Resin Coated & Fibre Based

[Matt5791]

OK, I'm sure this has already been gone through many times, but I'm new to the forum and fairly new to the Darkroom.

I am thinking about producing a small number of my prints on Fibre based paper - if they are really nice sot of thing, giving them the whole fine print treatment.

The question is:

Is it worth it, with the extra hassle of washing etc?

Or is Resin Coated just as capable these days?

Thanks for any help,

Matt

 

[Monophoto]

"You pay your money and take your choice."

For my money, FB prints look far better than RC, but I still make RC prints for situations where I need speed more than quality.

 

[BWGirl]

Hey Matt!
When I first started printing in the darkroom, I only used RC. Frankly, I was a little more that afraid of the horror stories I'd heard about fibre prints. But now, I do fibre and only ocassionally do RC. I do not know if it's just my imagination, or if it's really true, but I find that my fibre-based prints look a wee bit 'richer'.

I think it's sort of up to each one of us. I know there are people here who only do RC, and their prints are wonderful... so... it's kinda a coin toss!

Big help, right?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

You'll find a couple of dissenters, but by and large, when we've slogged through this old barrel of chestnuts before, most people doing work for display prefer fiber, both for archival reasons and aesthetic reasons. If you like the crisp look of RC, though, don't let the traditionalists (like myself) stop you.

Do a search and you'll find a few relevant threads on this.

 

[jim appleyard]

If it's a shot that's really good, that will be matted and framed, it goes on fiber. Everything else, trial prints, prints for fun, go on RC.

 

[Gerald Koch]

There has been a great improvement in RC papers in the last few years. Both Kodak and Ilford state that their B&W RC papers are archival in quality. Some people claim that you must use FB papers. Nonsense! Consider there are no FB color papers anymore but galleries still sell color prints. RC papers is so easy and fast to process. A glossy RC print is truly spectacular.

 

[thefizz]

Welcome Matt, I recognize your name from epz. I used to visit epz often until I found APUG, it's such a breath of fresh air. You are with like-minded people and there will be nobody telling you to go to digital (where ever that place is).

To answer your question, I only used RC paper for years until I tried FB. As stated above, use RC for tests etc and use FB for your good prints. An FB print just seems to jump out at you, a bit more punch than RC.

Peter

 

[Simon R Galley]

Hi Matt,

My name is Simon at ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology, you are getting some good advice from the APUG members, its horse's for course's, RC is easy, convenient and quick and very, very good quality, but do try FB and see what works for you, if you are toning I think most would agree FB is better. Experimenting in the darkroom, some would say, is the most fun of all....

Simon.

 

[johnnywalker]

Fibre-based paper seems to take some tones better than RC paper.

 

[Matt5791]

Thanks for all the replies

Fizz - EPZ is really rather digially biased - it seems to attract a lot of first time photograpgers who have got into photograpy because of digital. I have had one or two fights there! Nice to see you here too!

I think that what is emerging here is RC is very very capable indeed - and I have to say I have been impressed with what I have achieved so far with just RC.

I have been reading a lot of Ansel Adams stuff recently and this is what has made me want to try FB for any negative I think is worthy!.

Thanks for the help,

Matt

 

[Travis Nunn]

I used RC when I first started printing in the darkroom. In my opinion, its easier and quicker to learn to print while using RC. Nowadays, I only use RC for contact sheets and for prints to pass around to the family and such. I really like the way FB looks and feels, but in the end, if you like RC, then use RC. If you like fiber, use fiber.

 

[David Brown]

...I am thinking about producing a small number of my prints on Fibre based paper - if they are really nice sot of thing, giving them the whole fine print treatment.

Is it worth it, with the extra hassle of washing etc?

Or is Resin Coated just as capable these days?

Sort of depends on how you define "just as capable". The consensus so far (I could be wrong) is fibre for "show" prints, RC good enough for trials and informal stuff. I agree with this and practice this way. Actually printing on the two papers is a negligible difference, given that you are using the same paper (e.g. Multigrade) in both types.

Your first question about the extra "hassle" of washing may be significant, however, depending on your circumstances. Without a way to properly wash prints (although it's not as hard as it can be made out to be), RC can be a godsend.

That being said, if you have the washing capability, then is fibre "worth it"? Yes, if you like it or need it. No if it doesn't make any difference to you or the potential viewer.

Sort of a weasal answer when I re-read it , but I hope you get the idea. Just experiment with both and make your own choice. Contrary to some beliefs, there really is no dogma.

But then, as always ...

 

[fschifano]

Both are good. Most of my negatives never get printed. Negatives selected for printing go first to RC paper and that's usually the end of it. The few that pass muster and get past that winnowing process get the FB treatment. It's that simple. FB paper is more expensive than RC. No point wasting FB paper unless the image deserves it.

If I were printing for the ages, then I'd go with FB papers, simply because they have a reputation for lasting. All we really do know though is that the papers made 100 years ago have lasted 100 years. Today's papers, both RC and FB are different, so who really knows?

 

[Matt5791]

Ok - I think that I am definitely going to at least try fibre based.

I am guesing that it probably feels nice in a quality sort of way, and I like that sort of thing! as opposd to the RC which is sort of plastic like.

Thanks for all the help,

Matt

 

[Konical]

Good Afternoon, Matt,

As some of the others above have indicated, there is a place for both RC and FB; I use both. It seems a bit silly to me to use FB for contact sheets or for prints which are only for publication or some other fairly temporary purpose. (That said, I have RC prints from decades ago which are still in excellent condition.)

You may be aware that it has been fashionable in some quarters for the last thirty or forty years to demean RC papers; there was better justification for this with the early RC materials than there is at present. Methinks that there was a bit of a snob factor involved at times, but those who favored FB could point legitimately to the questionable life span of RC.

One good reason to favor FB for prints which will be displayed is that dry-mounting FB prints is a lot simpler than dry-mounting RC prints, and a properly mounted and matted FB print really does look terrific.

Konical

 

[fhovie]

RC paper is ... well ... its plastic. It is hard to think of art as ... well ... plastic. Plastic is ... well .... temporary. (disposable) It yellows and fogs and oxidizes and falls apart. I have historical documents on Fiber Paper that are from 1750. The paper is in great shape and so is the writing that is on it. I have color photographs from the 60s and 70s - they look like crap. The B&W prints from the 20s look great. There is no way that a RC print will last as long as a FB print or will look as good for as long. (This is also my feeling about digital and color chemical prints)

The skill set to print Fiber well is different than the skill set to print RC well.

Since I want to be really good at making art, I print anything that has an art quality to it on FB - so I print a lot of FB.

Snap shots go on RC. Things on the wall are Fiber. Works I send to the local art museum are on fiber. Works I do for serious hire are fiber. Stuff I do for free is on RC.

RC looks great - it lasts a long time. Fiber is better. It tones better - has richer tones - has a nicer look and it is a LOT more work. Fiber prints are worth more.

 

[vet173]

RC for play Fiber for pay

 

[Bob F.]

Ok - I think that I am definitely going to at least try fibre based.

I am guesing that it probably feels nice in a quality sort of way, and I like that sort of thing! as opposd to the RC which is sort of plastic like.

Thanks for all the help,

Matt

This is very true... it is "real" paper that goes all floppy when wet - which I recall surprised the h*ll out of me the 1st time I used it after using RC exclusively! It's much thicker and just simply feels "quality" compared to RC's plastic. The gloss, as you will see, has a more semi-matt sheen to it when air dried than RC's brittle high gloss finish.

Your only likely problems will be how to dry and flatten the stuff. See other threads on those subjects - there's lots of 'em!

Good luck, Bob.

 

[Marv]

To me RC paper is the digital of analog photography.

It is plastic, of dubious archival quality and has an inferior look and feel to fiber.

On the other hand, it is easy to use, dries fast and lays flat.

Just an opinion of course, (except for the part where I say it is plastic, of dubious archival quality and has an inferior look and feel to fiber).

 

[winger]

I started with RC, but I vastly prefer fiber. Even if I don't know if the shot can stand being blown or if it's worth it. I end up not considering the cost difference because I don't print enough (which I wish I did) to make a difference. I buy in boxes instead of envelopes so I usually have some that just needs to be used.
Anyway, I just like the look of fiber. I can't stand glossy RC anymore (even for contacts), but glossy fiber is just right (and the matte is great for handcoloring). Washing isn't that tough - it just takes more time (and some Perma-wash). Just don't mix RC and fiber in the same bath - the RC can scratch the fiber (the plastic issue).
In the end, try both (especially Ilford warmtone fiber) and see what you like.

 

[nworth]

There are quite a few excellent RC papers out there. At one time, they were definitely inferior to FB, but no longer. They do look a little different, however. The big advantage of RC is that it dries flat. In a dry climate like this, that is a huge advantage. In some ways, the look may also be an advantage. (The different look has to do with a certain sheen, even in matte surfaces. The DMax and gradation are every bit as good as FB.) RC also mounts just about as well as FB these days. FB may have some advantage in toning, but paper to paper differnces are probably greater than RC vs FB there. I generally use RC papers for routine prints. I will resort to FB if I need double weight or if I need a paper only available in FB. If I do go to FB, I have to mount the print to keep it flat and straight. It is worth noting that certain very high quality papers are only available in FB.

 

[mmcclellan]

Matt,

If printing for exhibition, there is no contest between fiber and RC -- do fiber. That said, even if I am only printing for myself to pull prints out of the box occasionally and just look at my own work without showing it to anyone else, I still prefer the FB paper. The images look richer, the tones are better, there is more "depth" to the image, and basically it just makes black-and-white the superbly beautiful art medium it was meant to be.

RC is "easier" in some ways, but FB is well worth the extra time and hassle. I never use RC, even for proofs.

 

[arigram]

I have not seen any difference between RC and FB save for toning.
Last time I tried a negative with lots of tones, including some very soft highlights and did not see any difference at all between Ilford Multigrade RC, Multigrade FB Warmtone and Forte Polywarmtone FB but for the paper color.
I don't know what to tell you.
And considering that I don't have a print washer nor I can buy one here in Greece and the fact that water is a luxury, I am not sure of the advantages really of FB paper.

 

[timeUnit]

There are RC papers with a unique and appealing look and feel. Ilfords MGIV RC is not one of them IMO. Fotokemika have a paper called Fineprint that is just gorgeous. Slightly warm, white base, tones to a beautiful purplish in selenium. I love it. Don't know if it's available in the US.

 

[Gerald Koch]

It is hard to think of art as ... well ... plastic. Plastic is ... well .... temporary. (disposable)

Just like Diana cameras!