RC vs. Fiber based papers

[clare_vierbuchen]

Are resin-coated papers really less permanent and effective than fiber based papers?

I am trying to make a set of prints to give as a present and want them to last�

What are the pros and cons of each paper?

[paul_owen]

Clare, Once again the can of worms is opened!! Which paper do you

currently use? IMHO the best advice is to try printing with both and

see what paper you get on best with. As far as archival permanence

is concerned, many will rant on about the longevity of a fibre print,

but they do need to be processed with a high degree of attention to

detail with regards washing etc. Personally, I feel that a well

processed and selenium or gold toned RC print is every bit as good!!

RC is certainly easier and quicker to use than fibre papers and dries

flat without having to dry mount. As long as the matting materials

are archivally stable then I would use RC. I agree that fibre has a

better tactile quality, but once behind glass this advantage is lost.

Approximately 95% of my printing is done with RC paper simply because

I prefer the final print on this type as opposed to fibre based paper.

Try both and see for yourself. Regards Paul

[sal_santamaura]

I don't know what you mean by "effective," but there can no longer be

any doubt that resin-coated papers are less permanent than fiber based

papers. Your specific question, however, does not contain sufficient

information to formulate an answer. You "...want them [the set of

prints] to last..." For how long and under what exact storage and/or

display conditions? Given proper processing of each paper type, one

or both might meet your print life expectancy needs.

[dmin-99]

To find out about RC paper search GOOGLE for information. You'll find

writings by Ctein and others on the problems. Here are two

messageboard links.

 

<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000ZqR

 

<p>

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000xZP

 

<p>

 

Wayne

[jnorman1]

there really isnt any contest between the archival life of RC vs

fiber-base papers. rc is viable for 60 years or so, whereas a

properly processed fiber-base print is archival for over 500 years.

the primary difference is that the emulsion is embedded in the grain

of a fiber base paper, while the emulsion sits on top of a plastic

coating on an rc paper. this not only affects archival qualities,

but also the tonality of the finished print. a fiber-base print

typically will yeild a much deeper tone than an rc print. good rc

papers do exhibit a nice range of gray tones, however, and because of

that, they make very good proof prints. no art museum or archival

collections that i know of will accept RC prints. one last little

item is the quality of the paper itself - a good DW fiber-base paper

simply feels more substantial and has a much more loveable surface

characteristic than RC papers.

[dk_thompson]

Lovable? What are you doing, using it as a blanket at night??? (just a

joke here...)but I agree with you on the longevity issue...however, no

museum or archive would allow you to handle an "artifact", whether

textual or 3-dimensional, without gloves on to keep your skin oils off

the item...that would be the #1 killer for anything. The other thing

about institutions is, that although none would consider an RC print

to be a longterm file print, just about every museum, archive and

research library in this country at least, uses RC paper for their

work prints, access prints, patron requests etc. . Usually an

institution will

have the capability to make a fiber print, but the majority of the

work is done on RC. In alot of places, the film files are treated as

the master file, but in an art museum (where the print becomes the

artifact) this is not the case...nor in a project like the HABS/HAER

stuff Mr. Norman does...but then it's a dual thing there, film & fiber

based prints. The film is all polyseter based sheet film, which in

itself is LE rated (the base) at 500+ yrs. (like

microfilm)...everything's tested for residual fix etc, so when they

say "archival", they mean it...

 

<p>

 

I think the answer to your question, Clare is to define how long you

need them to last. A FB print will last longer if processed & stored

properly, in most cases it's also much more durable under adverse

display conditions, because untoned RC prints are more susceptible to

atmospheric pollutants than FB prints seem to be. If they are going to

be handled alot, and if you are going to assemble them & mount them in

unsafe albums, drymounting etc...then it's kind of a tossup really. If

you do wind up using RC, you might want to go with a non-developer

incorporated paper from a major manufacturer, not some old-style rc

paper. Using strong dilutions of selenium toner, or sulfide toners

like brown, Viradon, Polytoner, sepia etc. will help protect the print

from

pollutants.

 

<p>

 

Another thing is to remember that nothing lasts forever, the

approach a museum or archive would have would be in putting the

photo/negatives away in a safe spot, and using duplicate copies for

everything. If you want it to last, you can't use it. So my approach

is sorta to look beyond the tactile qualities of a paper, focus (no

pun) on keeping the film safe and choose the most durable paper for

your needs....since I'm talking theory here let me say:

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my

agency.

Good luck.

[walter_glover]

Clare,

 

<p>

 

I gather from your question and the stated intent of the portfolio of

prints as a gift that you might be looking for a simple approach

with existing materials and equipment (no archival print washer,

no dry-mount press, etc.).

 

<p>

 

In this case I would suggest that RC paper will process and

wash easliy and with proper after-treatment will probably endure

the ravages of time in your friend's hands without causing you

embarrassment.

 

<p>

 

I suggest that after develop, stop bath and brief fixing in Rapid Fix

diluted to film strength (usually 1+4) that you rinse each print for

2 minutes and then place it in a washing-aid or fixer remover.

After the washaid give the prints a good wash individually so that

they don't bind together in a clump and then place each print into

a solution of Agfa Sistan for a minute or two.

 

<p>

 

Agfa Sistan will prevent deterioration of the image by curtailing

migration into the titanium-oxide that brightens the RC print

base.

 

<p>

 

If, on the other hand, you are equipped to handle FB prints then

that should be the chosen path for the aesthetics of the artefact

itself as much as anything. FB can also benefit from Sistan

although I prefer to achieve similar ends with selenium toning.

 

<p>

 

WG

[charlie_strack]

Simply put, fiber based prints have been around 2 to 3 times as long

as RC, and fiber based prints have proven that, properly processed,

they can last a very long time.

 

<p>

 

RC hasn't been around long enough to prove, empirically, that they'll

last as long as fiber.

 

<p>

 

200 years from now we'll know the answer, if anybody then cares.

 

<p>

 

Yet our very negatives are on plastic!

 

<p>

 

For serious gift photos, FB is my personal preference, properly dry

mounted. Yet I don't object to RC for work or personal prints.

[james___]

If there is a question about which paper is better, then print on

both. Then you will learn why printing on fb is so much better. The

main objection some people have about fb is that you have to wash them

for so long. Baloney. 2 minutes in a film strength rapid fixer, 2 mins

in a wash aid such as kodak hypo clear, and let sit in a tray of water

with some agitation, and then dry by hanging by the corners and you

will have beautiful prints worthy of giving as a gift. RC sucks.

That's why most printers print on fb. It is definately the better

material. James

[dan_smith]

Given the continual failure of RC papers every time the makers

say "we FINALLY have all the problems fixed", I would go with fibre.

As to which are more 'effective', I am not sure what you mean. Both

look beautiful when a good printer creates an image on them.

Check out David Vestals past articles on print washing methods in

Photo Techniques. A 'soak & dump' method works well and is a lot less

expensive than an 'archival' washer. Just as long as your prints look

good.

Print a good image, mat & mount for clean presentation using

Bainbridge Alpharag Artcare boards and frame it well & either

material will look good. But, going with fibre will help get rid of

the nagging doubts that still come with RC prints. Kind of like

buying a used car...

[paul_owen]

James, How long have you been printing on fibre? Sounds to me like

your prints are not being archivally processed!! May look good

now......but for how long?? RC sucks? Maybe my correctly processed

RCs will outlast your fibre?? Only time will tell!!

[kcrisp]

Anyone just tuning in, this is an "auto-thread." All you have to do

is ask a particular question with two words in close proximity (like

fiber and RC, for example) and a computer generates all of the above

and at the very end you are just where you would have been if you'd

read the old prototype threads. I'm sure it works with "Schneider

vs. Rodenstock," anything having to do with "pyro" and if you've got

a really fast chip try it with Xtol.

[james___]

Paul, Ilford has verified their archival process( 2 min fix in fresh

film strength rapid fix, 2 mins in hypo clearing agent, 20 minute

wash) sequence through exhautive testing. I have been printing for

enough years to know that Ilford or Kodak wouldn't put it in writing

if it wasn't a good method. I have prints in full sunlight 3 or 4

hours a day behind glass that have been hanging for years with no

deterioration whatsoever. Edward Weston had a very limited supply of

water in his darkroom. He didn't have an archival washer wasting

water. He used trays of water which were changed after so many

prints were put through them. Neither do many printers who don't have

access to large amounts of water. No my system has proved out as far

as I'm concerned. Your RC will last a long time givebn adequate care

and adequate storage conditions. But I have RC prints that were washed

for an hour or more that have silvered out sitting in a dark closet.

So I say RC is no where near as good as fibre base paper. Just look at

any gallery you want to pick and see how many accept RC prints. I have

seen way too many "archivally" processed RC prints that last a few

years and then silver out. Ctein has written about it exhaustively

too. Sorry, case closed. James

[paul_owen]

James, Afraid the case is still slightly ajar! Washing RC prints for

an hour isn't going to make them archival. With RC too much wahing is

detrimental to the print. One of the advantages of RC is its short

wash times, the plastic prevents fixer entering the paper support.

Too long a wash and the print can suffer from cockling, where the

plastic and paper starts to separate.Maybe this has been the problem

you encountered? I've seen plenty of crappy RC prints (that have

been processed incorrectly)that won't last and plenty of crappy fibre

prints too (covered in stains and not flat)that won't last. The point

I'm trying to make is that you can't simply dismiss something just

because its the "in" thing to do! If RC wasn't any good then why is

it still being made? Everything has its place! I use fibre paper,

but still prefer using RC for lots of my work. I too have RC prints

that both myself and my customers have had hanging in all sorts of

locations.....TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE OF THEM HAS LET ME DOWN.

Photography is full of snobbery, dismissing RC paper is just another

example of it! Whether you like it or not RC is here to

stay....customer demand will ensure that. I appreciate that Ctein may

have concluded that RC is crap ( haven't read any of his stuff) but

I'm a great believer in trying things out for myself rather than

taking one persons word as gospel. And remember, all your negatives

will probably be on plastic anyhow, so you want to hope that it does

last!! Regards

[n_dhananjay3]

Not to pour oil on troubled waters but my understanding of Ctein's

conclusions was as follows. I don't think he was saying the plastic

is problematic. Resin coated paper uses titanium dioxide as part of

the white paper subbing layer instead of barium oxide which is used

in fiber based paper. He concluded that the titanium oxide layer was

at war with the plastic base, and exposure to light hastened the

battle. Keeping a print under glass seems to exacerbate the problem.

As stated in a previous post, selenium toning and treatment with

Sistan seems to help the problem. As for how they look, heck,

whatever looks good to you is the only criterion that can be used.

Was it Weston who said he didn't care if the print was made on a

bathmat as long as it was a good print? Cheers, DJ.

[dk_thompson]

FWIW, Wilhelm talks a bit about this in his book, and in talking about

polyester based print materials, such as the Melinex based Cibachrome

Classic paper--which is an opaque type polyester base---he says that

if the manufacturers were to make a b&w RC paper on this base material

(without the brighteners) that this would outlast

any other type of b&w print. Apparently, polyester is incredibly

stable, supposedly moreso than 100% cotton in dark storage, and it is

the most resistant to atmospheric damage as well. This is why ESTAR

based, or polyester based sheet films are used in institutions, or in

the HABS work as well...coupled with toning the image to protect the

emulsion, makes it very longlasting...and this also the reason why

Mylar D enclosures are preferred as well.

 

<p>

 

Here are some links for info about RC papers. The biggest problems

I've ever encountered with RC papers have been with them being

attacked by pollutants from their surroundings. In some sorta

unscientifc ringarounds we've done, the toned images have lasted

alright, while an untoned control print will crap out relatively fast.

Different papers are affected differently as well, in fact the one

paper that Wilhelm recommended in his 1993 book, has performed the

worst

as far as I can tell. I'm going to tack a link on to a page studying

peroxide attacks on RC prints, that's exactly what I'm referring

to...what we've seen--using the same materials & processor--is close

to this example.

 

<p>

 

I'm not intending for this to be a "rc v.s. fiber thread", but for

some uses fiber based paper is impractical, and I don't believe that

every person out there looking at this forum is interested in making

"master prints" all the time... Here are the links:

 

<p>

 

These are from the Abbey Newsletter:

 

<p>

 

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an21/an21-4/an21-405.htm

l

 

<p>

 

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an12/an12-5/an12-507.htm

l

 

<p>

 

These are from the ConsDistlist off CoOL:

 

<p>

 

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1997/1157.html

 

<p>

 

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1993/0536.html

 

<p>

 

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1993/0376.html

 

<p>

 

http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1997/1159.html

 

<p>

 

This from the IAQ group dealing with indoor air pollution:

 

<p>

 

http://hjem.get2net.dk/ryhl/rc_photos.htm

 

<p>

 

Oh, and lastly I should add:

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my

agency.

[dk_thompson]

Here's another good one for you all...this is from the NEDCC's online

tutorial "Preservation 101", and this part deals with photos. This is

a good overview of the terminology, ANSI specs, and practices used in

dealing with long term archiving.

 

<p>

 

http://www.nedcc.org/p101cs/lesson7.htm

 

<p>

 

This is a good page to keep handy if you're interested in storage

materials as well.

[dk_thompson]

Geez, must be having a bad night down here...these links are

all....well, look all this stuff came off of three major conservation

sites. One is the massive, Conservation OnLine. Besides having tons of

other useful info, there's a pretty longrunning listgroup off there

called the ConsDistList. If you do searches on that, you'll find a

variety of researchers & conservators answering questions there....The

NEDCC documetns are great, and the "Preservation 101" tutorial can be

accessed through the homepage easily. Lastly, Abbey Publications is

another paper conservation group, and Douglas Nishimura of the Image

Permanence Institute wrote an article called "How Stable Are Photos on

RC Paper" for the Abbey Newsletter, Vol. 21, Number 4. Nov.1997. You

can get to Abbey through CoOL. Douglas Nishimura, and others have alot

of posts on the Distlist as well. These other ones that dealt with

developer incorporated

papers, residual thiosulfate levels, toning for protection etc. The

IAQ group is another good site, but that may be too museum oriented

for some. I was just trying to save you all some legwork....

[gene_crumpler15]

Here's another answer;

 

<p>

 

I went through my stored prints over the weekend looking for some

prints to put up at an exhibit this week. I found that a lot more of

the RC prints made on Ilford RC paper in the time period 1991 to 1997

are getting brown spots. I stopped using RC paper all together in

1997.

 

<p>

 

All of the fiber prints from 1956 to the present are doing fine!

[dan_smith]

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't simply dismiss

something just because its the "in" thing to do!

 

<p>

 

Sure you can.

 

<p>

 

 

If RC wasn't any good then why is it still being made?

 

<p>

 

No one is saying it "isn't AMY good", just that it currently is not

in the same league as far as expected life as properly processed

fibre prints.

 

<p>

 

Everything has its place!

 

<p>

 

And there is a place for everything.

 

<p>

 

 

I use fibre paper, but still prefer using RC for lots of my work.

 

<p>

 

How nice.

 

<p>

 

I too have RC prints that both myself and my customers have had

hanging in all sorts of locations.....TO MY KNOWLEDGE NONE OF THEM

HAS LET ME DOWN.

 

<p>

 

Maybe your knowledge isn't comprehensive. Maybe your recognition of

print failure isn't what it could be. Maybe you are a photographic

anomaly.

 

<p>

 

Photography is full of snobbery, dismissing RC paper is just another

example of it!

 

<p>

 

So is wine tasting, but still some wines just don't cut it.

Demonstrated cases of RC failure in too many circumstances have

nothing to do with snobbery.

 

<p>

 

Whether you like it or not RC is here to stay....customer demand

will ensure that.

 

<p>

 

And your point here is???

 

<p>

 

I appreciate that Ctein may have concluded that RC is crap ( haven't

read any of his stuff)

 

<p>

 

Might help a bit if you would read his writing before sounding too

stupid on this one. It never hurts to know what one is commenting on.

 

<p>

 

but I'm a great believer in trying things out for myself rather than

taking one persons word as gospel.

 

<p>

 

When you do try it out, be sure to use rigorous scientific principles

as your research progresses.

 

<p>

 

And remember, all your negatives will probably be on plastic anyhow,

so you want to hope that it does last!! Regards

 

<p>

 

-- paul owen (paulowen_2000@yahoo.com), October 16, 2001.

 

<p>

 

What type of plastic are you referring to? A lot goes by the name and

differing grades have vastly different life expectancies.

[r.l.__mac__mcdonald]

OK - Now were talking, WINE, RC and Fiber Paper! It is the best

combination! I think the staining would be more beautiful on the

fiber and of course the feel of a Great Wine on a Fine Fiber Paper is

hard to beat. But the RC would wash up much better after the Party.

 

<p>

 

All joking aside... I am new to fiber (the last few years) and there

is no doubt that it is the BEST. But I just can't stand to throw out

20 hand made Fine Fiber Prints onto a Board Room Table for

discussion, and have the Damn pigs dump Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, on

them and then finger them to death. I feel that because of

the "Fiber Only" Mistique we have created the impression that they

are difficult to print(this is NOT true) however, I think we all can

agree that they do require more time. And for me time is Money! And

if I only have a 2 or 3 hours to make up 20 prints for a meeting,

then the choice has been made for me. But I DO like Fiber more and

more each day. I just wish I knew all there is to know about all the

Mystery, but then I miss the fun of learning.

 

<p>

 

Clare, try Fiber you will like it. My Doctor says it's good for the

Diet, and none of get enough fiber.... ;-)

 

<p>

 

Mac

[paul_owen]

Hey Dan, chill out!!!! Surely the whole point of a forum is to

discuss and debate? I'm perfectly entitled to my opinion as you are

to yours, so what's the problem? I'm just telling it as I see it,

sure I don't test my materials in a scientific manner...I USE MY TIME

TO TAKE PHOTOS, NOT TO TEST!! If something works for me, I'll use

it. If the same doesn't suit you, then who gives a ****!! Do what

suits you, I'm not that interested. As for customer

demands......the customer controls demand!! If the customer don't

want it then it ain't going to last that long!! We're seeing it as we

speak, Kodak withdrawing black and white films, Polaroid up against

the wall.WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!!

[sal_santamaura]

Paul, Clare doesn't have customers, at least not in the context of

this thread. The question asked about "...a set of prints to give as

a present..." My first posting pointed out that additional

information is required before a useful answer can be provided.

 

<p>

 

Dan seems to get upset when he reads postings which either imply or

state outright that the life expectancy of properly processed RC and

fiber are or can be equivalent with current materials. Such postings

are nonsense. Scientific inquiry is necessary to reach reasonable

conslusions. If someone is not disposed to personally perform

relevant research, then reputable scientific sources should be

consulted for reliable life expectancy data.

 

<p>

 

RC prints may be useful in certain commercial situations. They may

even be adequate for Clare's purposes. We won't know until the

question is expanded to tell us storage and/or display conditions and

required print life. However, there is not one iota of doubt that

properly processed fiber prints will outlast those made on any RC

material available from its inception through today. To state

otherwise simply ignores reality.

[paul_owen]

Dear All, the fibre vs RC debate will always rage on! And I will

happily continue using both for as long as I get the same results as

at present. If some contributors get upset by my opinion, then maybe

they need to rethink the reason why they bother to contribute to this

forum, they are after all offering THEIR opinion! I do not dispute

the scientific fact that it has been proven that fibre paper will

last for many years, I AM NOT OFFERING SCIENTIFIC FACT, JUST MY

OPINION ON THE BENEFITS OF RC!! This is an informal forum not a

lecture theatre!! what I object to is people who belittle those who

do not practice the same methods as themselves. My opinions may not

be scientifically correct, but I am still entitled to them! I am not

too proud to learn from this forum but I am not under the illusion

that my photos desrve to survive for 500 years either. I seem to be

a minority in as much as I favour RC paper!! So what!! I'm happy,

some people like my work and some buy it!! But who knows, maybe I'll

start a new craze....printing on bath mats!! love and peace Paul

[dk_thompson]

Hey Paul, don't take it so hard....I don't read any of this thread as

an attack upon you at all. The whole argument (if this is one) is

sorta pointless in a way because each paper has it's place, and I

don't think anyone is disputing that, just as I'm not going to say

that one is better than the other. That 500 year mark is not 500

years hanging in a

gallery, coffee shop or someone's living room. It's 500 years in a

cold or cool storage vault in the dark, maybe being handled by a

gloved curator or archivist twice a year....so don't sweat it. The

majority of what I do both at work & on my own is on RC papers & it's

fine with me, all I say is just understand your materials & choose

accordingly. I, for one, don't believe that every print I make is a

work of art, and should therefore last forever...negs are another

story though...but then that's just me...the "commercial hack" Oh:

 

<p>

 

Opinions expressed in this message may not represent the policy of my

agency.