• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

So... the old RC vs FB

I find it difficult to believe buyers would care if say photographers like moriyama, yokata, kilian breier and all those types printed on rc or fibre
 
Hi John
you are bringing up a whole new thread topic best left for another day.. so many opinions on the resell and the hero image showpiece
Bob
 
Most of the "photographs" I see in the galleries I wander into aren't darkroom or alternative/tradition process prints at all, they are some sort of inkjet print.
I am sure that Bob is correct, but you need to understand that what he is talking about is a very specialized marketplace. If participating in that marketplace is your goal, then you need to adapt your output to the needs of that marketplace.
The criteria of acceptance in that marketplace aren't invalid - they are just very particular, and relatively speaking, rooted in history.
In the past, Fred Herzog (to use an interesting local example) wouldn't have been particularly collectible or marketable. If you are in the Vancouver area, go see the current show at the Vancouver Art gallery ("Pictures From Here") and decide for yourself whether the inkjet prints made from his Kodachrome slides from around 1960 (expertly scanned and digitally printed as well as anything I've seen) are not worth collecting.
If you are asking yourself about which medium you should use, you should probably be clear within your own mind whether your criteria are rooted in your needs and preferences, or whether you are attempting to meet the needs of others.
I'm sitting in a chair at my desk and, from where I am, I can see over 20 different framed photographic prints. They range from lab processed colour prints, to fibre based black and white, to RC black and white (printed by me) to Kallitypes to lith prints to POP to what to may be a Cibachrome (it was bought used at a country fair, and is well framed). Almost all are framed behind glass. If I didn't already know, I would be hard pressed to tell the fibre based prints from the RC.
 
I've got some old Forte Polywarmtone RC. The finish is really quite nice, not that thick plastic-ey stuff Ilford sells (which I do stock for contact sheets and testing).

I find that even under glass, the sense of plastic with RC prints still comes through. Just a subjective thing I suppose.
 
Craig75 said:
I find it difficult to believe buyers would care if say photographers like moriyama, yokata, kilian breier and all those types printed on rc or fibre
Click to expand...

hi craig75

i think it is sort of a known quantity sort of thing, not the person, but a stable medium.
rc has had a checkered past, but archival silver, or alt processes/noble metals/pigment transfer that last &c are well known to have stability.
im guessing if someone is purchasing from one of the people on your list its is as much as a beautiful photograph to look at
as it is an investment .. that is sort of what i was getting at before .. if i was to plunk down $$ on something of value
that will appreciate in value i wouldn't want it to be made with inferior products that might last or might not last,
unless there were some sort of insurance by the maker that if it had trouble a new one would be made.
photography is a new medium, compared to drawing, painting, sculpture, architecture .. and with rc paper
its kind of like the tulip bulb frenzy / tulip mania of the 1630s .. i'd hate to buy a bulb for $100,000.00 and have it be a dud.

i could be wrong though, no one, and nothing lasts forever .. built in obsolecense might be a good thing ..
 

For me personally it's about what I like and how I like to so it. My process involves RC paper. It's how I see my work and I'm far more willing to print on a medium that is friendly. If it sells or gets displayed, great! If not because of the paper or process I used, too bad.

My work for the most part stands by the image on not the process. Sure I'm proud of the work I put into my prints and development but If I developed and printed a blank frame it's a blank frame no matter how I tone it or what paper or film or chemistry I use.
 

If people are buying Cordier chemograms, 60s japanese student work, oxidationsprozess works and that kind of work you are paying for the work in history. Those early works cant be made again so you will buy whatever its made on - the conservation is your problem!
 
Of course it's a matter of taste. Personally I print contact sheets on RC paper for the convenience. For prints I like glossy FB paper dried matte; no RC paper seems to approximate this look.
As far as permanence goes, I have contact sheets from 40 years ago -- first days of RC paper -- that look as good as new. This may have to do with the very dry climate where I live.
 
My suggestion is get a 25 sheet package of the RC and the FB papers you would consider using. Make your best print of the same neg on each paper type. Or a few negs. Probably best if you do them on different days. Then compare the prints. Does one paper type make a print you like better than the other?
 
When I first tried RC in 1979 or thereabouts it was horrible. The surface was way too artificially white and it had no depth, even for a dumb kid like me, compared to a single weight fiber that I could afford.

Recently I bought fiber because I like the pain of trying to dry it flat without getting lint stuck on it Plus, the people I know who will get a print when I set up again will appreciate the effort even if both paper types look good.

I don't think that any inkjet printed art will become collectible because it's too easy to print off thousands and that destroys the value. Nothing to do with quality, which looks very good, but the supply and demand. Old school print makers used to destroy the plates after the limited run but you can never really do that with a digital data file with any certainty...
 
Kawaiithulhu said:
Old school print makers used to destroy the plates after the limited run but you can never really do that with a digital data file with any certainty...
Click to expand...
Old school print makers may have, and I have even heard of some photographers who destroyed their negatives, but it has never been the norm. You have to trust the artist not to print beyond the edition.
 
faberryman said:
Old school print makers may have, and I have even heard of some photographers who destroyed their negatives, but it has never been the norm. You have to trust the artist not to print beyond the edition.
Click to expand...

I find every print run ends up slightly different anyhow. So I mark mine as First Edition xx/xx so on so forth.
 
faberryman said:
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.
Click to expand...
+1

I can see museums/galleries refusing RC images even though they will probably last 30+ years when properly prepared. I have a hard time seeing someone buying art for their wall refusing an image because it's not on FB, although I suppose it's possible. If you're printing for clients, print on the paper they want. If you're printing for you, print on the paper you want.
 
  • klownshed
  • Deleted
  • Reason: Duplicate.
RC is good enough for 99% of the people 99% of the time. If you are not sure if it's the right choice for you, it is the right choice for you.

If you need FB, you know you need it and don't need to ask.

If you have printed your photos on RC and then eventually find a gallery that wants to exhibit your work but insists on FB, you can print again on FB.

It's not an either/or decision. You are allowed to print your negatives more than once.
 
faberryman said:
You have to trust the artist
Click to expand...
The gallery would typically have a party for the occasion when the plates were destroyed.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists) mentions the second variation on the theme, First Edition limited print runs and then Second and so on. Sometimes artists would mark the plate with a scratch or identifier that it wasn't from the original run.
Copper plates deteriorate on their own, even within the limits of one run of 100 impressions it's obvious.

In any case, RC is much better now and unless you're dabbling in high end gallery work it doesn't seem to matter to the audience as long as the presentation is appropriate.
 
Galleries aren't going to care. If they think it is collectible and/or salable, you could print on toilet tissue and they would be interested.
Agents might care.
 
klownshed said:
It's not an either/or decision. You are allowed to print your negatives more than once.
Click to expand...
true but some like the "singular" or small number or prints aspect of not making 1zillion images. i used to make single images for a while. i'd make a negative assemblage
and after i got 1 good print, i wouldn't make another. sometimes it was a blob of liquid wax as it hardened i'd enlarge and print the semi translucent mass until it ws solid
and i'd save the best print ... while making mass quantities of images is fun, and something photography is well known for ( art in the age of mechanical reproduction ) it is
also its greatest flaw. sure, i know every print is different, we aren't robots to make perfectly dodged and burned and spoted and developer gets used &c but its a flood, rather than a trickle.

not sure which one, but i think one of the westons used to cut his negative and attach it to the back of the print ...
 
I've been a long time printer on FB paper, but changed my mind a little when the California drought hit and I did some prints on RC just to save water washing prints. It's not bad. I think if the RC print is mounted, matted and framed, most folks can't tell the difference between RC and FB papers. For me, I didn't care much for RC paper because of the feel and the blacks sometimes isn't as black FB paper. But Ilford makes excellent RC paper.
 
Mainecoonmaniac said:
I didn't care much for RC paper because of the feel
Click to expand...

Compare a sheet of FB paper to RC and FB wins every time. Now frame them both and compare again. The quality differences diminish.

At that point the benefits of RC come into play. Is it still worth the extra effort and water for FB for you? If so, great, but the ease of use of RC is more attractive when you don't factor in the feel of the paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register