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

[keithwms]

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.

There isn't anything magical about the emulsion. The paper texture and the feel of the paper are what drive most of the opinions you've heard. There is also the tonability.

Now, if you see crinkling fiber, then that print simply hasn't been finished properly. A dry mount press eliminates paper warp entirely. I used to do all kinds of things to try to get my fiber prints to dry as flat as possible- squeegee, dry back-to-back, dry slowly in a humid room. But I quickly abandoned that in favour of just interleaving the [almost 100% dry] prints with tracing paper and putting them in a dry mount press... without mounting glue, just using the press to flatten them. Come back the next day and voila.

...

Heather, if I gave some sort of elitist impression then that was not my intention. The question was who does FB and why and I gave my personal unvarnished (or should I say non RC-coated?) opinion. The first prints I ever did were fiber, just by chance, and that was that, I was hooked. I did try many RC papers and use them for paper negs. It is true that there are some wonderful RC papers. It's just that in general, I tend to matte/semimatte FB.

...

Eddie, regarding your question about washing, I would think that if anything, your cut paper would wash a little bit faster.

 

[pesphoto]

RC is cheaper. I do print some fiber and love it! But for just playing around and making initial prints I use RC. If its something really want to show or hang I'll make a fiber print of it then. I just like the feel of a fiber print and it seems to have more depth in a fuinal print

 

[brian steinberger]

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?

I use Ilford MG warmtone in both RC and FB. I personally do find comparable printing times and contrast between the two. If not, it gets you really close. When I want to go from a work print on RC to final on FB I just take my notes from my RC print and alot of times I find myself only needing to change a few seconds of exposure time or change the filter by 1/2 grade. This helps to save paper and time.

Also, I still feel that many people who knock RC are thinking of that nasty ugly glossy RC surface. I agree with them that that surface is ugly. I used to use this, then someone recommended the Ilford pearl surface to me. What a difference! This is a very nice RC paper, especially the warmtone emulsion.

And lastly, the one main difference for me as far as printing my final work on FB is that FB really does tone differently and better than RC. And since I tone all my final work in either selenium, sepia, or brown, or a mix of any, this is very important to me.

Other than that, RC paper and those who like to use it exclusively, should not be thought any less of.

 

[David Brown]

How about spotting? I've not been successful in spotting RC paper. This is hardly ever (or never) mentioned in the RC vs. FB discussion. Maybe some RC papers are easier to spot, but I have not found it to be so on the late Kodak and current Ilford papers I use. I do everything I can to make spotless prints in the first place, but never with 100% success.

Granted, this is not the only reason I use fiber for final prints, but it is a factor. I use RC for contact sheets and all "work/proof" prints.

 

[cowanw]

I once did the same print on all the papers that I had, and was ammazed at the differences. Then I realized that the characteristic curves were different for all of them and so matching the negative to the paper would give the best reproduction.
I expect the average negative for any individual photographer influences their perception of the best paper. I am the better sort of snob. I prefer obsolete fibre papers that I cannot get.
My second choice is papers that I can get.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Fiber looks beautiful. RC looks like plastic. I don't like things that look like plastic.

 

[photomc]

Pretty much what David said above, I just like the look of fiber - though I print very little on silver paper these days.

The discussion had gone like one would expect, there is no need for validation - if you like the paper you are using, continue to do so. These arguments are much like the ones about plastic reels vs stainless steel, it is what you like (yeah I prefer stainless steel reels too).

Live is to short go find something to photograph and print it on your paper of choice.

 

[df cardwell]

I use fiber because I get the results I like.

RC doesn't do it for me.
(It would be fair to assume I DO know how to get the best possible results from RC)

It is the control possible by development with fiber that I miss in RC.

I also prefer working with fiber, it is easier, and faster, to get a good print -- or several.

This shouldn't be a religious or ideological issue. Use what works, for YOU. That's the only standard.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Live is to short go find something to photograph and print it on your paper of choice.

Why do the mullet jump? Probably sometimes to escape a predator fish, but they jump way too much for that to always be the case. The best theory is it's fun.

I agree, use what you like. But to assign quasi-magical properties to fiber just insults my objective left hemisphere.

You need no more justification for using FB than the mullet needs justification to jump.

 

[dancqu]

I don't like RC because of it's inflexibility. Although
lighter in weight it is stiffer. As for longevity the presence
of plastic does not assure me so much as the presence
of cellulose. I'm strictly a Graded FB fan.

 

[Mark Layne]

Simply put you do not have the control over development of a developer incorporated RC print that you have with an FB print.
I suspect that all of the RC print likers are under 45 years of age
Mark

 

[Paul Verizzo]

I don't like RC because of it's inflexibility. Although
lighter in weight it is stiffer. As for longevity the presence
of plastic does not assure me so much as the presencent
of cellulose. I'm strictly a Graded FB fan.

Dan. How does flexibility of a print matter? You know, it gets mounted. Plastics will be with us for hundreds or thousands of years. It's close to indestructible at room termperatures.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Simply put you do not have the control over development of a developer incorporated RC print that you have with an FB print.
I suspect that all of the RC print likers are under 45 years of age
Mark

The DI issue only arises if the paper is developed in very high pH, more than sodium carbonate. At normal developer pH, it's not an issue.

I'm 62, BTW.

 

[MattKing]

Simply put you do not have the control over development of a developer incorporated RC print that you have with an FB print.
I suspect that all of the RC print likers are under 45 years of age
Mark

Thanks Mark, I am always happy when people think I'm younger than I am (52) .

I like RC. I've probably printed way more FB than RC over time, but not so much recently.

If I had a permanent darkroom, and a place to handle it properly, I probably would print FB again. I probably will print FB again.

IMHO, you need to try both, and learn a lot about both, before you can decide what you like about each.

And you need to realize that RC is more forgiving, if your darkroom resources are "challenging".

Matt

P.S. FWIW, it is my understanding that there are no developer incorporated RC papers any more, other than those that have trace amounts that are present for purposes other than to permit self-development (PE has posted on the purpose of those trace amounts).

 

[analogsnob]

First, whatever you use, use lots so we doom our progeny to continue this argument!

Over the years I have made and looked at thousands of prints, my own, prints made for others and by others. I am rarely fooled by rc papers and when I am it is usually by bad prints on fb rather than good prints on rc.

As to the fabled "blind tests" did they use real blind people or just the tastless fools who like digital?:rolleyes:

As far as archival properties I have some 10-15 year old rc prints where the base is cracking and some 30 year old fb that are as beautiful as the day they were made. Maybe todays papers are better, maybe not.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

For me it's subjective. Regardless of blind tests or whatever - I know what my prints are printed on, and I very much dislike how RC prints feel. I don't feel it's right for my prints, which I want to look like something a craftsman came up with. RC to me is too flat (physically), feels sterile, the matte surfaces don't look right.
With that said, I don't think I could tell a difference between an RC and a fiber print in a mat and behind glass. But that's besides the point for me. It's about personal satisfaction, about the love and labor that goes into properly finishing and washing a fiber print. Fix for 30 seconds and wash for five minutes just doesn't 'do it' for me.
- Thomas

 

[winger]

I know that with my prints, I can tell the difference. I just like fiber. It's a little more persnickety, but I just like the results.
I use glossy fiber and sometimes matte RC (for work prints or to see if it's worth printing bigger). Oh, and RC does work for handcoloring, but not the glossy (Ilford RC portfolio matte is pretty good for it).

 

[dancqu]

Dan. How does flexibility of a print matter?

It's a matter of handling ease while processing.
I find FB easier to handle. Dan

 

[nemo999]

I know that with my prints, I can tell the difference. I just like fiber. It's a little more persnickety, but I just like the results.
I use glossy fiber and sometimes matte RC (for work prints or to see if it's worth printing bigger). Oh, and RC does work for handcoloring, but not the glossy (Ilford RC portfolio matte is pretty good for it).

I have always personally believed that the function of glossy RC was to provide a fault-free high gloss for prints for reproduction (not viewing). Conversely, although RC matt can be used for hand-coloring, for normal use the lower coating weight of RC in general does show up with matt as a noticeably lower Dmax. I have always regarded matt paper anyhow as being only for display prints in situations where the prints are required to be free of reflections at almost any viewing angle. I find the nicest RC paper by far is pearl (AKA semi-gloss, silk or, in the D&P trade, very annoyingly, matt). The paper texture of course allows it to be distinguished from glossy unglazed FB (which these days is so seldom hot-glazed that most people don't realize it can be) but in general brightness and Dmax I really find this more than acceptable

 

[Rolleijoe]

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?

The look, and overall proven better longevity. There are more choices with fiber than RC.

Rolleijoe

 

[mmcclellan]

Because RC paper is basically pretty crappy -- weak blacks, especially, but even the whites look "veiled." If RC ever matches the quality of a good FB paper, then I'll be happy to switch, but even after all these years, they have a long way to go.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

Because RC paper is basically pretty crappy -- weak blacks, especially, but even the whites look "veiled." If RC ever matches the quality of a good FB paper, then I'll be happy to switch, but even after all these years, they have a long way to go.

You know, it's really hard to remain civil when faced with such erroneous thinking and beliefs, but I will respond without polemics. When I read this post I started popping Xanax and screaming. Not really, but.....

Dude. Dmax is Dmax. RC papers do NOT have weak blacks. In fact, a glossy RC will probably have a deeper Dmax than an un-ferrotyped FB glossy.

The alleged trait of RC papers looking "veiled" came about in the 70's and 80's when ignorant people created "facts" in their minds, that the PE was on top of the emulsion....which of course is absurd because then the emulsion couldn't develop. Yet, here it is thirty years later and this myth and the term "veiled" is still floating around.

If RC paper looks "veiled", so does FB. Both have the emulsions sitting on top of a substrate.

As several of us have stated, use FB cuz you want to or like to. But please, no more BS.

 

[keithwms]

Indeed, Michael, while I personally prefer fiber, I don't understand your comment about blacks. The (untoned) blacks from RC are considerably stronger than what you can get from any fiber paper, even if you tone it. I mean, we aren't talking about albumen are we? Just papers that are readily available.

But Paul, one cannot on the one hand say DMax is great in RC and then on the other hand deny the reflectance issue. They are the two sides of the same coin. If you want superduper high Dmax then there will be blocking angles at which the image is basically masked by reflection. The DMax is high because the the RC inhibits the diffuse reflection, that's all. The highest DMax is for the glossiest RC paper. Yes?

Now I have seen some RC papers with soso DMax (albeit still a wee bit stronger than FB) and much less surface reflection and they strike me as a very good compromise.

 

[jgjbowen]

It's really quite simple. Because Azo isn't available as a RC paper in the US

 

[Paul Verizzo]

But Paul, one cannot on the one hand say DMax is great in RC and then on the other hand deny the reflectance issue. They are the two sides of the same coin. If you want superduper high Dmax then there will be blocking angles at which the image is basically masked by reflection. The DMax is high because the the RC inhibits the diffuse reflection, that's all. The highest DMax is for the glossiest RC paper. Yes?

Good points that I cede to.

All why I seldom use glossy. I'd much rather lose a smidge of Dmax and not have to position the print to avoid glare. Ilford's Pearl, Kodak' N, and Foma's Semi-Matte are my preferences. I mentioned a number of months back that the N and the Semi-Matte are dead ringers. I had some old Kodak stock to compare with. N is still available in their color line.

Pearl falls into the Fine Lustre family, it is also great to inkjet print those other kind of photos......