RC vs FB prints

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

I've just started printing in my "new" darkroom!! For the first time i've started using FB paper. I've previously only used RC but have been desperate to try fibre for a long time but have not had the facility for washing/drying. Now I have and I must admit to being a bit disappointed with the results! The prints do not have the same luminosity as RC prints and certainly my results do not seem to warrant the prolonged processing times and the performance required in getting a flat print. Am I missing something? I heard so many good things about fibre prints but when laid side by side with a RC print I know which I prefer. For the record I have used Multigrade 1V in both RC and FB as a comparison. Is it simply the case that RC has progressed to a point whereby is an improvement on fibre? I understand the argument for longevity seems to favour fibre paper and that there are some processes that require its use, but for general use ( I do sell my prints and will shortly exhibit) will RC suffice? I appreciate that this is a question requiring in-depth answers and varied viewpoints but I would be interested in your views. Regards Paul

-- paul owen (paulowen_2000@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001

Answers

Hi Paul

Are you using glossy fiber paper? You should be if you are not. Also spend some time checking out your safelight. Just because RC is faster than fiber does not mean fiber is less likely to fog from your safelight. You can do the "place the coin on the paper" test, but I prefer to expose several sheets of the paper in question like a test strip, but expose it in the dark (safelight off). Then lay the sheets around the darkroom emulsion side up with half of each protected from the light (under a sheet of paper) and the other half fully out in the open. I leave them like this for 10 minutes. If there is a difference between sides on any of the sheets, you have a safelight problem which makes your prints look flat. Also, just because you like a brand in RC, doesn't always mean you will like it in fiber. Good luck.

-- Paul Mongillo (pmongillo@thurston.com), March 20, 2001.


Make sure you turn your safelight back on when you leave the sheets out in the open for 10 minutes.

-- Paul Mongillo (pmongillo@thurston.com), March 20, 2001.

For the record I am using glossy paper ( i tried a few sheets of matt and they were even worse!!). My safelight is okay and my chemistry is fresh. Maybe I expected too much from fibre? I have searched through older threads and the general opinion appears to be that fibre is better because it is more archivally stable than RC. There seems little comment on the actual quality of the image. I read all sorts about fibre being aesthetically more pleasing but I really can't see what the fuss is about. Other threads suggest sticking to what suits you, and so far RC wins hands down! But I am still open to views/comments. Regards Paul

-- paul owen (paulowen_2000@yahoo.com), March 20, 2001.

People prefer fibre because it does not have the cheap, plastick-y sheen of RC. RC was invented to make quickie commercial processing easier to wash. I can't imagine a knowledgeable art dealer selling RC fine art prints, unless they are signed by Cindy Sherman or some such name. As you may have noticed, you also have to dry your fibre prints in screens to keep them flat, you cant just hang them with clothespins. Then you have to dry mount them, a costly proposition to do yourself. RC will never progress to be an improvement on fiber, because it's, well, plastic.... Try some other papers, papers have characteristics like film does, you can go nuts matching film, paper and developer... But I love the feel of "real" paper in the wash.... and the feeling that I've made a "real" print.... best-

-- Chris Yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 20, 2001.

Paul, I prefer fiber by far, but no one has to be more happy with your prints than you. use what you like and be happy about it.

-- mark lindsey (lindseygraves@msn.com), March 20, 2001.


Hi Paul, Probably your're facing the most difficult task on photo appreciation, wich means creating a taste and a sense of quality. For sure, RC prints will stand out easily on side-by-side comparasion, mainly because it has artificially brightened whites that will transform UV light into visible light, contributing greatly to its plasticine look. Even curves can stand close matching and, maybe, even show better values on D-Max and density range. There's no doubt RC prints will satisfy most of your potencial clients. But... it looks like plastic, feels like plastic, behaves like plastic. So it's quite easy to understand why devoted printers still prefer to work with real paper. As mentioned before, it's a sense of quality not just a matter of technical performance. And, by the way, why not to try some other beautiful and rich emulsion, before being so disappointed? Welcome to FB arena!

Cesar B.

-- Cesar Barreto (cesarb@infolink.com.br), March 20, 2001.


I still can't let go of the possibility of a problem somewhere in your methods. I have used both Ilford RC and Fiber and the fiber is just more alive. I currently use niether. I'm back to kodak RC and and am completely hooked on Forte fiber. It takes about twice as long for a fiber print to develop (depending on your developer dilution)than an RC print. Are you developing the fiber long enough? Did you calibrate your film processing time to the fiber paper ? Are you turning on the light too soon to check out your print ? Again, fiber may be more sensitive to your lights than the RC. Your safelight may be ok, but light leaks from your enlarger may affect the fiber more than the RC. Also, you may not be able to assume that a contrast 2 filter will produce identical results in RC and fiber. Sorry if I am rambling on, just brain storming on line.

-- Paul Mongillo (pmongillo@thurston.com), March 20, 2001.

Paul, my experience with RC vs FB is similar to yours. Ignoring the archival issues, I was never able to see that FB was at all better. Until now, I dared not speak of such on this forum lest we be declared a heretic. Scrutinize those replies to your posts wherein RC is derrided and FB is praised and see how many of the arguments are based on explicit, technical reasons (besides archivability) and how many are not. One reply has already conceeded some objective measures of RC may be better. I will say no more.

-- Steve Baggett (sbaggett@midsouth.rr.com), March 20, 2001.

http://members.aol.com/onelucent/MLP/MLP.html

Ah, ah, ah, ah. The intro pix above and the first 2 monochromes (Zofkie Clothing and Window Shades) are scans of RC prints. I like fiber myself but its silly to claim that a beautiful print can't be made on RC paper-the Ilford Portfolio RC post cards are great. One value for RC-the prints on Ilord's Pearl surface seem to scan better on a flatbed scanner than fiber base prints in my experience. Great discussion, as usual. The archival issue is beyond this thread but just following a certain protocol doesn't make some archival-and as inkjet printing advances, a healthy re-examination is nece

-- David F. Stein (DFStein@aol.com), March 20, 2001.


Obviously you didn't read the full archive. The discussion about the merits of FB over RC have been lengthy and detailed. It's great that you find RC so much better than FB. I guess if your images aren't worth a little effort then RC is for you. I guess most of the rest of the fine art printers have been amiss in their opinion of RC. Or maybe your processing regime isn't set up for FB. RC doesn't exhibit a full deep black for instance. I never found much to my liking when it came to subtle highlight detail with RC papers either. But your milage may vary. You should print with FB for awhile before you pronounce it inferior to RC. There must be a reason besides archival stability that induces most fine art printers to use FB if it is such a pain. James

-- james (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), March 20, 2001.


May be that you need to spend some time looking at some really fine prints...

-- Steve Clark (agno3@eesc.com), March 20, 2001.

Some messages ahead I didn't want to show individuality on my own tastes, wich after all, doesn't make any difference for the matter. But, in addition to James and others, it should be stated clearly: after a long, long road seeing and making B&W prints, I'd never seen a RC print looking nearly as beautiful and rich as Forte print. Maybe sometime, not till now.

Cesar B.

-- Cesar Barreto (cesarb@infolink.com.br), March 20, 2001.


At this years PhotoLA 2001 there were at least a couple thousand prints there and the only prints I can remember being on a plastic substrate were color. James

-- james (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), March 20, 2001.

I've noticed the "platic" RC glossy surface sets up a nice plane which offsets the image in the underlying emulsion (which for me, because of the ultra low grain in the print from 4x5 neg, sets up a live, "3 dimensional quality" in the image itself.) Haven't really tried fibre seriously. Would like to. Andre

-- Andre Noble (andrenoble@usa.net), March 20, 2001.

At times like this I am reminded of Weston's line, "I don't care if you print on a door mat, as long as it is a GOOD print."

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.


But if you can print on something other than a doormat, why not? Why not print on the best material available? You take the trouble of finding the image and processing the film, why not use the best material to bring that print to life. james

-- james (James_mickelson@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

What difference does it make if you like the print on the doormat?

-- Sean yates (yatescats@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

For many years there wasn't as wide a selection of surface tones (warm, cold, neutral) and base color (white, cream, etc.) as was available with fiber base paper. So some people used fiber simply because the tones and colors they liked weren't available in RC paper. This difference has been reduced to some extent in recent years with the introduction of warm tone RC papers. Others just preferred the feel of fiber based papers, apart from considerations of looks. And others were concerned about the archival quality, or lack thereof, of RC paper. This latter concern has resurfaced recently with Ctein's articles about the silvering effect he has noticed with his prints made on RC paper. Personally, I use RC paper for contact sheets and proofs just because it's quicker and easier but I always use fiber for the prints. However, if you like the look of RC then I'd say use it but recognize that you may have a problem selling your work on that kind of paper.

-- Brian Ellis (bellis60@earthlink.net), March 21, 2001.

Hi Paul, I must agree with you I think RC papers have come a long way and they often look superior to FB papers. Esp, Ilford's RC Multigrade IV and Warmtone both pearl surface (I hate RC gloss, these do look like a sheet of plastic). I think they are both superior then their equiv. FB papers. However one of the finist of all papers in my opinion is Oriental Seagull FB and another interesting one is Kentmere's Fineprint Warmtone, dried under weights this dries incredibly flat like no other paper I've used.

Another thing that's often overlooked with FB papers is over washing. Often these papers contain brighteners which can wash out with prolonged washing making the image look dull. Also FB papers seem to have a greater 'dry-down' effect then RC papers. All the best,

-- Trevor Crone (trevor.crone@uk.dreamcast.com), March 21, 2001.


Paul, PS. quite often a FB paper dosen't "snap" until its selenium toned this of course applies to RC papers but they don't seem to show the effect quite as much. Regards,

-- Trevor Crone (trevor.crone@uk.dreamcast.com), March 21, 2001.

Paul, After using only RC papers for years I too am making the transition to FB and, coincidentally, like yourself started with Multigrade IV double-weight glossy (which I selected at random). I was very disappointed in the resulting 8x10 contacts when compared with Polycontrast III RC prints from the same negative; they were dull with a matte-like finish resembling a lustre surface paper. So I looked to some of my favorite photographers and found that Ansel made extensive use of Ilford Galerie dw graded (Print, pp. 49-50)and that John Sexton had printed much of Listen to the Trees on Kodak Polymax Fine Art variable contrast (p. 88, "absolutely beautiful prints"). Freestyle Camera announced the second coming of Oriental Seagull G graded as "one of the finest, professional quality photographic papers ever made,...." (cf. AA, Print, p. 50). I testprinted all three with one of my landscape-architectural negs and compared with Polycontrast III RC. I found all three FB papers equally luminous and the Seagull G superior in tonal separation and three dimensional sense of depth. Curl is a problem but not an insuperable one; it is well treated in several previous posts. Some kind of print washer is a necessity. The fiber papers have a pleasing lightly textured finish; are easier to work with because they are double weight; hold up to the heat of dry-mounting; and are of *known* permanence. Good luck, Nick.

-- Nick Jones (nfjones@pitt.edu), March 21, 2001.

All the answers on this thread were good ones. I have to agree with several that stated use what pleases you. I too, had a bit of a learning curve when I started using FB papers. But I had seen the great prints from some of the masters and was determined to find out how these prints had such great deep blacks and stand out highlights. I am now finding the best mix of film and paper for my photos. You should try selenium toning also. The results will speak for themselves. Try the Ilford multigrade warm tone paper. It is great. Also if you want to stay in the RC realm try the Kodak fine art paper. It is a matte finish RC paper made for colorizing. It has a very pleaseing low lustre to it. I think over time you will find that the fiber papers will give you much more printing expression than the RC papers you have grown accustomed to. Good Luck.

-- Doug Theall (rooster_two@yahoo.com), March 21, 2001.

The fact that Paul has been less than impressed with Multigrade IV FB after using RC paper should not be surprising. In this Velvia era, anything less than exaggerated (color vs. color or b/w vs. b/w) fails to make an impact on eyes with shifted thresholds. Appreciating subtlety takes time and accommodation. Practice and patience, Paul.

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), March 21, 2001.

I just can't seem to stay away from this discussion. I agree that you can make a really nice print on RC. However, the original post implied that RC might actually produce better prints than fiber. This just is not in my realm of reality after working with both. I use RC for contact prints and test prints while trying to decide if a negative is worthy of my efforts with fiber. I also use RC for snapshot like images for my friends. Fiber takes time to learn how to use properly. If you take the time to figure it out you won't have anymore questions about which looks better. Paul, you ask the question "am I missing something"? Yes, you likely have not spent enough time to learn how to use it yet.

-- Paul Mongillo (pmongillo@thurston.com), March 21, 2001.

Just last night I printed a desert scene on MG IV RC and then on the fibre version of the same. The fibre is richer, has much better darks and looks cleaner overall. The higher tones on the fibre were far better than the RC. The contrast on the RC was about one-half grade less than the fibre in Dektol. I use both papers, both Ilford MG's, on a regular basis. I would never say the RC is as good as the fibre, and would not consider using it for serious work. In fact, when I decide to just print some quicky work to see what some negatives look like on RC paper, I always end up grabbing the fibre to see what they actually look like. That is what happened last night. But, if you really like RC, go ahead, it just makes other people's work look better. Incidentally, I was always amazed how good Kodak RC paper can look, at least until it dries! When wet the stuff is great, but it loses much of its richness in drying.

-- E.L. (elperdido65@hotmail.com), March 21, 2001.

This is a fairly long thread and I may have missed it but has anyone picked up on the fact that air-dried glossy FB won't produce the same surface as air-dried glossy RC? In order to have an apples to apples comparison you would have to Ferrotype the glossy FB. Then, if done right, there would be no question as to the superiority of FB.

A glossy surface on any paper will increase the reflected range and produce greater "luminosity". It's a question of taste and a trade- off between a gutsy image and one without a lot of distracting reflections.

Regards, bw

-- Bruce Wehman (bruce.wehman@hs.utc.com), March 21, 2001.


What no one has mentioned so far in reply to the original query is that no black and white RC paper can be sold as a permanent image. I had the unfortunate experience of printing a commission of 20 large prints (16 x 20 and 20 x 24) on Agfa RC, (on RC at the insistence of the client to save money) which were then beautifully framed. I did not selenium tone the prints or treat then in Sistan--otherwise they were properly processed and washed. Within six months all the prints begin to have orange areas a nd silvering out, a result of contamination of the emulsion by the plasticizers in a sealed frame environemnt. I had to reprint all the prints on fibre based papewr despite the fact that I originally did not want to do the job on RC paper. This effect has been well documented by Ctein in his magazine reports. All RC papers, when in a closed environment, are susceptable to contamination by the plasticizers in the paper. The effect is somewhat unpredictable as to timing but usually occurs within a year of framing, especially if the framing is done very soon after processing. Selenium toning or treatment in Sistan helps, but no one knows for how long. Now, as to the aesthetics of RC versus fibre, there is no doubt to the casual observer, RC can look as good or sometimes better than fibre. They lie flatter, the glossy versions have a higher surface gloss, and the emulsions on many RC papers are identical to the fibre ones and produce equivalent blacks and toning results. But, if you look very carefully at matched sets of fibre and RC papers from the same manufacturers, there are very subtle but real differences. I think the most imposrtant one is highlight gradation and tone curve. To my eye at least, the Fibre versions of most papers produce a much finer and visibly superior delineation of highlight details. Highlight on even the best RC papers tend to flatten out and have less detail.

-- David Kaufman (73501.3677@compuserve.com), March 22, 2001.

What no one has mentioned so far in reply to the original query is that no black and white RC paper can be sold as a permanent image. I had the unfortunate experience of printing a commission of 20 large prints (16 x 20 and 20 x 24) on Agfa RC, (on RC at the insistence of the client to save money) which were then beautifully framed. I did not selenium tone the prints or treat then in Sistan--otherwise they were properly processed and washed. Within six months all the prints begin to have orange areas a nd silvering out, a result of contamination of the emulsion by the plasticizers in a sealed frame environemnt. I had to reprint all the prints on fibre based papewr despite the fact that I originally did not want to do the job on RC paper. This effect has been well documented by Ctein in his magazine reports. All RC papers, when in a closed environment, are susceptable to contamination by the plasticizers in the paper. The effect is somewhat unpredictable as to timing but usually occurs within a year of framing, especially if the framing is done very soon after processing. Selenium toning or treatment in Sistan helps, but no one knows for how long. Now, as to the aesthetics of RC versus fibre, there is no doubt to the casual observer, RC can look as good or sometimes better than fibre. They lie flatter, the glossy versions have a higher surface gloss, and the emulsions on many RC papers are identical to the fibre ones and produce equivalent blacks and toning results. But, if you look very carefully at matched sets of fibre and RC papers from the same manufacturers, there are very subtle but real differences. I think the most imposrtant one is highlight gradation and tone curve. To my eye at least, the Fibre versions of most papers produce a much finer and visibly superior delineation of highlight details. Highlight on even the best RC papers tend to flatten out and have less detail. In addition, many people love the sheen of the emulsion of a glossy air-dried fibre base print. I think the best cold-toned RC paper by far is Agfa Multicontrast Premium RC; both in its glossy and lustre versions it is a very fine match in tonal colour and tone curve for Forte fibre base cold-toned multicontrast paper. But I think Forte Polywarmtone fiber base paper is a richer and better paper than Forte cold-toned paper. Both Forte products in my opinion are better than Oriental which tends to have a very different tonal curve--really good mid-tone separations but flatter looking highlights. The old Galerie fibre base was a wonderful paper, the new Galerie is also a very fine paper in terms of its depth of blacks, but it is a graded paper and not so easy to work with or tone as Forte papers. Finally, none of the fibre based papers existing today have as white a base as Agfa RC paper, but those RC papers are simply not permanent.

-- David Kaufman (73501.3677@compuserve.com), March 22, 2001.

David, Seagull G in grades 2 and 3, as well as the VC version, exhibit pronounced toes that produce the "flat" highlights you describe. Rather similar to Azo grade 2. This can be overcome if desired by flashing grade 4 Seagull, but my usual solution (for normal range negatives) is to print on Zone VI Brilliant Bromide II. It has a more conventional curve shape, and is just as beautiful a paper IMHO. That said, long-toed Seagull is great to have available for negatives with extended dense highlights.

-- Sal Santamaura (bc_hill@qwestinternet.net), March 22, 2001.

Many thanks to al who took the trouble to reply! I think some of you have hit the nail on the head, when you suggest that I need to spend more time learning to use this type of paper. I will take the advice and struggle on with FB! In my original post I suggest that maybe RC has progressed to a point that it is an improvement on FB, but I meant this in view of the fact that a FB print takes a great deal of time to produce when compared to a RC version, for what appears to be only a marginal improvement in quality. This comment was made out of ignorance as I have only begun using this type of paper. With regards to quality, I have never had a customer refuse a print because of the paper it ws printed on. In fact, most are not photographers and wouldn't know what I was talking about if I mentioned FB or RC!! I process my RC prints correctly and include a selenium bath and they are matted with archival quality board. I have framed prints (RC)at home that show ill effects despite being behind glass for the last 10 years. As far as "feel" is concerned, this doesn't appear to be an issue once a print is framed behind glass...you can't touch it. BTW I've sorted the drying problem by using archival blotters....very little curl now!! Thanks again Paul

-- paul owen (paulowen_2000@yahoo.com), March 23, 2001.

I can't help jumping in here. First, I won't repeat my rant about the necessity of having a drymount press for FB papers. The disadvantage of longer processing times can be partually remediated by use of the Ilford Archival processing sequence. 22 minutes from the time the print hits the developer until its on the drying screen (excluding selenium toning).

I'm in a club focused on B&W printing, and the more accomplished members can spot RC paper from across the room. I can also tell you with no reservations that RC prints don't look good beside FB prints. If a member is not printing on FB paper by their meeting, we run them off :-).

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@att.net), March 30, 2001.


Theres not much left to say. I would agree with the philosophy of whatever makes you happy. However go to some exhibitions find a print that knocks you out and see what sort of paper it is printed on. Dependibng on the reason it knocks you out you will probably find that it is printed on FB paper. Personally I like RC paper for its speed of processing, especially with toners, far less washing time and a hell of a lot less water. However when it comes to hanging one on a wall it's usually and FB print. As for archival permanance I have never had any problems with prints fading or staining and some of my RC prints are 15-20 years old now. Personally I think that the world is overburdened by second rate photography, the creators of which have had the arrogance to decide that we will want around in 50 yrs plus.

-- Matt Sampson (mattsampson@btinternet.com), March 30, 2001.

Don't throw the RC out- it has its place- you can put it in a portfolio for sending out or passing around- no one would object to that- and if you end up doing any commercial work, (magazine, headshots etc.) somehow that "glossy" plastic seems to show more commercial potential of the print than a paper surface does.. but for exhibiting, stick to the far classier fb paper....

-- chris yeager (cyeager@ix.netcom.com), March 31, 2001.


I think a lot of what is seen in one paper or the other is the result of what one expects to see or what they want to see. RC papers can have every bit of tonal range as fibre. RC papers can be even sharper in appearance as the emulsion is coated on a glossy surface capable of sharper results, or at least until you ferrotype the fibre paper. While RC papers can't be considered as long lasting as fibre papers now, poor processing of fibre will, in many instances, make the difference insignificant. I prefer fibre for most of my work. For industrial, press or quick work where the print will be used & thrown away I use RC most of the time. For long term prints and exhibition work I prefer fibre. Mainly because I like how the prints look with a much longer life expectancy being a bonus. Just as some like a silver based print and others albumen, platinum or whatever, personal taste comes into play here. There is more than one brand of fibre paper to choose from. Try a few of the premium papers & see if they work for you. Not all look the same. But any real visual differences can be tested by printing the finest print possible, same image, on each paper & then matting it behind glass as you will when showing it and let others look without giving any information as to which is which. Do it with 3-5 different papers and/or combinations of toners and get input as to which print people like and why. You might be surprised at the response. Many won't be able to tell the difference. What I belive it comes down to is that you have to print what you think shows your work best, understanding that RC papers "should last as long", but currently don't.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), March 31, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ