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

[Martin Aislabie]

At the last UK APUG Meet when we as usual all brought prints for others to see and critique - someone brought out their work and it was all printed on RC.

It took me a while to “clock” that these were RC not FB like everyone else’s.

Printed on a non-gloss surface (I pretty sure it was Satin Ilford MG RC) – they looked good and felt reasonable.

RC Gloss looks and feels plastic – but the other RC surfaces far less so.

Personally I now do all my later work and final prints in FB but all the contacting, proofs and early work on RC to improve my work flow.

The only real way of finding out if you prefer FB or RC is to try some FB for yourself
– BUT BE WARNED –
You might just be opening your own Pandoras’ Box

Martin

 

[edtbjon]

For me, it's first about the surface. I really like the look of air-dried glossy FB paper, while the "perfect gloss" of either glazed FB or glossy RC is too shiny for me. I do know that for maximum Dmax (and maximum detail) a "perfect gloss" is better, but in general, those facts are not what makes/brakes a picture for me. Or I find myself trying to express myself when shooting/printing black&white, not just recording events and details.
Else, I agree fully with most of the comments above and I usually start to print my shots on RC, enjoying the quick workflow. After contemplating (Eh, big word , but I let the print "sink in".) these prints, I pick a few and continue to work with them on FB paper.

//Björn

 

[Akki14]

I love how certain people on APUG love putting down RC printers - comparing them to slobs who don't appreciate finer things in life. I hate how FB looks and how it dries and the extra time it takes for it to be processed and washed. If I want totally matt, in the paper look, I'd do more alt process stuff - because generally speaking, that does not curl like a bastard anywhere near as badly as an emulsion coated FB paper. I never print on glossy RC, however, but that's because I hate how glossy prints show up fingerprints on the edges so badly... and speaking as a "vertically challenged" person, I don't like glare off of lighting in galleries which distract me from an image with a big ol' glare spot that means I have to bob my head around to view the whole image properly.

 

[Rick Jones]

I don't always go to the trouble of printing with FB. Every roll is proofed on RC simply because it dries so flat and remains so in my files. Most of my initial work prints are on RC because the processing is so fast. All my important images are on FB and dry mounted on 8X10 100% rag board for hand held viewing. Why? Because, for this application, the FB surfaces just look so much better than the RC surfaces, at least, to my eye. For prints matted and framed behind glass I'm starting to believe RC can work for me but even for this application it is going to be tough to abandon the FB dry mount look.

 

[eddym]

For the same reason I shoot film instead of digital:
Because I like it better.

 

[SuzanneR]

i prefer FB because I feel I can get better prints from it. That said, RC prints are so quick and easy, especially the washing and drying part, that I think it may be mental block on my part, and I don't try as hard to make better prints with it.

At the end of the day however, I like the tactile qualities of a fiber print, and my favorite way to display it is mounted, and matted... no glass. You can just drink in the beautiful surface.

 

[Steve Smith]

I hate how FB looks and how it dries and the extra time it takes for it to be processed and washed.

Me too. I usually use Ilford satin RC and it looks better than anything I have ever managed on fibre. That is more likely a failing of me than the paper though.

A lot of people also complain of the plasticky resin surface. Well... the resin is under the emulsion so you're still seeing the surface of the emulsion whichever type of paper you use.



Steve.

 

[jovo]

No one seems to have mentioned which brand of RC they are referring to. I had totally abandoned RC paper for all the reasons cited by various people above, until I was given some Oriental RC glossy. I hadn't really read the package because the person who gave me the stuff always made FB prints, so I was later astonished to see what I had actually used. It was indistinguishable from fiber paper....I still find it difficult to believe. VERY nice paper.

 

[Chazzy]

A couple of you have mentioned starting work on a print with RC and then switching to fiber later on, which sounds sensible to me if the fiber and RC versions of a paper are comparable in speed and tonality. Does that generally hold true?

 

[edtbjon]

A couple of you have mentioned starting work on a print with RC and then switching to fiber later on, which sounds sensible to me if the fiber and RC versions of a paper are comparable in speed and tonality. Does that generally hold true?

Well, it's a matter of finding the paper speed and contrast (for all of the papers that you work with, at all contrast settings in case of VC). Then it's just a matter of applying a factor. In my workflow I often make e.g. an 8x10" on RC and later a larger print on FB paper. Of course knowing paper speed etc. will help a lot, as well as having notes on dodge/burn etc. But I will still have to waist a few sheets of papers when making the final print. But the first run on smaller RC paper have given me a lot of info that improves my work (hmm, kind of big thoughts going on again ).

//Björn

 

[vdoak]

Have to agree with 2f/2f on this one. Simply put, I like FB.

 

[gandolfi]

well - interesting arguments here.
subjective, maybe, but here is my 2c..

I never print on RC paper! (almost never that is..).

I don't understand the comments on the deep blacks being deeper in RC than on fiber based papers..

when I print on Kentmere Art Classic or some of the Forte papers I have, I get much, much deeper blacks than I have ever seen on RC papers..

(out of production, yes I know..)

I have far more control of the printing/developing stages, and I like the fact that it takes a little more time to rinse and dry.
it is certainly worth the wait.

to my students I use the "image" of being a piano player. You can play wey well on a normal house hold standing piano, but you get much more, if you play on a Steinway piano...

that said; a Steinway piano isn't the easiest piano to play on, and you can play really bad on it too..

So fiber based papers are not a garantee for beautiful prints, but the possibillity is there..

I sometimes make RC prints as a contact print for my LF negs, but then it is allways straight to the Fibers..

 

[removed account4]

if one calls kodak or ilford, they will
tell you that rc paper if processed correctly
is just as archival, as fiber paper .. maybe even MORE archival
i wish my clients ( archives ) believed it, it would save me a lot of hassle and water ...

tv dinners = rc paper ?
that is kind of funny

next thing i am going to hear is if i am not shooting a hasselblad
or an ebony with a schneider fine art, or some sort of 3,000$ fetish-lens i am not a "real photographer" ...

gotta love this place

 

[eddie]

I use fiber paper, except for proofing negs. I do have a question, though:
I often shoot square images, and trim paper prior to printing, saving the trimmed piece for test strips. With RC paper, would this negate the faster processing times. After trimming, a non-coated edge is exposed to the chemistry. I've always thought that the shorter fix/washing times wouldn't be enough, under this situation. Am I completely off base on this?

 

[Chazzy]

Well, it's a matter of finding the paper speed and contrast (for all of the papers that you work with, at all contrast settings in case of VC). Then it's just a matter of applying a factor. In my workflow I often make e.g. an 8x10" on RC and later a larger print on FB paper. Of course knowing paper speed etc. will help a lot, as well as having notes on dodge/burn etc. But I will still have to waist a few sheets of papers when making the final print. But the first run on smaller RC paper have given me a lot of info that improves my work (hmm, kind of big thoughts going on again ).

//Björn

I meant my question to be simpler than that. The reason for my question is that I've never had the opportunity to compare the fiber and RC versions of the same paper before.

Comparing an 8x10 sheet of, for example, Ilford Multigrade Warmtone RC with the same thing in fiber, would I see comparable printing speeds and contrast, assuming that the final print will be 8x10 in both cases?

 

[JBrunner]

I find it interesting that this discussion almost always turns to which is "better".

I simply find fiber to be more flexible in toning and developing. I use RC for some things, and I have never found it lacking in any way. It delivers exactly the look I want when I use it. Most of the time I want what I can arrive at from fiber, and I find I can coax a variety of different effects from one FB paper, depending on which it is. That's why I print FB most of the time, and also it is a standard of sorts, and right or wrong since my prints are made to be sold, I want every value I can deliver, even if it is only a perceived value.

 

[Steve Smith]

After trimming, a non-coated edge is exposed to the chemistry.

The coating is done when the paper is in a wide roll before it is cut to size so the 'uncoated edge' is present on any size of paper you have either cut by the manufacturer or by you.


Steve.

 

[eddie]

Steve- That's what I thought. But, when I trim RC paper, the edge has a different feel than an untrimmed piece does. I thought they may coat the edges, after trimming the large rolls down to standard sizes.

 

[Akki14]

Steve- That's what I thought. But, when I trim RC paper, the edge has a different feel than an untrimmed piece does. I thought they may coat the edges, after trimming the large rolls down to standard sizes.

Might have something to do with the sharpness (and alignment) of your cutting blades vs. their's. Having been on the Ilford Factory tour, I don't think at any point there was an edge-coating machine...

 

[Andrey]

Well, I use ilford right now. I have a two boxes of glossy and a box of satin.

I prefer glossy, but I light my prints properly. I guess it's too personal.

I'd also kill to be able to use a BW processor instead of fiddling around with trays. Turns out some of the finer things I have no appreciation for. I've seen some stuff printed on fiber and I can't see anything magical about the emulsion, but I do see it crinkled up.

 

[Steve Sherman]

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.

Blind tests indeed, a perfect Oxymoron

Need to get new Viewers or new Masters in your area!

 

[johnnywalker]

I've started to use glossy double weight FB paper for anything that might be hung or shown and single weight RC for everything else. I like the texture and feel of the paper and to me it seems to take the selenium toning I do on these prints much better. There's been lots of stuff written on how to dry them flat. I used a method someone here described - taping them to glass. It works, but it isn't fast.
One of these days I'm going to order some double weight RC and see how I like that.

 

[Ken N]

I've come to really enjoy working with Ilford Multigrade RC Portfolio in the Pearl surface. The "tooth" in Ilford's Pearl surface actually does a good job of taking the plasticy edginess off of the prints. My biggest beef with RC papers, though, is the "digital look". It's harder to get prints to look distinctly film-like when we use the "lowest common demoninator" in media.

A good quality fiber-glossy print is unique as even the pigment ink on the new bartya papers aren't quite there yet.

AG-Schnozz

 

[Oren Grad]

A couple of you have mentioned starting work on a print with RC and then switching to fiber later on, which sounds sensible to me if the fiber and RC versions of a paper are comparable in speed and tonality. Does that generally hold true?

No. At least among the Ilford papers, which are what I know best, the RC and FB papers are definitely not matched pairs - they have distinctly different characteristic curves, and the differences are very apparent in pictorial prints. Toning behavior is quite different, too, especially between Warmtone RC and FB.

 

[richard ide]

I have had the pleasure of seeing FB prints made by Bob Carnie; a master at the craft. RC does not even come close. As perspective, I have made a few hundred thousand prints myself mostly on RC paper.