e.l. Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce_wehman Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. <p> 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. <p> Regards,bw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kaufman1 Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_kaufman1 Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_santamaura Posted March 22, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_owen Posted March 23, 2001 Author Share Posted March 23, 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene crumpler Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted March 30, 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). <p> 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 :-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt_sampson Posted March 30, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_y. Posted March 31, 2001 Share Posted March 31, 2001 <p>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.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan_smith Posted March 31, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_su Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 I've printed with Ilford MG IV on both RC (pearl surface) and FB (glossy). In general it wasn't that hard to make prints on RC that for all intents and purposes looked identical to the prints on the fiber. The fiber paper just had a nicer feel to it if you were holding the print, and the contrast was a bit different. In a matte or behind glass, I'd bet money that no one would be able to tell the difference. That said, I print most of the stuff I really care about on fiber, because who knows how long RC prints will last. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troll Posted September 14, 2002 Share Posted September 14, 2002 Many years ago, the "best" prints were always on Platinum paper. Then, one day, Brett Weston told his dad, Edward, that he liked the proofs better that they were making on glossy silver paper. Edward had the vision and good sense to evaluate the situation, and he agreed. So today the standard for "best" prints has become glossy fiber based silver/gelatin prints. The moral of the story is that conventional wisdom has been wrong before and it could well be wrong now -- if you prefer RC paper, then go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now