paul_owen Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemongillo Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Hi Paul <p> 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemongillo Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Make sure you turn your safelight back on when you leave the sheets out in the open for 10 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_owen Posted March 20, 2001 Author Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_y. Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_lindsey Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cesar_barreto Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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! <p> Cesar B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemongillo Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_baggett Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_f._stein Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 http://members.aol.com/onelucent/MLP/MLP.html <p> 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james___ Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_clark1 Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 May be that you need to spend some time looking at some really fine prints... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cesar_barreto Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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. <p> Cesar B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james___ Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andre_noble Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_yates Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 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." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james___ Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_yates Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted March 21, 2001 What difference does it make if you like the print on the doormat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian_ellis3 Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor_crone1 Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. <p> 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, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevor_crone1 Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick_jones Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_theall2 Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_santamaura Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pemongillo Posted March 21, 2001 Share Posted 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. 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