some close up digisnaps to post.

Photo Engineer · Jan 7, 2014

Roger, I have an 11x14 RC print on Ektacolor Plus paper from about 1980 mounted on a board as yours is and the matt board is glued to a stained wood frame. It is open to air.

The RC is showing no deterioration, nor is the color print. Of course, mine is color but then with all of the complaints about color, I just thought I would throw this in as an example.

I also have a number of 16x20s, mounted the same and on display at one of the local schools. These are a mix of color and B&W, and they are about 15 years old. No change there. Also, no toning.

PE

Roger Cole · Jan 7, 2014

I know lots of people have had no problems. I had to have these mounted and framed for entry in a show (first and only one I'd done until two years ago, about to have one print in a show this weekend...) and I just took them to a frame shop in the mall. I don't exactly how they did it or what materials they used. I do recall something about low heat for RC. They are 8x10 mounted on 11x14 boards and framed 11x14. I'll take some closeups when I get a chance.

My point isn't to trash RC paper at all. I'd just like to figure out what's happening to these two. Fortunately (I'm pretty sure) I still have those negatives and could reprint them. In fact I think that would be a cool little project, to see if I could do better today. Both are 35mm. One is on XP2 or XP1 or whatever the version was then. The other I don't remember, except that with the grain I'm reasonably sure it isn't Tri-X. Could be Plus-X. I'll have to dig out the negative.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 8, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Roger, I have an 11x14 RC print on Ektacolor Plus paper from about 1980 mounted on a board as yours is and the matt board is glued to a stained wood frame. It is open to air.

The RC is showing no deterioration, nor is the color print. Of course, mine is color but then with all of the complaints about color, I just thought I would throw this in as an example.

I also have a number of 16x20s, mounted the same and on display at one of the local schools. These are a mix of color and B&W, and they are about 15 years old. No change there. Also, no toning.

PE

Let's not forget that RC has the process insensitivity advantage oover FB.for example . It's hard to under fix or underwash RC;much easier to go wrong withFB;not advocating to be sloppy;just saying.

DREW WILEY · Jan 9, 2014

None of this makes me less of a skeptic. I've used RC materials for commecial portfolios, and they've remained OK in that state, but I'm certain
I wouldn't want them for display purposes. Maybe it's just the fact that I open some of those same portfolios and the equivalent RC color chromogenic prints of the same vintage aren't looking so good after twenty years, while all my Cibas and black and white fiber-based prints look
like they were made yesterday. Not fair... but I'd rather be safe than sorry. I wash my fiber prints for an hour anyway, after TF4.

RC Paper Longevity

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency