What is your reason for using fiber based paper instead of RC?

[Andrey]

Just curious. I've never really considered fiber based because RCVC does everything I want it to and I don't have the hassle of having crinkled prints after trying.

Why do you go through the trouble?

 

[Bill Harrison]

fiber prints...

...because RCVC doesn't leave me satisfied...lucky you....

 

[Andrey]

...because RCVC doesn't leave me satisfied...lucky you....

lol

Perfect answer

 

[PBrooks]

The RC paper is very plasticy and it reminds me of color paper. If you are satisfied with that then good for you but it's definitely not for me. Tonal range, look, feel you name it fiber is better.

 

[removed account4]

i can get the same exact print on rc as i can on fiber, and if i need something that i need dry fast
and someone doesn't need it to be "archival" i will print it on rc cause it is easy and fun.
i say archival in quotes, because rc prints, it has been suggested, can be just as archival as fiber prints ..
but that being said, i like how fiber prints feel, like a paper print .. and clients that need archival
photographs want them to be fiber prints ... ( they don't believe the hype ) ...

 

[Claire Senft]

Better appearance and better LE.

 

[jim appleyard]

I use both. I use RC for work/test prints, but anything serious, those "killer' shots that get framed, they get printed on FB.

Why? FB has a "glow" to it. It has more "soul", more "depth"; all the things I can't describe here, but can see when compared to RC.

Now, there is some fine RC out there, but IMO, not as good as FB.

 

[keithwms]

I prefer matte fiber because the surface texture looks less plasticky and reflective to me. With FB the image feels like it's in the paper rather than on it. Plus the FB also tones very nicely. FB also feels very nice in the hands.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Do a search. The reasons are many. No serious printer uses RC papers.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

RC has a developer incorporated (DI) surface, thus it develops in 1 minute. Longer will not change what has developed in 1 minute, it is completely developed. Fiber paper does not have this DI surface and it is not developed to completion but developed to the aesthetic desired. It may be 2 minutes or 3 or 4, depends on the results you want. Fiber papers give further control to your printing.

Additionally, as Jim Appleyard says: "Why? FB has a "glow" to it. It has more "soul", more "depth"; all the things I can't describe here, but can see when compared to RC."

I don't use RC paper for work/test prints. It is an apple/orange situation. All the testing done on RC will not translate to Fiber paper -- why try?

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Why? FB has a "glow" to it. It has more "soul", more "depth"; all the things I can't describe here, but can see when compared to RC.
.

Here we go ago.

Blind tests show over and over that if anything, viewers tend to pick the RC print. Once mounted, and especially if behind glass, no one can tell, at least consistently. One may prefer the tint, or the gloss or texture, but a quality RC paper print done by a master will look no different within a margin of error than a FB.

The problem, and I'm not picking on you alone, Jim, is that like almost everything else in photography, the conclusions are subjective. One knows what is being used and one knows what one prefers. Also FB has that cache of tradition, greater expense, and being harder to process. Some will prefer FB for just those reasons and then it must be justied.

When this topic was last discussed a few months ago, a poster commented about the PE layer not permitting the emulsion to show properly. This is after 40 years of RC papers!

When will the myths ever end?

 

[Andrey]

Here we go ago.

Blind tests show over and over that if anything, viewers tend to pick the RC print. Once mounted, and especially if behind glass, no one can tell, at least consistently. One may prefer the tint, or the gloss or texture, but a quality RC paper print done by a master will look no different within a margin of error than a FB.

The problem, and I'm not picking on you alone, Jim, is that like almost everything else in photography, the conclusions are subjective. One knows what is being used and one knows what one prefers. Also FB has that cache of tradition, greater expense, and being harder to process. Some will prefer FB for just those reasons and then it must be justied.

When this topic was last discussed a few months ago, a poster commented about the PE layer not permitting the emulsion to show properly. This is after 40 years of RC papers!

When will the myths ever end?

I was thinking something along these lines, just didn't really want to voice it without having experience.

Theoretically, there's no reason why plastic should be less archival than paper. Or why you can't make it white/blue/yellow enough to match the feel and light transmission of FB or maybe even improve on it.

Let me rephrase - forgetting the issue of the photo being archival - can you make the same print with RC as with FB? Framed behind glass that is.

 

[Pinholemaster]

Fiber

I like to watch water swirl paper around and around and around, and then go down the drain. Grin

 

[jmal]

You can make pretty much the same print, but FB tones better than any RC I've tried. Also, there are many more choices in FB in terms of tonality, surface texture, etc. I like FB better--and think it does look slightly better--but I use RC much more often. However, every time I'm at my parents house I am impressed with the glow of two framed RC prints on the wall.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have used both, but I just like fiberbase better.

Jeff

 

[nemo999]

Just curious. I've never really considered fiber based because RCVC does everything I want it to and I don't have the hassle of having crinkled prints after trying.

Why do you go through the trouble?

RC paper is not to be despised, but its main role in life is allowing fast processing and drying. For many purposes, a well-made RC print can be as good as FB, particularly if framed under glass - enthusiasts often prefer FB for its tactile qualities but no one except hobby enthusiasts cares how a print handles!

FB may well be more heavily coated with emulsion, giving richer blacks. It's certainly easier to tone, particularly with 2-bath toners which bleach and re-develop - RC emulsion gets very soft after bleaching and at this stage can be wiped off the base with a fingertip. FB is much easier to retouch, even just spotting - any more ambitious retouching, such as knifing away unwanted detail followed by retouching, is damn near impossible with RC. RC does of course dry beautifully flat all by itself, getting FB flat is a struggle, ultimately only dry mounting will do this completely.

 

[keithwms]

Once mounted, and especially if behind glass, no one can tell, at least consistently.

Just set down a bare fiber and a bare RC print before a person; usually that person will prefer the fiber... or ask if the rc was done on inkjet. So why would I care whether they look similar behind glass.

Also, I seriously doubt that the average person can't tell the difference between rc and fiber matte behind glass. Smoother fiber finishes, sure. But I use FB because I prefer matte/semi-matte. Can't stand glossy anything.

Anyway, as far as I am can tell, the biggest arguments for rc are: (a) to save water; (b) if a smooth texture is preferred; (c) rc has higher effective DMax. Now, these are all reasonable arguments, and I wouldn't dispute them. But none of these really matters to me as much as the actual feel of the print, frankly.

One other issue: I don't think you can handpaint RC. I am not a handpainter but have admired some very effective work on FB and hope to one day acquire that skill...

 

[Andrey]

Handpainting a photo? No way - that's too much for me. I won't even tone the print

So RC does have a deeper blacks? (Effective Dmax?) That's awesome.

 

[keithwms]

Yes, dry RC retains the deep blacks that you see with fiber when it is wet. Fiber dries to blacks that are not quite so deep. With toning, fiber blacks can be "improved" but they still will not rival what rc can deliver. The reason for this the more uni-directional way that the rc paper reflects light.

For me, the deeper blacks are sometimes nice but not usually enough to outweigh my personal dislike for the reflective surface.

I don't recall the numbers offhand but I suppose the DMax for RC is 1-2 stops beyond what FB can deliver, with the narrower margin assuming that you tone the fiber.

 

[ford prefect]

i agree with keithwms i don't care for glossy, in fact i don't even like to put glass infront of my FB pints but i do use rc for work prints and cattalogging for the speed and ease of use

 

[Vaughn]

I spend more time with my prints without glass in front of them than I do with them framed and behind glass. So how they look w/o glass is important to me. So subjectively, I prefer fiber-based paper for my silver gelatin prints.

Vaughn

 

[PBrooks]

Personally, I use fiber cause I have a paper fetish!

 

[kevs]

Hi Andrey,

I'm sure you can read all the technical arguments in the archives. I won't deny that RC papers have their place and are excellent at what they do.

You might as well ask why some folk prepare fine meals instead of throwing a frozen pizza in the oven, or why calligraphers don't switch to typewriters or computers. Time and care invested in a print pay dividends. Just place a properly processed and finished (toned, spotted and flattened ready to mount) FB print next to an RC version and then ask yourself which you prefer. And if you're still happy with RC, that's fine.

 

[2F/2F]

I like it.

 

[nemo999]

Hi Andrey,

I'm sure you can read all the technical arguments in the archives. I won't deny that RC papers have their place and are excellent at what they do.

You might as well ask why some folk prepare fine meals instead of throwing a frozen pizza in the oven, or why calligraphers don't switch to typewriters or computers. Time and care invested in a print pay dividends. Just place a properly processed and finished (toned, spotted and flattened ready to mount) FB print next to an RC version and then ask yourself which you prefer. And if you're still happy with RC, that's fine.

Just for Andrey's benefit, I would like to emphasise that RC paper is NOT a way of working quickly and carelessly - the only way it saves time is during development (1.5 mins versus 2.5 or more for FB) and of course final washing (2 mins versus 1 hour). You can apply all the skills you posses to making an RC print in terms of dodging, burning and split-grading - only if you are a fan of tricks like local heat application during development or local reduction after processing does FB have the edge. The analogy between RC printing and unthinkingly throwing a frozen pizza into the oven has no basis in anything I've experienced in nearly 50 years of darkroom work.