The RC Myth.

[NER]

What a waste of time.

 

[Alex Hawley]

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 Great Yellow K must have read that thread I started a while back about re-discovering Polymax SW. Sorry Neal. I feel the same.

 

[ian_greant]

count me in the list of people who can see the difference.

I was getting very frustrated with my prints, until I started printing on Fibre.. then the detail and feeling I was seeking came through.

 

[Konical]

Good Morning,

I wonder--What if RC had been invented first, followed many decades later by fiber-base? Would there be a plethora of comments on the "inferior" look of fiber-base?

(I hope that this is not a comment all of you have seen earlier. I posted this thought yesterday, thought it "took" and was in the thread, but I can't find it now. Has anyone else ever made what seemed to be a successful posting, only later to find that it had disappeared?)

Konical

 

[mark]

Personally I would have loved the invention of fiber. There is a look to fiber that is not present in RC. Call it snobbery if you will but fiber looks, prints and feels better. I have worked extensivly with both. I would feel the same if RC were invented first.

 

[roy]

I wonder--What if RC had been invented first, followed many decades later by fiber-base? Would there be a plethora of comments on the "inferior" look of fiber-base?[

I think the superior (IMHO) archival and toning properties of fibre would have won the day.

 

[Lee Shively]

Concerning the stability of prints, a lot of what I have read indicates storage has as much or more to do with the longevity of photographic prints than the material on which it is printed. It makes sense to me, considering how well some 100+ year old photos look. You know the photofinishers of the time cared little for the archival properties of the photos (same as today). But well kept photos survived while poorly kept photos faded.

The RC paper I used back in the 1970's was wretched. The fiber paper was gorgeous. RC papers have improved significantly in 30 years. I don't know that I can say the same for fiber papers. At most, fiber papers have maintained at about the same level.

I use more RC paper than fiber but I do agree a well printed fiber-based photo, toned in selenium or Nelson's gold and displayed nicely has a sweeter, softer quality about it.

 

[mikewhi]

OK, since I have some strong opinions about this, I'll put in my 2-cents.

I admit that the quality of RC papers has come a long way since I first started printing. RC prints were absolute crap when compared to FB paper then. If you couldn't tell the difference, you just didn't know quality. I have walked thru a lot of craft fairs and I can see that RC prints do look better now than before. I still have to get a little up close before the plasticky look of the paper becomes apparent.

Still, RC is not as good as FB, period. RC has it's place for sure, but not in my life. If ever the day comes where I can't tell the diffecence in a blind comparision, then I'll consider using it if archival considerations are covered, but I don't ever see that day coming. How can RC ever produce the blacks like FB if light has to pass thru the extra coating twice before it hits the eye?

-Mike

 

[DKT]

How can RC ever produce the blacks like FB if light has to pass thru the extra coating twice before it hits the eye?

-Mike

what extra coating? the emulsion is coated on top of the plastic base.

 

[Jennifer]

Hi,
My 3 cents worth. I'm planning to use fiber, but in slight defense of RC.
I had called Ilford about paper. They use the "same" emulsion on the fiber and RC paper. If you make a test print on RC, you will know what to expect on fiber. I think the perceived difference is the playing field is not level. You
can not compare RC glossy to glossy fiber, or RC pearl to fiber because of the surface. NOW try this, Polymax RC "N" surface, and fiber "N" surface.
Look hard, because it's sooo close it's not worth writing home about.
RC has improved much. If RC were made more stable, non developer incorporated, and in a glossy surface that would compare to fiber glossy.
You would have to be out of your mind to use fiber !.
Remember...I'm going to use fiber, put the blow torch away.

Jennifer

 

[Flotsam]

They use the "same" emulsion on the fiber and RC paper. If you make a test print on RC, you will know what to expect on fiber

All I know is that the image on an exposed sheet of Ilford MG RC snaps up almost as soon as it hits the developer while the Ilford MG FB image doesn't even start to appear for 30 seconds and they have different recommended dev times. Does the base really have that effect on the emulsion?

 

[Alex Hawley]

That's one of the basic differences between RC and FB. Emergence time on RC is typically 10 seconds, but 30 seconds for fiber. Total development time is typically 1 minute for RC, 2-3 minutes for fiber. There are some exceptions to this, but these times are good in the general case.

One notable exception is Azo. While the emulsion speed is many times slower than enlarging papers, it develops rapidly, one minute for grade 3, 2 minutes for grade 2.

We must remember, RC was developed to facilitate mass printing of military recon photos in WWII. I have no idea when it went onto the commercial market. Its strengths are in the greatly reduced processing time and it dries flat. Those strengths are still very viable. I'm not going to spend the processing time trying to crank out two 35-mm rolls of documentary shots for a lawsuit on FB paper. The judge and attorneys ain't gonna care. And they ain't gonna hang in any gallery.

On the other hand, when the audience is someone who cares, someone who appreciates a good print, fiber is a must.

 

[Flotsam]

That's one of the basic differences between RC and FB. Emergence time on RC is typically 10 seconds, but 30 seconds for fiber. Total development time is typically 1 minute for RC, 2-3 minutes for fiber. There are some exceptions to this, but these times are good in the general case.

Yes, but is that only because of the base difference? Jennifer says that Ilford claims that it is the same emulsion on both papers. It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Based upon empirical knowledge, I believe it is. Without the emulsion being the same, how else could one work out the exposure and printing on RC, then transfer directly over to fiber with nary a change?

 

[Foto Ludens]

Yes, but is that only because of the base difference? Jennifer says that Ilford claims that it is the same emulsion on both papers. It doesn't make sense to me.

It can very well be only because of the base difference. With Fiber, the paper is thicker than RC. That means that although more chemicals are soaked up by it, it takes more time for the "soaking" to take effect. With RC, which is Plastic/emulsion/paper/plastic, the soaking is much more immediate, because there is less absorbtion going on.

I may not have explained this correctly, but it makes sense in my head. In RC, the only thing really soaking up developer is the gelatin (paper itself is very thin). On FB, there is the paper doing it as well. Which may mean that spent developer is not "renewed" in the paper as quickly either. All this could add up to faster development in RC. I believe that the same can be said of film (in that it is similar to RC).

André

 

[Flotsam]

Alright. In the interest of furthering human knowledge, I just did an experiment.

I took a strip of Ilford MG RC and a strip of Ilford MG FB, exposed them to white light, and put a drop of Dektol 1:3 on the surface of each, removing absorbtion as a factor, and watched my my trusty, rusty gralab timer. Here are the results:

The RC started to show density at 3 seconds and appeared fully black at 10.
The FB showed tone at 10 secs and didn't appear to max until 30 secs.

I'm open to explanations but it just don't sound like the same emulsion to me :confused:

 

[Foto Ludens]

Neal, what would we do without you?

Here's my best guess at this (not that it means much):

Absorbtion may could still be a factor (gelatin absorbs, paper absorbs through it).
It isn't likely, though, and 30s sounds reasonable for FB to black out in white light, regardless of how much developer it's in.

Sooooooo,

It may not be the same emulsion, but the good folks at Ilford may very well have gone the extra mile to get the papers/emulsions as close as they could, precisely for the purpose of RC to FB conversions.

I dunno, maybe I'm too naive.

André

 

[Donald Miller]

Alright. In the interest of furthering human knowledge, I just did an experiment.

I took a strip of Ilford MG RC and a strip of Ilford MG FB, exposed them to white light, and put a drop of Dektol 1:3 on the surface of each, removing absorbtion as a factor, and watched my my trusty, rusty gralab timer. Here are the results:

The RC started to show density at 3 seconds and appeared fully black at 10.
The FB showed tone at 10 secs and didn't appear to max until 30 secs.

I'm open to explanations but it just don't sound like the same emulsion to me :confused:

The only absolute test of whether the emulsions are the same would be to expose a calibrated step tablet to both papers and then to read the dmax and dmin densities as well as plot the curve for both papers.

If someone wants to contribute some paper (4 sheets of each should suffice) in order to determine the validity of "it's the same emulsion", I will be happy to do the densitometric testing. I would think that those who feel strongly about this would be happy to back up their views on this.

 

[Peter Hogan]

I guess there'a difference in use, but you're right, impossible to tell behind glass. Mostly I use fibre, but I do use RC as well, particularly Ilfords Ilfospeed Semimatt. It has a surface to die for and tones like a dream, but does dry-down quite a bit. It's a graded paper. Difficult to get hold of; if you want to try it you should contact Ilford direct, whilst you still can. I just bought a load!
Peter Hogan.

 

[Tom Stanworth]

Like so many things, when I started out in photography I thought there were many beleivers in the emperors clothes (those who thought T-grain films lacking in soul and those who thought resin prints inferior). Well, as I grew in experience and my standards were raised, I ate a few hats. They were right on both acounts (IMHO). I now greatly prefer traditional films (but have a soft spot for acros 100 quickloads in Pyro devs) and would never use RC for an exhibition print. ON the second preference, this is because RC glossy is generally too glossy and plasticky for my eye and lacks that glow. I cannot really nail it down, but there is an image depth issue. When I really nail an FB print and it it properly lit it has no real suface and you could walk into it. This never sems to happen on RC for me, it just seems more 2D...I wish it wasnt the case as it is soooooo much easier to work with RC and cheaper and faster....I do however think Ilford warmtone RC to be a cracking paper, which tones really nicely.

The fact that RC papers are developer incorporated seems to reduce their flexibility somewhat. Thye ultra glossy surface also makes them harder to mount without slight flatness issues causing reflections etc.

 

[removed account4]

i used to print a lot of work for publication ( pr headshots, newspaper stuff ) on rc, and i sell alot of prints for government ( and personal ) archives - not proofs work, but "final prints". people who want publicaiton prints don't need archival images, and by all accounts, rc-glossy prints reproduced better than everything else. on the other hand, the us government and state archives don't accept rc prints for their collections.

i like the feel of a fiber print, i like the fact that it is PAPER, not a plastic surface, and i like the fact that if i put a fiber print under glass, (with no mat) it won't turn a funky tone, and look almost solarized ( is that silvering out?). if i want to give it away / sell a print, i don't have to worry about it not looking like it did when it left my hands.

maybe i am a FB snob, but it is for good reason

 

[Alex Hawley]

Neal, or anyone else, try it this way. Take a negative, expose it and print it on Ilford MG RC. Try making as good a print as you can, whatever that takes, but do it on the RC paper. Then, do the EXACT same thing (exposure wise) on Ilford MG FB and develop it accordingly (2-3 minutes or whatever is necessary).

Now, after drying, compare the two. How close are they to one another? (Most likely, pretty durn close).

 

[Ed Sukach]

My most favorite paper of all time ... Is Ilford RC "Portfolio". Something about it is superior to the best FB ... In my eyes. - Your mileage may vary ... but - so what else is new in black and white (and gray) printing?
We all have different sets of eyes.

 

[Flotsam]

Like many others have mentioned here, I do certain kinds of work on FB and other on RC. I'm glad that both are available. It really doesn't matter much to me if the two print exactly the same, although I find Alex's experience extremely interesting. I'm just trying to wrap my brain around why would the same emulsion react so differently to developing depending solely on what base it is coated on.

 

[Leon]

Neal, or anyone else, try it this way. Take a negative, expose it and print it on Ilford MG RC. Try making as good a print as you can, whatever that takes, but do it on the RC paper. Then, do the EXACT same thing (exposure wise) on Ilford MG FB and develop it accordingly (2-3 minutes or whatever is necessary).

Now, after drying, compare the two. How close are they to one another? (Most likely, pretty durn close).

I used to do exactly that - used the rc as my work paper then made a final print on the fb ... but I would then selenium tone the FB version with krst at about 1:15 until it looked right. It took the toning to bring the two close together - otherwise, there were definitely differences, and calibrating my analyser pro showed that well enough. also for the warm tone rc and fb versions.