RC paper surface qualities in 2022?

[Nitroplait]

I plan to restart paper processing as I am venturing into large format and hope to do contact printing.
I love the natural gloss of fiber based papers, but for convenience I plan to start out with RC paper.

It is more than 3 decades ago I last used RC paper. Back then, my preferred finish was glossy (Ilford) as I distinctively disliked matte and pearl (which, if I remember correctly, were the only alternatives).
When I look at my glossy prints from back then, they do seem a little too shiny, and I wonder if things has changed.

Are there any RC paper manufactures now that makes something a little closer to the natural gloss of fiber based papers?

 

[grain elevator]

In my recent experience and to my taste with Ilford, it's still as you describe. Glossy a bit too glossy, pearl a bit rough and matte has no real blacks. With the most recent paper, I'm also unhappy with the surface evenness of glossy but I suppose I'm an outlier because nobody else reported my issue on the long thread about the paper on this here forum. I use glossy but I'm unhappy with the choices and plan to use mostly baryta paper once I've built a washer.

 

[pentaxuser]

In my recent experience with Ilford, it's still as you describe. Glossy a bit too glossy, pearl a birth rough and matte has no real blacks. I use glossy but I'm unhappy with the choices and plan to use mostly baryta paper once I've built a washer.

So does anyone make a less glossy paper than Ilford does?

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

Try Ilford Satin surface, for the comparison.
Personally I'm happy with Pearl and Satin.

 

[gone]

The glossy papers I've used do show reflections. They couldn't be shown w/o a frame and glass over them to cut that reflection down, but I want the photos displayed w/o glass. So the Ilford FB matt papers are better for that. These new RC papers are very easy to print with, and certainly a great way to get back into printing, but you'll need to try something besides the glossy papers.

 

[grain elevator]

Try Ilford Satin surface, for the comparison.
Personally I'm happy with Pearl and Satin.

Right, Satin, I think that's what I actually had, not Matte, and Satin already made the blacks too dull for my taste...

So does anyone make a less glossy paper than Ilford does?

pentaxuser

Forgot to mention, Foma glossy surface is very similar to the Ilford glossy surface. I haven't used other surfaces from Foma.

 

[bdial]

To my eye, the Ilford satin is a pretty close match to a glossy fiber paper dried matte, and doesn't have the slight texture that pearl does. But yes, pearl may have slightly better blacks. It does have a bit more shine to it than the satin does.

I've not used any other currently available RC papers, so I can't make any comparisons to anything else.

 

[pentaxuser]

Right, Satin, I think that's what I actually had, not Matte, and Satin already made the blacks too dull for my taste...

Forgot to mention, Foma glossy surface is very similar to the Ilford glossy surface. I haven't used other surfaces from Foma.

So a low numbered( in terms of respondents so far) conclusion so far might be that No there is no maker of glossy paper who has a glossy paper that is less glossy than Ilford's

So, nitroplait you have the choice of (a) putting up with the current RC glossy (b) trying Pearl/ Lustre or Satin ( Matte, really) with a change of surface and the likelihood of blacks that are too dull (c) switching to fibre based paper

Does that seem a reasonable conclusion to draw from you question and the responses? I may as well add my own observation having tried all 3 RC surfaces,. These are as follows: Glossy has or appears to have the deepest blacks. Pearl is much less reflective than Glossy but probably has as deep blacks as Glossy but does not appear as black and Satin (Matte) does have less deep blacks in the genuine sense

I hope this helps


pentaxuser

 

[Jay Schrotenboer]

I have not used all of the newer ilford paper finishes in RC, only pearl, but I do have some 12 year old RCIV glossy that I find “too” glossy and do not doubt that the new stuff is the same. I also use some Arista grade 2 paper in glossy for prof’s which has much less gloss. That might be an avenue for you to try. I don’t know who actually makes that paper though. Good luck with your search.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Around ten years ago, fiber "glossy" finish papers from Ilford and ADOX changed. Perhaps because their customers are attracted to "shiny objects," the top coats were modified so that air-dried prints became much more reflective. Unless viewed under very controlled lighting conditions, those prints are difficult to appreciate due to veiling glare from reflections.

This, combined with our long-term drought, prompted trying various RC papers. I found Ilford's "satin" finish unsatisfactory, but "pearl" is just right for me. It's got a surface capable of supporting solid blacks without unacceptable shine. I've standardized on Multigrade RC Portfolio pearl since it was released. The weight makes handling and viewing pleasurable.

These opinions utterly irrelevant for anyone who could stand the surface of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome.

 

[AgX]

Around ten years ago, fiber "glossy" finish papers from Ilford and ADOX changed. Perhaps because their customers are attracted to "shiny objects," the top coats were modified so that air-dried prints became much more reflective. Unless viewed under very controlled lighting conditions, those prints are difficult to appreciate due to veiling glare from reflections.


These opinions utterly irrelevant for anyone who could stand the surface of Cibachrome/Ilfochrome.

At fibre papers the supreme gloss is achieved by ferrotyping.
Isn't it then not natural to try to mimic this with PC papers?

However one may argue that users of RC papers are not the same as users of fibre papers and thus may have different expectations to gloss.

 

[grain elevator]

At fibre papers the supreme gloss is achieved by ferrotyping.
Isn't it then not natural to try to mimic this with PC papers?

However one may argue that users of RC papers are not the same as users of fibre papers and thus may have different expectations to gloss.

Not everyone ferrotypes their baryta paper prints, many like the air dried surface. I sure do, and would love an RC paper that looks like that - Pearl surface is supposed to, but to my eye doesn't cut it.
But tbh these considerations are based on feelings when holding a print. At reasonable viewing distance on the wall, both Gloss and Pearl look good to me, provided the lighting is decent. No print, including matte surfaces, is pleasant to view if the lighting promotes reflections.

 

[Nitroplait]

Thanks for all the input.

It sounds like I should check out a box of pearl.
From what I hear described, it is different from what I remember, and I don't have any old prints of that finish to refresh my memory. Besides, the product may have changed since then.

I miss the old days where the local camera-shop would have samples to compare.

I also use some Arista grade 2 paper in glossy for prof’s which has much less gloss. That might be an avenue for you to try. I don’t know who actually makes that paper though.

Thanks - interesting.
Anyone happens to know who makes Arista papers? Foma?

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Not everyone ferrotypes their baryta paper prints, many like the air dried surface. I sure do, and would love an RC paper that looks like that - Pearl surface is supposed to, but to my eye doesn't cut it.
But tbh these considerations are based on feelings when holding a print. At reasonable viewing distance on the wall, both Gloss and Pearl look good to me, provided the lighting is decent. No print, including matte surfaces, is pleasant to view if the lighting promotes reflections.

Ilford pearl surface doesn't look like today's air-dried baryta surfaces. It looks, at least to my eye, like the air-dried surfaces of baryta papers of old, before their top coats were modified for more gloss.

There's a strict limit to how much wall space most people have for hanging prints. Anyone who produces more than a few will end up viewing them by holding in their hands. Thus, these considerations end up being rather important to most photographers.

 

[NB23]

My top choice is always Satin.

 

[pentaxuser]

Ilford pearl surface doesn't look like today's air-dried baryta surfaces.

Not really a reply to the above, Sal but your use of the word "today's" give me a chance to pass another observation on to nitroplait. In my 19 years' use of Pearl I can see no change in its looks. I cannot say if it looked the same, say 25-30+ years ago but I suspect not, otherwise others with a much longer experience of Ilford RC would have said so

So, nitroplait, in your position I'd settle for Pearly but I doubt if you will find it any real difference than Ilford's Pearl from whatever era you recall as the "old days"

pentaxuser

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...In my 19 years' use of Pearl I can see no change in its looks. I cannot say if it looked the same, say 25-30+ years ago but I suspect not, otherwise others with a much longer experience of Ilford RC would have said so...

Just in case anyone reading this doesn't follow your post, which should really be clear, let me emphasize that it's fiber-base glossy papers which have changed for the shinier, not Ilford's pearl RC surface, which remains as it has been for decades.

 

[pentaxuser]

You're right Sal. I should have made it clear that I was only talking about RC Pearl . In fact my experience is confined to RC papers

pentaxuser

 

[Sal Santamaura]

You're right Sal. I should have made it clear that I was only talking about RC Pearl . In fact my experience is confined to RC papers...

You did make it clear. That's why I wrote your post "should be clear," not "should be clearer."

 

[pentaxuser]

As Ol' Blue Eyes would have said: " You can always tell you're in England when you bump into guys on the street and they are the ones who say sorry !"

pentaxuser