The RC Myth.

Flotsam · Aug 29, 2004

mark said:
AZO on the other hand is PIA and a real big one. I guess that is the nature of single weight papers though.

It must be an Azo thing. I use Polymax FB SW. I hang 'em until dry and give 'em several seconds in a warm press and they are as flat as a sheet of stationary.

Click to expand...

TPPhotog · Aug 29, 2004

I think at the moment where we are entering a second dark ages due to digital we need to make sure what we do will survive. This isn't a dig at the digi's but from many years experience in IT digital prints have never lasted more than a few years and RC at the moment is still unproven. If any pictures of our current times are to be guaranteed to survive then proven materials need to be used. Hope that makes some kind of sense, my brain is getting tired.

paul ron · Aug 29, 2004

but but but...

Once upon a time the emulsions were made to last using proven formulas that have been around since the 1800s. Now we are using newer emulsions that have no track record at all nor is there any data to prove the new emulsions will last at all regadless of the base it is on. Did anyone ever find out just how much silver was in the old papers compared to the new emulsions?

BTW the emulsion does not sit on the FB, it is seperated by a layer of Byrata just as the RC seperates the base from the emulsion. The old "salt" papers of yesteryear are the FB papers you may be comparing to , some of these are the papers I once used from Agfa that are no longer available. Todays papers are very nice but I think they look shallow compared to my old prints.

TPPhotog · Aug 29, 2004

Paul, If I have this right ... in that case none of the materials we are using are proven which sounds as though the debate is more about how the print looks and feels rather than any archival properties that may or may not be in existence.

paul ron · Aug 29, 2004

now you've got it.... What difference does it make if a print is on RC or FB if the emulsions are all the same junk? The images may not last forever but we certainly can make ourselves happy with the prints we make today, the heck with tomorrow... a digital mentality perhaps?... leave no trace?

TPPhotog · Aug 29, 2004

paul ron said:
... a digital mentality perhaps?... leave no trace?

Hush your mouth and wash it out with soap, there are children present

paul ron · Aug 29, 2004

HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa a a a a a a

I'll shoot film even if I have to make my own!

TPPhotog · Aug 29, 2004

paul ron said:
HAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaa a a a a a a

I'll shoot film even if I have to make my own!

With you on that one, in fact I'll even share the work LOL

Alex Hawley · Aug 29, 2004

Dave Miller said:
Assuming the same image is printed equally well on both products of an equal finish, it is almost impossible to tell which medium is providing the support without physical help. Further if the finished print is displayed behind glass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used.

To my eye, there is a noticeable difference betwee RC and FB prints. I've used a lot of RC and have some still hanging on the wall. But to me, FB gave much more subtle detail and tone variations. Once I started printing on FB, I noticed things in my prints that I hadn't seen before. Over a period of two years, I've weened myself completely off of RC. There got to be just too much of a difference in the two that test prints done on RC just didn't do it for me anymore.

Another myth is the one that says single weight is a PIA. So what if it curls after drying. Its actually easier to flatten than double weight is.

RC does a great job and no one should be belittled for using it. Its all a matter of how one sees things.

Francesco · Aug 29, 2004

Alex Hawley said:
Another myth is the one that says single weight is a PIA. So what if it curls after drying. Its actually easier to flatten than double weight is.

Alex, too true. And you know I was a DW defender. I cannot see myself ever wanting DW again. Talk about doing a 180.

VoidoidRamone · Aug 29, 2004

Pretty much like everyone has said previously... it depends on the application. To me there is a difference... when I make a print on Oriental RC (which in my opinion is the finest RC paper) it still doesn't look as good as a mediocre print on nice FB paper (Oriental also happens to be my favorite FB paper). So there you go, RC does look nice... but not AS nice. This is one of those arguments that could go one for a lifetime and never be solved... each paper has it's strenghts and weaknesses, which is why there is both. -Grant

Alex Hawley · Aug 29, 2004

Francesco said:
Alex, too true. And you know I was a DW defender. I cannot see myself ever wanting DW again. Talk about doing a 180.

Thanks Francesco. I think that the possible unintentional originator of the DW myth may have been Ansel Adams; simply by writing in his book "The Print" that he preferred double weight. "So sayeth Ansel, so must we doeth".

Jennifer · Aug 29, 2004

Hi,
I have noticed reference to single weight paper. Kodak has DISCONTINUED
SW Polymax fiber paper. Soon the only thing they will have is discontinued
products list !.

Jennifer

Alex Hawley · Aug 30, 2004

Jennifer said:
Hi,
I have noticed reference to single weight paper. Kodak has DISCONTINUED
SW Polymax fiber paper. Soon the only thing they will have is discontinued
products list !. Jennifer

The Dirty So-and-So's!!! Where did you find that out Jennifer? Why don't they just burn down their analog factory and quit torturing us!!!

Jennifer · Aug 30, 2004

Hi,
I called Kodak the other day, to express my concern on could I count on them to keep making film, paper. I mentioned polymax and the guy said "SW"
is out the door, as they say. I had considered SW myself, but had a feeling that would get the axe. Makes you wonder about the future of AZO, as that is a SW paper. Every time I see another product vanish, the more I really hate digital. I'd rather die and go to hel*, than buy a digital imaging device.
It's a device...real cameras use film.

Jennifer

The digital darkroom......what safelight would one use ?.

Dave Miller · Aug 30, 2004

VoidoidRamone said:
... each paper has it's strenghts and weaknesses, which is why there is both. -Grant

No, both are produced because there is a market for both, it's a commercial factor at work. However your are quite correct in stating that they each have their strength and weaknesses.

titrisol · Aug 30, 2004

I favor RC lately, due to the convenience of procesing, but when I have "nailed" a print I make a few in FB, selenize/polysulfide them and voila!

BBarlow690 · Aug 30, 2004

I'm a fiber snob that keeps being embarrassed by how good RC can look. Over 500 prints into head-to-had testing, I find I like MG Cooltone. And the new Polycontrast IV looks really good, too (a shade better than Cooltone, to my eye).

That said, being a fan of glossy surface, I find most RC papers TOO glossy (they look plasticky) for my tastes. And, I still have found only one other paper that matches or exceeds Forte Elegance Polygrade V and Ilford Galerie, and that's Azo in Amidol...

So I continue to say that if you're wash-water impaired (Santa Fe, for instance, where people should shower with friends during their continuing drought), RC is just fine, but otherwise there are better choices for the same cost.

But in sum, I agree with those who stress that it's the picture that counts more than what it's printed on. A bad picture on beautiful paper is still a bad picture.

argentic · Aug 30, 2004

Dave Miller said:
Assuming the same image is printed equally well on both products of an equal finish, it is almost impossible to tell which medium is providing the support without physical help. Further if the finished print is displayed behind glass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used.

Sorry Dave, but there are only two ways you can make such a statement. Either you have never compared the same image printed excellently on both papers. Or you should check your optician again.

I sometimes have to print the same image, the best way I can, on both Ilford MGIV RC and FB for exhibitions. And I immediately see the difference. FB just has a more threedimensional quality. And I'm not the only one to see this. Non-photographing people around me notice the difference too. They cannot always describe it, but they almost always prefer the FB version. There really is a visible difference.

I grant you that the difference is smaller when frames behind glass. But I still recognise the FB version at exhibitions.

G.

Joe Symchyshyn · Aug 30, 2004

"...generally advocated within this forum that fibre paper gives superior printing results to resin coated material. May I offer the argument that this is false, misleading, and probably driven by snobbery?"

I think from past experiences, (my own included) RC has problems with stability and because of it is not taken seriously.

Snobbery, perhaps... But the pros for RC always seem to come down to how convenient it is to use.

"Further if the finished print is displayed behind glass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used. "

So how can I tell when I look? There are often subtle clues, but often by looking on a bit of an angle, one can tell more by surface finish and "a look" that is difficult to articulate.

"So, what argument can the forum offer for the exclusion of RC papers?"

Longevity, surface finish, and that feel of holding something of substance in your hands.

joe
(fiber based print lover)

David A. Goldfarb · Aug 30, 2004

Joe Symchyshyn said:
I think from past experiences, (my own included) RC has problems with stability and because of it is not taken seriously.

Snobbery, perhaps... But the pros for RC always seem to come down to how convenient it is to use.

Like they say, "live fast, die young."

Dave Miller · Aug 30, 2004

argentic said:
Sorry Dave, but there are only two ways you can make such a statement. Either you have never compared the same image printed excellently on both papers. Or you should check your optician again.
G.

I have done both, but will take up your second suggestion again shortly.

Foto Ludens · Aug 30, 2004

Dave Miller said:
I have done both, but will take up your second suggestion again shortly.

I did this last week, and MAN, what a bummer. I am now the latest in my family with progressive lenses... It seems I have spasms (I can't spell) in the focusing muscles in my eyes.

Oh, well, at least I'm not going blind.

mobtown_4x5 · Aug 30, 2004

"then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used. "

Sorry, but I can tell. Fiber looks better to me.

Flotsam · Aug 30, 2004

Jennifer said:
Hi,
I have noticed reference to single weight paper. Kodak has DISCONTINUED
SW Polymax fiber paper. Soon the only thing they will have is discontinued
products list !.

Jennifer

AHHHH CR@P!

Alright! Who told Kodak that I have settled on Polymax 8x10 FB SW as my absolute favorite printing medium and am using it exclusively?
Over the years I have shot literally miles of Ektachrome a hundred feet at a time and used lakes of E-6 chemistry, not to mention the color neg, paper and B&W. And yet... they just never seem to miss a chance to sit on my face at every opportunity. It's gotta be personal.

Well, hopefully there will still be Polymax DW... at a dime a sheet more.

The RC Myth.

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency