RC vs FB prints

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.

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

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.

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, 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.

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

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 :-).

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.

<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....

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.

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.

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.