I read in many forums that FB paper offer a much better tonal range than RC paper and a much better long-term conservation. My question may sound stupid to most of you since it's so obvious for a large number of photographers that only FB paper should be considered for quality prints. But sorry, when I look at the pictures at exhibitions in museums or galleries and then compare with my RC home-made prints, I must confess that the difference is not that obvious to me. Besides the unquestionnable conservation advantage of the FB paper what could you mention in its favour?

-- Phil (magicdawn1@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001

Answers

You get the advantage of feeling superior to RC users like me.

-- Eff Stawp (shutter8@hotmail.com), January 09, 2001.

Yes-there are huge differences between FB and RC. Conservation is one, another (and just as important) is print quality. RC is capable of good tonal range, but it's plastic. FB is a finer quality surface, adding to the overall appeal. Well printed FB prints are still capable of much greater tonal range, especially when using graded papers. I would suggest printing the same neg on FB and RC, and live with them both side by side for a while. If you don't see any difference, then stick with the RC.

Jon Osing

-- Jon Osing (carrie_and_jon@email.msn.com), January 09, 2001.

Ctein ("Post Exposure") demonstrates some definite problems with the stability of RC papers. Many folks do feel that fibre based prints look different to RC. Somebody (may be Ctein again) has speculated that this might be due to the emulsion sinking into the fibres of the paper whereas it lies on the surface of the plastic RC i.e., it does not sink in. Can't recall seeing any data to this effect, though. With regard to aesthetics, only you can decide. I have seen some nice prints on RC. Cheers, DJ.

-- N Dhananjay (ndhanu@umich.edu), January 09, 2001.

Phil having used a very wide range of FB/RC papers over the years the quality of todays RC papers is very good when compared to FB papers. The main concern is still will RC's archival qualities. RC papers like Ilford's Multigrade WT, pearl surface is a stunning paper and tones beautifully in selenium (with a pronounced colour shift if required). However the Seagull range of FB papers still takes some beating. Regards,

-- Trevor Crone (trevor.crone@uk.dreamcast.com), January 09, 2001.

You have to ask yourself, with the ease of printing and processing RC papers, the lower cost of RC papers compared to FB papers, and the alleged archivalness of RC papers if you believe the manufacturers, why do the great preponderance of printers use FB papers? The look and the quality. Plain and simple. If you are looking for validation of using RC in your work, you don't need it. Just use what you like. When you are ready to take your printing to the next level, then learn to use FB papers. Your images will improve. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), January 09, 2001.

Longevity aside there is a definite visual difference between RC and Fiber papers. I routinely make my contact sheets and preliminary prints on RC for reasons of speed and economy. I will then select the best of the RC prints to be printed onto Fiber paper. With the RC & the Fiber print there is a definite diference. The Fiber print has more "depth" and a certain luminosity not present in the RC print. In addition the RC prints have a faint cloudiness or veiling that is only evident if you compare with Fiber side by side. R

-- Robert Orofino (rorofino@iopener.net), January 10, 2001.

Get the RC and Fibre prints side by side and measure them with a reflection densitometer and you will find the RC papers can have a greater range from maximum black to maximum white than Fibre papers. The smoother surface, the brighter substrate and the brighteners in the paper all play a part here. As far as the print life... the makers all say 'no reason RC shouldn't last longer than fibre, all else being equal'. Trouble is, all else is NOT equal. EVERY time the makers have said RC is just as good or better than fibre, we have been bit. Cracking, outgassing from the titanium dioxide brighteners, silvering out, mirroring, brown spotting, and the long, long memory of these problems to keep you awake at night as you wait the next unforseen problem to rear its ugly head. Well over 100 years of experience with fibre papers allows us to sleep nights, knowing that if we processed properly the prints will last, given even average display conditions. So far, RC papers can't do this. And for every one out there who comes up with 'my RC prints look great after this long...', there are a boatload of others who have the opposite experience. Both types of prints will fade in enough light. Both are subject to shorter life expectancy due to airborne contaminants as well as cheap matboards, wooden frames and unforseen contaminants as varied as cow farts & cooking suasage. As for how the prints look, display your finest RC and fibre side by side in a nice frame with something like Denglas Water White glazing and most won't be able to tell which is which. If you want it to last, RC still is not in the ballgame, mainly because we cannot trust the makers claims. These are the same guys who keep selling the quick processing machines to labs even as some of these same labs go broke when the prints they have made start bronzing and mirroring & the clients come back & sue hem or expect reprints to replace what failed. These same makers are the ones who seek to cover their corporate butts while blaming everhthing but their lack of attention to the problem. "We have solved the problem" while not admitting there was one in the first place doesn't inspire confidence. Nor does watching a print turn brown in front of your eyes in the short time of a few months. Fibre paper, properly processed, matted & framed, looks no better or worse than RC paper. Fibre paper, after 30 years, does to most of us. Especially when compared to an RC print that had to be thrown away because it turned to garbage during that time. Just because one person has good luck doesn't mean it is the same for all. Testing using rigorous scientific control is the only way to make sure of results. My water is different from yours & my air is also. Both have an effect on the print. As does display methods and materials. For now, stick with what we know works, and that is fibre based printing materials.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), January 10, 2001.

Greetings,

Archival issues aside, the real benefit of FB is in the paper's surface. Some of the less common paper types have very nice surfaces, some even approaching an artist's canvas. On the textured surfaces, the silver crystals are embedded into the fibers of the paper adding spatial dimensionality to the print. With RC paper, the silver crystals sit on top of "plastic." This isn't to say the look of FB is superior to RC, just different. Depending on the subject and your visualization, one may be better than the other.

Regards, Pete

-- Pete Caluori (pcaluori@hotmail.com), January 10, 2001.

You state that you don't notice the quality difference when comparing your RC prints to museum-hung FB prints. Maybe not, but I'd suggest that you make your RC to FB comparison with the same negative in your darkroom. Do the side-by-side comparison for yourself. I use both RC and FB Ilford papers. To my eyes, they can produce comparable images, but the material difference of the surface and apparent visual depth makes FB my choice for display. I think many folks who have some form of exhibition as the endpoint have settled on using RC for contacts and work prints, then FB for the fine prints. For my own projects, I usually print up lots of possible pictures as 5x7 work prints on RC to see what I have and what manipulations I want to make. Then I put the time into the good ones for bigger enlargements on FB. FB is more of a pain to process, but it's worth it for the right prints. Enjoy the real stuff while it's still available to us!

-- Tim Nelson (timothy.nelson@yale.edu), January 10, 2001.

I think that there is a transitional period that occurs in one's use of FB paper. When I first started my interest in the darkroom RC paper was used because it did not require the handling skill of FB paper. As my experience and knowledge increased I became interested in FB. For me there is a relationship between skill with the camera and the interest of presenting the highest quality image to viewers. With RC paper I could easily "pump out" many prints in a printing session. This could be beginners enthusiasm. Today, I will seldom take more than two negatives into the darkroom because of the additional time and skill that is required for me to produce a high quality FB print. The commmitment to use FB is really a commitment but one that has provided me with more pride in the final product. What I see when I look at my FB prints compared to RC is pretty dramatic. Who knows, perhaps my mind is playing games. I like the look and the feel of the paper much better than RC. Also, I see depth of image, improved toning qualities of RB vs RC and more realistic information in the shadow areas. I love to exhibit my work and I know when I place an FB 16 x 20 print on a gallery wall that it is the highest quality image that I have the ability to produce. It posesses the qualities that will enhance the image that I have chosen to show.

-- Robert Bedwell (rlb@triad.rr.com), January 11, 2001.

I've seen some stunning work produced on RC paper (but I can’t), and if you are getting good results, then it doesn't really matter about everyone else. Photographic artists express themselves using creativity and technique unique to themselves. The paper, process, technique and subject selection define the artist's work.

I, like many that have posted here, choose the look and feel of FB graded paper for our final prints, others like RC, yet others like FBVC, AZO, Platinum/Palladium contacts etc. That's why this is such a great art form :-) The end results are what are important for each artists.

-- doug mcfarland (junquemail222@yahoo.com), January 11, 2001.

Phil

In my experience FB prints are more receptive different developer types and toning. For example, I have just began experimenting with Amidol developer. With RC prints I find that the action of the developer is not as obvious as with FB. The same applies to toning. However what it comes down to is the most appropriate material for the picture. I find some of studies of modern architecture (lots of steel and glass) print with more impact on a cool tone RC paper than they would on FB prints, maybe this is down to my style of printing. An interesting observation came from a lecturer at my camera club recently. He said that now he was close to retirement he was looking forward to experimenting with FB papers. Throughout his entire photograhic life he had used nothing but RC paper and had a great many international exhibition successes and had gained a fellowship of the Royal Photographic Society using RC exclusively. So it can't be considered as an inferior type of paper (although there are many who would disagree I'm sure)

-- Adrian Twiss (avtwiss@ukonline.co.uk), January 23, 2001.