Resin Coated & Fibre Based

[fhovie]

Just like Diana cameras!

Cameras are tools - tools are often made of plastic - get the negatives from a Diana and print them on FB paper - that is art! - That is true for pinhole as well.

 

[dancqu]

I am thinking about producing a small number
of my prints on Fibre based paper ...
Is it worth it, with the extra hassle of washing etc?
Or is Resin Coated just as capable these days?
Matt

Even when wet RC is stiff, ridged. FB is pliable, flexible.
FB handles more easily through processing. Simultaneous
multiple print processing is easy because FB shuffles easily.
That easy handling of multiple prints is especially important
when washing. FB's flexible character allows for a very
hassel free two tray wash routine.

Ease of handling is a virtue of FB. Dan

 

[Matt5791]

Even when wet RC is stiff, ridged. FB is pliable, flexible.
FB handles more easily through processing. Simultaneous
multiple print processing is easy because FB shuffles easily.
That easy handling of multiple prints is especially important
when washing. FB's flexible character allows for a very
hassel free two tray wash routine.

Ease of handling is a virtue of FB. Dan

Interesting

the "stiffness" of RC has irritated me somewhat when processing.

Looks like I'm going to be getting some FB soon!

Next question: what is good one to start with, or are they all much the same to work with. I think I would like VC because I wont be using it as much as RC and buying various grades might not be economic.

Thanks for the help

Matt

 

[markbb]

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 I have historical documents on Fiber Paper that are from 1750.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)

I beg to differ with your comments about colour. Ilfrachrome prints do last without fading, and the 'plastic' nature of Ifrachrome classic *adds* to the print, IMHO.

 

[Jim Chinn]

Since you said you are relatively new to working in a darkroom I am going to say print on RC for awhile untill you get comfortable with printing technique for a couple of reasons. First, RC does take less water and time to wash. Second, it will dry flat just by hanging with clothes pins from a wire. And another is it is much less expensive.

To get proficient at printing you need to make a lot of prints. With knowledge from books (many good suggestions here on APUG) and knowldege available on the site you will get up to speed pretty quickly. RC is simply much more practical for learning the basics of darkroom craft, especially when you will use much more paper in the learning process then later on. You can always go back and re-print on fiber when you are ready to make that jump.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning, Matt,

In regard to your question about which FB paper to use, I would suggest Ilford Multigrade IV Glossy because 1)it's widely and easily available, 2)it gives terrific results, 3)printing times are rather close to those of Ilford Multigrade IV RC which can therefore be used for test prints, and 4)it will probably be around for a while (I hope!).

Konical

 

[Lee Shively]

I started messing with photography when RC papers were brand new. They were uniformly wretched. They looked plastic. They had no snap, no life to them.

When I worked for a newspaper, we used Agfa Brovira single weight paper and dried it on a huge rotating drum. Later, the newspaper bought a Kodak Royalprint processor and we used RC papers with it. RC was looking a lot better.

These days, if you have a photograph hanging on the wall behind glass, I can't tell if it's fiber or RC without getting my nose very close to it. RC papers look extremely good today.

Oddly enough, I think most of the fiber paper available today looks inferior to that of 20 years ago. I don't know if it's the lowering of the silver content or the removal of some chemical from the emulsion due to environmental concerns, but something has happened.

Despite these observations, I find that I prefer fiber over RC. It has nothing to do with how the final print looks or whether or not it will last a quadzillion years. I like the traditional approach to photography and using real paper for prints is part of that approach.

 

[firecracker]

In Japan, right now Ilford RC pearl 8x10" 25sheets is about 27 USD, and Ilford FB glossy in the same size with the same quantity is about 33 USD. I don't since when these types of paper have started to compete each other on their prices. But if I have to pick one now, it's definitely the FB for me.

However, headshots and band photos still deserve the quality of RC.