So... the old RC vs FB

ChrisBCS · Jul 3, 2017

So I have been doing as much reading as possible on this, and for whatever reason, I really love the look of the bright white glossy RC paper, but others think its tacky. Have we still not come far enough with Ilford, etc. RC papers to sell prints on them if they have been thoroughly converted in Selenium? Am I low class for actually liking the crazy gloss on RC paper?

Yes, I apologize for dumping a dead horse here in the public square, but I want to hear the state of opinions in 2017.

MattKing · Jul 3, 2017

Use the paper that you like.
I've shown RC prints to a fair number of people who thought they were FB until they actually touched them.
As far as image permanence is concerned, properly developed, fixed, washed and toned and handled modern RC has a lot going for it - the substrate is very durable, and the emulsion is very similar to FB.
I do tend to prefer semi-matte or pearl to glossy though, other than for certain subjects.

faberryman · Jul 3, 2017

ChrisBCS said:
I really love the look of the bright white glossy RC paper, but others think its tacky.

If you like the look, print on RC. If your prints don't sell, ask whether it is because people don't like your photographs enough to pay your asking price, or don't like the the prints being on RC. I would listen to your potential buyers.

Eric Rose · Jul 3, 2017

Do whatever floats your boat. Personally I prefer RC as well. When I sell to clients I ask them what they want. FB gets charged out at double the price.

Cholentpot · Jul 3, 2017

Am I low class for liking Ultrafine film? Or Tmax over Tri-x?

I think that the RC opinions might be holdovers from the early days. I learned to shoot on Tmax and print on RC. I would bet if the wizards of old had learned on Tmax and RC they would swear by it.

removed account4 · Jul 3, 2017

hi chris

most people you might sell your work to don't know the difference between a fiber print and a rc print,
some might, but most don't, unless they took photography classes, or do it themselves, or they are a collector.
make whatever prints you like and don't worry what people on apug or anywhere else on the interweb might tell you.
everyone has their preference and for different reasons. rc prints talke less time to develop, and fix and wash, and they can be just
as "archival" as fiber prints ( or so kodak used to say ) ... ilford makes a double weight rc paper too ( its called portfolio, or used to be called that )
it has heft to it, and prints beautifully. if you listen to some people you might end up with a 11x14 camera and big lens and case of film .. and a 2nd mortgage !
you could always give the buyer the option, but it might not look the same
good luck !
john

Patrick Robert James · Jul 3, 2017

If you make great images you could print them on horse poop and no one would care.

Cholentpot · Jul 3, 2017

Patrick Robert James said:
If you make great images you could print them on horse poop and no one would care.

Where can I get some of this HP paper? I heard that it makes great photos.

ChrisBCS · Jul 3, 2017

I love this place.

Cholentpot · Jul 3, 2017

ChrisBCS said:
I love this place.

I heard HP papers make your photos look like crap. I'm gonna try for the new new BS Paper. Now with taurine!

Richard Searle · Jul 4, 2017

It would be a shame if budding photographers were discouraged because they think FB is the only way with it's extra washing, etc.

RalphLambrecht · Jul 4, 2017

ChrisBCS said:
So I have been doing as much reading as possible on this, and for whatever reason, I really love the look of the bright white glossy RC paper, but others think its tacky. Have we still not come far enough with Ilford, etc. RC papers to sell prints on them if they have been thoroughly converted in Selenium? Am I low class for actually liking the crazy gloss on RC paper?

Yes, I apologize for dumping a dead horse here in the public square, but I want to hear the state of opinions in 2017.

If you want to sell, you have to do FB;if not, you can use whatever you like even if it is ghetto-RC.

Jim Jones · Jul 4, 2017

In many markets there is little bias against RC paper. I've sold hundreds of RC prints in an area with no galleries. Upscale galleries cater to a more sophisticated clientele, and might reject RC unless the images have redeeming qualities.

Cholentpot · Jul 4, 2017

Jim Jones said:
In many markets there is little bias against RC paper. I've sold hundreds of RC prints in an area with no galleries. Upscale galleries cater to a more sophisticated clientele, and might reject RC unless the images have redeeming qualities.

Is this not always true? I can print on a pizza box if the subject is interesting and engaging.

Nodda Duma · Jul 4, 2017

Cholentpot said:
Where can I get some of this HP paper? I heard that it makes great photos.

No joke, one of the strangest gift I got from my wife and kids was a photo frame made from (hopefully cleaned and washed) elephant poop. The "material" is similar to egg carton-type recycled paper in appearrance, dyed to some pastel color. I think it came from San Diego Zoo, acquired on one of their visits out to her folks. When you look at the frame it actually looks nice... and then you realize it came from a literal pile of poop.

It sits untouched somewhere in the house, still unopened from its original packaging.

Cholentpot · Jul 4, 2017

Nodda Duma said:
No joke, one of the strangest gift I got from my wife and kids was a photo frame made from (hopefully cleaned and washed) elephant poop. The "material" is similar to egg carton-type recycled paper in appearrance, dyed to some pastel color. When you look at the frame it actually looks nice... and then you realize it came from a literal pile of poop.

It sits untouched somewhere in the house, still unopened from its original packaging.

It might be outgassing, give it some air.

ChrisBCS · Jul 4, 2017

RalphLambrecht said:
If you want to sell, you have to do FB;if not, you can use whatever you like even if it is ghetto-RC.

All of the reading I've done, including your amazing tome, and all the details I have been able to find on how RC is constructed, STILL leaves me with the question, why?

removed account4 · Jul 4, 2017

ChrisBCS said:
All of the reading I've done, including your amazing tome, and all the details I have been able to find on how RC is constructed, STILL leaves me with the question, why?

chris

it got a bad rap because in the 70s &c because there were some rc papers that were junk and didn't keep,
no matter how they were washed/treated,
people, remember rc as bad because of the problems it had ( and snobbism ).
some of these problems were caused by chemicals used to whiten the base,
others because of developer added to the emulsion and others probably because of user error
( like most stuff, bad technique= junk materials)
there are handfuls of threads here on apug about the additives and problems Rc paper had ..
but that is then, and this is now.
a lot of mini lab prints are done on rc paper, and i asked somene who prints for me from time to time
what the lifespan of the crystal archive paper is and i was told some absurdly long time.
if you read some of the reports done by wilhelm and the image permanency institute ( + kodak ) as far back as 15 years ago ...
they were saying if processed correctly rc prints will last even longer than fiber prints....
i have some rc prints i made in september 1980 that look as good as the day they were printed,
and they were just dev, stop, fix, fix remove, wash ( 20 mins fill / dump ) ...
i don't tone and i am not sure if rc paper takes toners as well as fiber papers ( or if at all )
ag stab ( sistan ) is sometimes / or was sometimes used as a post wash to help preserve rc prints.
in the end there are just as many poorly processed &c fiber prints as there are rc prints.

there are some galleries that sell color images and other things on rc paper ( and some have sold for tens of thousands of dollars ) ... if you are doing gallery work, contact them and ask their preference ?
i really wouldn't worry about what you print on as long as you are happy with the results and you wash well.
regarding presentation, read up on rc prints and silvering-out, there are things you can do that might prevent this.

good luck !

RalphLambrecht · Jul 4, 2017

Patrick Robert James said:
If you make great images you could print them on horse poop and no one would care.

how do you print on horse poop? Is it called poopography?

Bob Carnie · Jul 4, 2017

ChrisBCS said:
All of the reading I've done, including your amazing tome, and all the details I have been able to find on how RC is constructed, STILL leaves me with the question, why?

Its a culture thing Chris, no professional printer I competed against would print with RC, I have never used RC other than contact sheets in 25 years of running a small printing company.
Most high end gallerys that YES trade in silver gelatin will cherish Fibre Base Prints. RC prints got a very bad rap in the 90's for desilvering when put behind frames.
Also most RC prints that are printed in LABS are done with a roller transport machine where speed trumps archival fixing and washing.

There are many arguments for RC some valid IMO for casual use but if you ever want to have your work to be collectable and treasured why not print Fibre. In the world of collectors fibre is king and Pt Pd is queen.

Many here do not give a hoot whether their work is collected and are working for the pure enjoyment of the craft, and in that case RC hits a lot of good buttons

You have to decide where you want to be, it would be crazy to not go to fibre if the high end is where you want to end up in 20 years.

Bob Carnie · Jul 4, 2017

John hits the nail on the head in post #18 where he states there are as many poorly processed fibre prints as RC.. if you are not doing it right it does not matter what paper you use.

ChrisBCS · Jul 4, 2017

Thanks Bob. I will definitely think about that. I definitely respect the opinions of the people on the board tremendously, especially those of yourself and Ralph Lambrecht. It's hard to see myself in a gallery ever, but it's kind of a goal that I'm almost embarrassed to admit. I'm 32 with a fully developed career as a research scientist, but have been taking photos for 22 years, completely self-taught by books and looking at the work of master photographers (and currently, the archives and forums of this site). My fiancee and I make a stable, good living, so it's not about money, but having people like my work enough to buy it would be an amazing part of the enjoyment. It would be disingenuous for me to not admit that is one of my ambitions.

Also, galleries that deal in silver prints? Now you have my attention. My understanding was that modern gallerists aren't so interested in whether it's a handmade silver print or a digital print.

I've sold prints, but just to friends who know me and want my work in their home, never to a stranger (yet?).

removed account4 · Jul 4, 2017

hi bob,
as a gallery owner and printer, i am guessing you have an inside scoop on some of the ins and outs.

for people who are "big wigs" and sell color prints ( c prints? digital c-prints &c ) in galleries for tens of thousands of dollars
what happens when the prints fail ? do they get a new one for free ? do they get an upgrade and get something printed on a different medium
with a longer life span ? i know, as you said silver ( fb ) and platinum are king/queen, but what about the "other stuff" that might not hold up?

i seem to remember the starn twins making enormous fiber based montages in the 1980s but they were held together with some sort of adhesive tape
( scotch tape sort of thing ) as part of the presentation ... their rembrandt and 2 horses come to mind, they were massive and on display at the museum of fine arts in boston
for a long while ... it makes me wonder if they get free rolls of tape and new prints when the adhesive screws up the emulsion ...
john

teejay · Jul 4, 2017

Cholentpot said:
Where can I get some of this HP paper? I heard that it makes great photos.

ooo...nicely played Sir - that made me laugh

Cholentpot · Jul 4, 2017

RalphLambrecht said:
how do you print on horse poop? Is it called poopography?

Equinography. If you think fixer smells bad...

jnanian said:
chris

it got a bad rap because in the 70s &c because there were some rc papers that were junk and didn't keep,
no matter how they were washed/treated,
people, remember rc as bad because of the problems it had ( and snobbism ).
some of these problems were caused by chemicals used to whiten the base,
others because of developer added to the emulsion and others probably because of user error
( like most stuff, bad technique= junk materials)
there are handfuls of threads here on apug about the additives and problems Rc paper had ..
but that is then, and this is now.
a lot of mini lab prints are done on rc paper, and i asked somene who prints for me from time to time
what the lifespan of the crystal archive paper is and i was told some absurdly long time.
if you read some of the reports done by wilhelm and the image permanency institute ( + kodak ) as far back as 15 years ago ...
they were saying if processed correctly rc prints will last even longer than fiber prints....
i have some rc prints i made in september 1980 that look as good as the day they were printed,
and they were just dev, stop, fix, fix remove, wash ( 20 mins fill / dump ) ...
i don't tone and i am not sure if rc paper takes toners as well as fiber papers ( or if at all )
ag stab ( sistan ) is sometimes / or was sometimes used as a post wash to help preserve rc prints.
in the end there are just as many poorly processed &c fiber prints as there are rc prints.

there are some galleries that sell color images and other things on rc paper ( and some have sold for tens of thousands of dollars ) ... if you are doing gallery work, contact them and ask their preference ?
i really wouldn't worry about what you print on as long as you are happy with the results and you wash well.
regarding presentation, read up on rc prints and silvering-out, there are things you can do that might prevent this.

good luck !

Back to the Tmax vs. Tri-x or HC-110 vs Tmax Dev. As I've heard it people did not follow the procedures and had bad results. Bad results and then discounted the whole thing. I started way way way after any of this and from the start had massive amounts of info at my finger tips. Because I started developing and printing as per the instructions and then branched out from there I've never had an issue with fresh paper, film and chemicals. In the bad 'ol days there was a lot of clannishness and gate-keeping in the photography community this would lead to some odd ideas and whispered super secret stuff that's now common knowledge.

I love Tmax films, Tmax Dev, RC paper and other such newcomers. They are easy to use, look great, are thrifty, and last for a long time.

So... the old RC vs FB

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency