same emulsion on RC and FB

momonga · Jul 23, 2006

If the same print emulsion were coated on the usual baryta base, and also on a typical resin coated base, then exposed, processed and mounted, could an expert viewer tell them apart?

Dave Miller · Jul 23, 2006

Yes, on close inspection, but not if they were mounted behing glass.

Ed Sukach · Jul 23, 2006

eumenius · Jul 23, 2006

Hm, let me think... the only thing that gives away the RC is usually this bronze hue of the shadows, but it can be seen only under some angle. In my opinion, it's possible to make FB and RC prints with the same emulsion very, very alike, especially if they're mounted under glass.

Zhenya

Markok765 · Jul 23, 2006

I use rc for testing exposure and then use FB for the final print

MikeM1977 · Jul 23, 2006

Dave Miller said:
Yes, on close inspection, but not if they were mounted behing glass.

I see the texture of my FB Glossy prints right through the glass on close inspection.

RC Glossy prints do not have a texture and have terrible reflection characteristics.

RC Semi-glossy doesn't have the same Dmax as FB glossy.

Photo Engineer · Jul 23, 2006

Just for the information of all of you, the same emulsion cannot be coated on FB and RC support.

The reason is obivous once you consider it.

If you optimize an emulsion with addenda for FB, then coat it, part of that material is soaked into the support because it is paper, so if you coat the same emulsion and addenda on RC, then the addenda all remain in the emulsion changing the emulsions characteristics.

Therefore, the same emulsion cannot be coated on both RC and FB. It must be optimized for each type of support. This effectively creates a 'new' product, but if the engineer does his job well, you see a minimum of effects, some of which you all describe above. Sometimes it is impossible to do and then you see big differences, or a product is not sold on both supports.

In addition, Baryta (FB) looks different than Titanox (RC). It has a different color and a different UV response. This changes the effective tint of the final print even if the toning agents in the emulsion and dyes in the paper may be adjusted correctly, as the dmin will differ between the two.

And, of course, the surface character of the two papers differ as well. Of course, hardly anyone ferrotypes FB glossy prints anymore, but that too would create a further difference.

PE

momonga · Jul 23, 2006

PE, thanks for explanation.

Let's assume the RC designated emulsion and the FB are very closely matched, the supports also, the intent being to make the RC and the FB prints as identifical as possible. I suppose Ilford et al have been attempting to do this for a long time, but for the nonce, let's say they succeed. Can we now tell the two papers apart?

Unmounted, FB maintains the random texture and bends of the paper base. RC has a uniformly even surface and I think that is what gives it away, why people often dislike it, that perfect, 'machine-like' finish. Mounted, it becomes much harder to tell them apart. I don't think it is a lower Dmax that distinguishes them: some RC papers equal the better FB in this area. Nor the so-called RC veiling: I had some mounted Afga Portriga FB prints that were accused of being RC because they had 'telltale veiling'.

There is also the matter of conditioning, that FB = artist, RC = dilettante. But I cannot get my friends and acquaintances who are artists and illustrators to prefer one type over the other. For them, it always comes down to the particular image itself and for some pictures, the RC look works best. They don't understand the furor of the RC versus FB controversy, and wonder instead why photographers don't demand more choices in photographic paper base tint, image color, and surface.

Simon R Galley · Jul 24, 2006

Dear Monomoga,

Mr Photo Engineer tells it how it is, they are different emulsions ( for every product ) but of course we do try and match as closely as possible by product family. The FB and RC debate will go on forever, but for work ( Photo Art ) that is to be sold, or to be kept for posterity it has to be FB archivally processed. Photographers do demand different base tints, colours and hue's, but the problem is NOT MANY PEOPLE MAKE Baryta photo base, and you can only do so much with the base by tints, additives etc and you need to order a lot of sq mtrs every time, most people have to do 'their thing' by toning.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Ed Sukach · Jul 24, 2006

I can't help but wonder ... Is the emulsion the same, or is it radically different, made necessary by the use of titanium oxide instead of baryta?

I know why titanium oxide (the most used "white" pigment in oils) is used - it adheres to the PE encapsulation much better than baryta - but does the emulsion penetrate baryta much so much more actively that a completely - or significanlty - different formulation is required?

Ryuji · Jul 24, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
The FB and RC debate will go on forever, but for work ( Photo Art ) that is to be sold, or to be kept for posterity it has to be FB archivally processed.

I think FB v. RC debate is overrated. If properly processed, toned, and stored properly, both should be good for archival purposes. Indeed, galleries are routinely handling RC prints, whether it's silver gelatin or otherwise.

As Momonga said, brighter white base of RC paper stock works better with some (and in my case, many) images than baryta paper.

Making work that looks the best is one thing. Making work that lasts the longest is another thing. But they don't have to be that far from each other.

In my own tests, prints made on AGFA Multicontrast Premium paper and AGFA Brovira Speed paper can take 3000+ppm peroxide fuming test with no image degradation for quite many days, with or without light, as long as the image is sufficiently toned in a polysulfide-based toner. (Sorry I don't routinely use Ilford paper compared to the AGFA MCC and MCP, so I tend to run my tests with these papers, as well as a few other baryta papers I use, such as Fortezo.) As long as manufacturers took care of the resin cracking problems and other physical damages that can occur to the base itself (which, I think, you will say, was solved decades ago), I see little reason to shun RC paper.

Ryuji · Jul 24, 2006

momonga said:
If the same print emulsion were coated on the usual baryta base, and also on a typical resin coated base, then exposed, processed and mounted, could an expert viewer tell them apart?

If you paint same pictures on baryta base and RC base papers using same acrylic paints, you'll see the difference. Indeed, if you draw on different paper stocks with a 6B pencil, I can sometimes tell the difference (if the paper is ones that I'm familiar with).

Some people argue that FB paper is sperior in terms of tonality, Dmax, etc. Let them believe that stuff. None of them is true, and few of them are relevant, but it's just their belief and not facts. In particular, Dmax argument is irrelevant because most real photographs don't use blacks that are as dark as the Dmax modern papers can deliver. Dmax of 2.2 or 2.4 makes little practical difference. (However, in reality, modern RC is just as good as, if not better than FB in the Dmax department.) Slight difference in the midtone rendition is a lot more noticeable.

Ed Sukach · Jul 24, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
The FB and RC debate will go on forever, but for work ( Photo Art ) that is to be sold, or to be kept for posterity it has to be FB archivally processed.

Interesting. Is the RC emulsion that much more fragile?

Do you have any information about Agfa's "Sistan"? The last I've read - I think it WAS from Agfa - was that, in theory, from the chemistry involved - it SHOULD work, but there was little, if any, factual data to back that up.

I use Sistan with all my "exhibition" RC prints, as a matter of course. Sooner or later I'll run out. Might Ilford be interested in producing a similar product?

Sal Santamaura · Jul 24, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
...The FB and RC debate will go on forever, but for work ( Photo Art ) that is to be sold, or to be kept for posterity it has to be FB archivally processed...

I've been listening to the FB/RC debate rage on for decades now. Being conservative by nature, even though I never have sold and never expect to sell a print, all my work has been printed on FB. Every time someone claims to have "fixed" or found a way to cope with RC's shortcomings, evidence surfaces soon after that the problems persist. This applies to framed prints on display. It's absolutely refreshing to hear, straight from Simon (one of Ilford's owners), something I can't recall any paper manufacturer previously putting in writing, namely "if it has to last, use FB."

That said, after recently printing on Multigrade IV RC Pearl for the first time, I'm impressed. Given that I have no family to pass a photographic record to, and in the interest of water -- not to mention time -- conservation, from now on I'll make prints for albums on RC. It seems an appropriate tool for the job. Work I intend to display will continue to be on FB, mostly my current favorite Ilfobrom Galerie.

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2006

The support changes the overall impression that one gains from a print. This is due, as Simon says, to the differences in surface and tint caused by the baryta and titanox. In fact, there are several types of baryta and titanox that furthur compound the 'mystery' of which is better.

During the years that I worked on paper, it was not unusual for us to order several different types of paper from the EK paper mill about 2 blocks away from my office. I have been there and watched them make both types of paper, and it is a very complex operation, requring, as Simon said, large orders to be economically feasible.

As for the emulsions.. The emulsions used may actually be identical, but the levels and ratios of addenda added to them must be different. It is the water soluable active materials in emulsions that diffuse into the FB support and which do not diffuse into the RC support. OTOH, organic soluable materials may diffuse into RC support given the right conditions. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the emulsions are different. It is the job of the engineer to design these materials to match, as closely as possible given the differences in tint and surface.

The fact that the ingredients (emulsion and/or addenda) are different, there will inevitably probably be some discernable difference between RC and FB products if the tint and surface characteristics were to be removed.

PE

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2006

On a different topic, the stability of RC and FB supports and the images created on them is a difficult and time consuming operation to measure.

A typical test at Kodak required up to 4000 hours of exposure to just one condition, and often there were up to 4 or 5 conditions ongoing at the same time.

I spent about 4 hours with Henry Wilhelm and 4 hours at the ICIS short course in image stability as well as a time at the RIT Image Stability Labs in May. They all agreed that there is no one test that can reveal the true image stability of any photo product, and that the tests can take up to a year or more to give a usable result.

The international committe on image stability is currently reviewing these tests with an eye to changing them all for better predictive capability and less dubious results among testing labs. This comes from my instructor at the short course who is a member of that committee.

PE

df cardwell · Jul 24, 2006

1. When you make a living as a scientist, having lab results comforting you is really, really great. As a mere photographer, and obligated to the client, EXPERIENCE trumps lab results every time. When RC performs in the real world as well as Fiber, I'll sell RC prints to the client.

2. When I give a print to a friend, I have higher standards than I do to a mere client. It's my gift to the child that when I'm long dead, she'll have a picture in her Mom's arms that is still vibrant.

I'm going to waste the trivial gifts I have on RC or Inkjet ?

3. When I can no longer print well enough to make a fiber print better look better than ANYBODY'S RC print, the Leicas will go out to the trash pickup.

4. Glass does wonders for a mediocre printer. Makes crap look good, and makes the superb look... good.

One of the greatest challenges is to make a print that doesn't lose it's most delicate shadow detail once covered by glass. It can, if one diverges from conventional assumptions about film speed, density, and so on.

Dave Miller · Jul 24, 2006

Simon R Galley said:
Dear Monomoga,

Mr Photo Engineer tells it how it is, they are different emulsions ( for every product ) but of course we do try and match as closely as possible by product family. The FB and RC debate will go on forever, but for work ( Photo Art ) that is to be sold, or to be kept for posterity it has to be FB archivally processed. Photographers do demand different base tints, colours and hue's, but the problem is NOT MANY PEOPLE MAKE Baryta photo base, and you can only do so much with the base by tints, additives etc and you need to order a lot of sq mtrs every time, most people have to do 'their thing' by toning.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited

Simon, I would like you to clarify this statement because it is not my recollection of what you said to us during the open day that we attended at your works.

Maybe my recollection is faulty, and will stand correction, but I think you said that fibre paper should be used for the Fine Art market, for no other reason than that is what the Fine Art market expects.

You also went on to say that as far as you (Ilford) was concerned there was little difference archivally between your R/C and Fibre based papers given the usual constraints of correct processing and storage.

I think, in your reply above, you do a disservice to newcomers to this pastime by perpetuating the myth that fibre based papers have anything other than perceived aesthetic advantages.

Ryuji · Jul 24, 2006

Dave Miller said:
I think, in your reply above, you do a disservice to newcomers to this pastime by perpetuating the myth that fibre based papers have anything other than perceived aesthetic advantages.

I am of the same opinion. I think the emphasis should be on the proper storage, proper processing and also the importance of archival toning.

Sal Santamaura · Jul 24, 2006

And on it goes. Reality is frequently difficult to deal with. I perversely hope that this FB/RC debate continues for the remaining decades of my life. That would mean both paper types remain in production and available to me!

df cardwell said:
...Glass does wonders for a mediocre printer. Makes crap look good, and makes the superb look... good...

Anyone who thinks glass obscures the subtleties of print differences probably hasn't had an opportunity to experience superior glazing. If in North America, try Tru Vue AR Reflection-Free, which has been based on a low-iron substrate since the start of last year. Details here:

http://www.tru-vue.com/container/Glass charts.pdf

If in Europe, try its equivalent, Schott Mirogard. Details here:

Dead Link Removed

Both products are essentially invisible in a frame. Choice of one over the other is simply a matter of shipping cost and exchange rates.

Photo Engineer · Jul 24, 2006

In general, if there are no incorporated developers in a given paper (RC or FB), the RC paper will keep, unexposed, much longer than the FB paper.

After processing, we know that FB prints will keep well if processed properly, but the problem is that we don't have enough information to actually 'prove' whether the most modern RC support will keep as well, nor do we know how the images on them will keep.

The technology used by Kodak was the most advanced I know of in making RC support. IDK how good the technology of the current supplier(s) rates.

I do know that I have seen variations in current FB and RC papers that surprises me. It indicates that the few suppliers left are not able to maintain quality at current production levels.

How do I know that? When I see 3 identical defects on 3 different paper brands and I know that the raw paper support comes from the same source, then the source of the paper is the problem and not the paper manufacturer.

PE

Simon R Galley · Jul 25, 2006

Hi Dave,

I cannot recall exactly what I said, but my normal reply to this question is that RC stability is very, very good, and that correctly washed ( 4 minutes ) and correctly stored they should last 50 years plus, the stucture of the base will likely break down before the silver image, obviously base deterioration does not happen on FB correctly washed, toned and stored...hope that clears up any confusion.

Kind Regards

Simon.

same emulsion on RC and FB

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency