Bromide vs. resin - what's the difference?

Hello. I'd be grateful if someone could explain to me what the

difference is between "resin" and "bromide" paper for black and white

prints. I do not do my own printing, but send them to a professional

lab which offers both resin and bromide here in the UK. I've had

different enlargements done on both papers at various times: bromide

is obviously physically thicker and has a higher quality feel.

But I'd be grateful to know if bromide is designed to give better

contrast or sharpness, for example. Any feedback most welcome!

Jon...the bromide is probably fiber paper, the resin is RC or resin coated paper. As far as the differences go EVERYONE who prints has opinions on each. Mine (simplified) RC is much easier to use. Fiber is much more difficult to print with (washing and flattening the print are huge issues). Fiber is archival (if processed correctly). Both paper types can be used to create great prints.

There are bromide papers but I'm wondering whether your lab is using the term to distinguish between RC and fiber papers. There are also chloride and chlorobromide papers (and others), with some differences in grain structure and tonality.

 

Technically speaking, the term bromide simply denotes a "fast" paper that requires less exposure than slower emulsions, just as there are fast films and slow films. It's one of the most common types of enlarging papers.

 

Chloride papers are slower and typically used only for contact printing, mostly by large format photographers. Chlorobromide papers fall somewhere between.

 

Anyway, RC or resin coated papers are primarily designed for easy, fast processing. They were just becoming popularly available when I was a kid just getting into the darkroom, tho' I didn't begin using 'em 'til years later when I was a photojournalist. An RC print can be developed, fixed, washed and dried in 10 minutes - less with the right setup.

 

Some folks worry about the archival qualities of RC prints. Mine have lasted more than 20 years under abysmal storage conditions. Experiences vary. Best practice: selenium toning or treating in Agfa Sistan for longest life. If a 20-year (probably longer) lifespan for your prints is acceptable and budget is a factor, RC prints are fine.

 

Nowadays, tho', I generally use RC paper only for contact sheets, test strips and work prints. My finish prints are on fiber paper. But I'm not on deadline and I do my own printing.

 

Labs charge a premium for fiber prints. The paper itself isn't much more expensive than RC but processing is time consuming. It takes longer to develop, longer in the stop bath, longer to fix, there should be a dip in hypo clearing agent (not needed for RC paper), and washing for up to an hour. Drying can take anywhere from 15 minutes to a couple of days depending on the available equipment or preferred method. Then there's the time needed to touch up dust spots with a fine brush, spotting ink, all while hunched over peering through a magnifying glass. It can take me all day to produce just one or two good quality fiber prints worthy of framing and display. If I were doing this for a living I'd have to charge customers as much as $500 depending on print size just to make it worth the while.

 

An archivally treated fiber print should last decades without deterioration. Some folks claim hundreds of years but this is sheer speculation verging on absolute nonsense. Photography hasn't been around for hundreds of years and few of the early photos have demonstrated any proof of resistance to age. The claims are based on common knowledge about how various papers (such as those used by watercolorists, itself a fairly new medium roughly the same age as photography) and other media such as canvas, linen, parchment, etc., have survived. The claims for centuries of archival permanence are based on assumptions that are beyond our control, especially how photos are displayed and stored and whether they're exposed to environmental contaminants.

 

So, such speculation aside, the real reason to go with a good fiber print (whether bromide, chloride or anything else) is because it will be regarded as more valuable. Galleries, museums and savvy clients will prefer fiber prints. And fiber papers are available in a wider range of attractive finishes, ranging from glossy to matte, pearl to linen or heavily textured. And we can make our own printing paper by brushing a light sensitive emulsion onto any suitable base, such as Arches rough surface watercolor paper. I don't know of any way to make RC paper at home and can't think of a single reason to do so.

 

Some folks also prefer the "look" of a fine fiber print. Frankly, you'll never see the difference in reproduction, no matter how well crafted the book or how professionally scanned. And I can scarcely tell the difference between matte surface RC prints and their fiber counterparts when framed behind glass. A fiber print really must be framed unglazed to be appreciated.

 

BTW, every single opinion I've expressed is subject to intense and regular debate.

Bromide papers are usually (graded) neutral/coldtone emulsions, Chlorobromide emulsions are usually warmtone emulsions, chloride papers are usually contactprinting papers (because very slow).

I believe that Kentmere produces a bromide/iodide emulsion IIRC.

 

 

On the other hand there are resin or PE papers that process easy but have plasticky look, and fiber or baryta coated papers that have a definitive artsy look.