The real deal with different papers

[jordanstarr]

I'd like to know some scientifically proven (not opinion) comparisons of the following (it really doesn't matter what variable you're comparing):

RC vs Fibre paper -Darkroom
RC vs typical lab printer paper from digital files

I'm not looking for opinion or "I heard from a guy that..." statements unless it's from a credible source. I need the FACTS. I'm not looking to give up darkroom printing, but I'm interested in hearing what the results are as I have a negative scanner and have done some good lab prints done before. If you even have resources or links for my to further my research that would be appreciated.

 

[Tim Gray]

What are we comparing here? Longevity? Look? Ease of processing?

Just to throw out a tidbit of info, 'typical lab' print paper IS RC. Some labs are going to inkjet or dye sub I guess, but many labs (1 hour and other) still print on Fuji Crystal Archive, Kodak Endura, Kodak Edge (I think is the name), or other chemically processed RC papers.

I've gotten prints done from scans I've made, mostly on Kodak Endura, but some on Kodak Endura Metallic. They've all come out great. None of them have been on true B&W paper - some labs offer this. I find the resolution on real optical prints tends to exceed those printed by laser. Of course, anything I've scanned gets the benefit of sharpening. I'm sure inkjets can look very sharp indeed.

As to RC vs FB in the darkroom: RC is SIGNIFICANTLY easier to deal with in my opinion. Much faster to process, much faster to wash, and dries flat very quickly. I'm just getting into FB, so take this with a grain of salt, but it's much more of a pain in the butt to get flat. Even 'flat' FB probably will never be as flat as most RC. On the other hand, the surfaces of FB are very attractive. They tone easier and are the archival 'standard'. I think I notice a slightly higher dmax on the Ilford Warmtone FB air dried glossy than I get on Ilford RC, glossy or pearl. But that could just be my imagination.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you're potentially interested in selling B&W silver gelatin prints, collectors and gallerists take fiber based prints more seriously than RC prints, no matter what the data is about them. Of course one sees color work in RC C-print papers like Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Endura (printed digitally or conventionally), Ilfochrome, and inkjet, but in B&W, fiber is still pretty much the standard (setting aside alternative processes), with some pigment based inkjet making its way into the market.

 

[jordanstarr]

Tim...

Any variable will do. I've worked with Fibre a lot and realize that it is harder to work with, but when you nail it, there's nothing that beats it. It's a whole different ball game in my opinion. Getting them flat is hard, but if you come up with a good system for framing with backing, taping, aligning, etc. it's not that bad at all. But that's a different thread all together.

I have RC and Inkjet prints and find that darkroom has always won in terms of aesthetic appeal, hands down. This is why I'd like to stay in the darkroom. I appreciate your input about the 'typical lab' though, that was useful information for me.

...Jordan.

 

[jordanstarr]

...thanks for your input David. Do you think they'll be making a fibre-based paper that is the "standard" for galleries and collectors in the future? Is that even feasible?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Well a good question is whether there will be enough demand for baryta papers to continue coating photographic papers on baryta. I think the new baryta papers for inkjet are quite popular, so even if demand for baryta silver gelatin paper declines, it can still be produced on a smaller scale as long as there is significant demand for the paper base somewhere else in the market. The alternative will be handcoating, and I think there's been something of a renaissance in handcoated processes in recent years.