RC vs FB prints

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

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.

Make sure you turn your safelight back on when you leave the sheets

out in the open for 10 minutes.

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

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-

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.

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.

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, 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.

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

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

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

prints...

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.

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

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

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."

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

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

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.

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,

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,

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.

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.

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.

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.