RC vs. fiber - beginner's question

[Robert J Cardon]

It's time to produce some prints to hang on the walls of my abode. While the images are not necessarily gallery quality or ones I'd ever show to the hyper-critical B&W "art world," they have sentimental value to me. Thus I was considering how to print them, and thought I'd seek the collective wisdom of this forum's participants. At any rate, I've been hashing over the RC vs. fiber debate and have identified the following decision factors and observations:

1) Archival properties: All I've read suggests properly washed and fixed fiber prints are the ultimate in B&W permanence, with RC paper coming in a distant second (or maybe third if we count some of the pigment digital processes). This is well and good, but what are the realistic time frames for personal/private use display permanence? I think most of us will not be too concerned about permanence issues in 60 or so years, as we'll all likely have passed on to that big darkroom in the sky. And for me, I think it's a bit absurd to think my time behind the GG will create a photographic legacy of prints so historically important and superlative that they’ll be hanging in the MOMA and in demand by future generations. So I'm thinking that if my prints outlast me by one second, I'll be satisfied. Thus RC paper seems like a viable option from this standpoint.

On this same vein, I suppose permanence is an issue when selling prints to collectors, or for display purposes. Yet it seems to me that many in the past have sold Cibachrome/Ilfacrome prints for big bucks (M. Fatali, R.G. Ketchum come to mind) and this material certainly doesn't have the proven permanence of a properly processed B&W print on fiber paper. It must be that the perceived value of a piece transcends materials of relative permanence (assuming it's at an acceptable level)?

2) Practicality: Fiber requires a dry mount press and print washer (to do it right). My budget doesn't allow this now and I don't want to wait months/years or do the E-bay bidding frenzy thing. Furthermore, the water usage for proper fiber paper washing is incompatible with the persistent drought conditions over much of N. America. Thus RC wins in this category. The RC papers also tend to be less costly than fiber within the same brand.

3) Qualitative Aspects: Fiber supposedly tones better and gives a fuller tonal range than RC, and my limited experience suggests this might be true. But how significant are the differences? Will they make or break an image?

More and more, I'm embracing a "Content is King" viewpoint. This means that if the content is strong enough (composition and the underlying tonal relationships in the image), the visual impact will carry the day, regardless of what paper it's printed on, assuming the craft is adequate. I'm sure many of you have B&W images, which would evoke a strong positive response, regardless of what paper they were printed on, be it Forte, Ilford MG IV, Bergger, or even Arista.EDU ultra, both the fiber and RC versions of each brand.

So the ultimate question is this: Is RC paper a legitimate final print material for creative B&W photographic expression and excellence?

[John Kasaian]

I like fiber base graded papers and I use what I like. What do you like? Use it!

[Jeremy Moore]

[snip]Fiber requires a dry mount press and print washer (to do it right).[/snip]

Wrong and wrong--a dry mount press and print washer make things easier, but there is nothing wrong with using an iron and tray washing.

[Edward Mast]

Ditto to the previous answers. I don't like the look of RC paper and therefore would not hang it on my wall. And I have purchased some photographs by well known photographers that are fiber and not dry mounted (corner mounted instead). While not as perfectly flat as dry mounted, they are quite acceptable. Or yes, use an iron. And washing a print in several changes of tray water is reputed to work quite well.

[MIke Sherck]

While I agree with previous posts, I'm not as brief as they are so I'll wander on for a while, if you don't mind.

There's really only one reason to use a particular paper, and that's because you like the results. If you make prints on RC paper and like what you see then use it: there may be some elite snobs out there who denigrate it but it isn't their print and in my book that means they don't get an opinion. On the other hand, if you've used both RC and fiber papers and like the fiber paper better then by all means use it: you don't need fancy equipment to work with fiber paper. I've used trays for washing and an iron for flattening and dry mounting for years and they worked fine. I did manage to stumble into a dry mount press at an auction two or three years back and it's awfully convenient, but not better than an iron, in my opinion.

While there are differences both obvious and subtle between various papers and none of us have the wherewithall (or patience) to try *everything* out there, once you find a paper that you like then you ought to use it. With practice comes familiarity and your prints will get better, no question about it.

That said, the only reason I use RC is because my son took a photography class in high school several years ago and his (then) girlfriend gifted me with a box of it at the end of class (what they hadn't used.) I use it for contact proofs which I file with the negative. For actual printing I use fiber paper. I like the way it looks -- I have managed to make myself believe that my prints on fiber are deeper and richer than prints on RC (which is what I used when I first began doing my own darkroom work and used exclusively for several years.) As for RC -- I don't like the "plasticy" texture, smell, feel, and don't think I can get a print as good as I can get from fiber paper. That may just be me -- I may be an elitist snob who's rationalized himself into using "professional" materials, you never know.

[Oren Grad]

Here's my view:

1) To oversimplify and summarize the permanenence issues, RC paper has excellent stability under dark storage, but when an RC print is mounted in a sealed frame and displayed under light, the titanium dioxide used as a brightener for the paper base sometimes reacts with the plastic coating and/or the image silver to produce serious, irreversible damage to the image silver, the plastic coating, or both. It is not known exactly why damage sometimes occurs very quickly, sometimes very slowly, and sometimes (apparently) not at all. It appears that treatment with selenium or sulfide toner or Agfa Sistan silver stabilizer solution can substantially retard this deterioration, but there is no data to tell us how long this protection lasts. It is possible to use both a toner and Sistan on the same print, which in principle provides two different mechanisms of protection, but again, it is not known whether this protection persists over the long run. A nice thing about RC papers, though, is that it takes less toner time and much less wash time to tone an RC paper than it does an FB paper, so it's not a big hassle to add that protection. And Sistan is just a 60-second dunk at the end of the wash, also very easy.

The one bias I do have, but for which I have no basis in evidence, is that I trust RC papers from the leading vendors a bit more than I do those from second-tier vendors, because RC paper is a complex chemical cocktail with stuff thrown in to try to neutralize the reactions that drive deterioration, and conceivably quality control in manufacture may make a substantial difference to longevity. For me, "major vendor" means Ilford, Agfa and Kodak (though Kodak is now exiting this business). I'd probably trust Oriental and Kentmere as well, though I'm still thinking about it. Second-tier vendor means Forte (and all of the private labels it comes under) and any other eastern European manufacturer that might be in the RC market.

2) RC paper is indeed much easier to use, and requires much less water.

3) I think that as a general statement, this is nonsense. I know that many people here have a strong subjective preference for FB over RC. I happen to like not just glossy FB but also glossy RC, and I often find myself teetering back and forth as to whether I want to print on RC or FB, especially since my available time and energy for printing are severely limited. For sure, RC will allow you to make a lot more prints, which is valuable both for honing your skill, and for slogging through all your negatives so that you actually have a chance to make and enjoy prints of your good ones before you reach the age of 93. In my experience, there are both good and bad papers in both RC and FB, and there are papers of both types that I like. And yes, there are RC papers that tone just fine, if that's what you want, and that give an excellent tonal range.

So the ultimate question is this: Is RC paper a legitimate final print material for creative B&W photographic expression and excellence?

Yes.

If printing on RC will make you more productive as a photographer and allow you to better enjoy the fruits of your labor, I say go for it. If you're worried about permanence and want to sleep better, by all means tone your RC prints and/or dunk them in Sistan. But above all, find the materials that are comfortable for you and then focus your effort on making and enjoying lots of good negatives and pictures.

[Oren Grad]

Oh yes, one more point on your item 2: the larger prints on FB paper get, the harder it is to keep them flat even if you initially flatten them under a press, especially under conditions of varying temperature and humidity. I intensely dislike the idea that I have to glue my prints to a board ("dry mount") in order for them to be presentable. Your feelings may be different.

[Bob._3483]

Random thoughts....

For maximum permanence, you can Sepia, Selenium or Gold tone the print.

A 50 year life for modern quality RC prints seems reasonable, from my reading on the subject.

You may be happy for prints to self-destruct after you are dead but serious collectors will not be ... hence you will have problems being taken seriously by them if you print on RC.

I do have a dry mount press, but I generally only use it to help flatten the fibre paper - I corner mount the finished prints. Some papers dry naturally flatter than others: Kentmere Fineprint VC for example dries quite flat on my screens - much flatter than Ilford MGIV. It also seems to depend a lot on your local climate. There are many suggestions around on how to flatten prints sans press.

Large dishes can be used to wash fibre prints. I used to use a Paterson RC print drying rack (to hold the prints apart) in a plastic tub before investing in an "archival" slot washer. Use hypo-clear and fill and dump 6 times every 15 minutes rather than use running water.

RC is much harder to spot because of the plastic coating - the spotting ink lays on the surface and is much more visible as a result.

Bottom line? If you intend selling B&W fine art prints to collectors you do not actually have much choice: they expect a properly processed (probably toned) fibre print. If you want to suit only yourself then it is entirely up to you - a properly processed RC print will *probably* outlast you.

[Henry Ambrose]

The paper to use is the one that makes the picture look best. I use both plastic and fiber papers and while I know all the arguments for fiber and like it better in my hand, if the picture looks better on RC then that is what I use. Once its behind glass it becomes less important what paper a paper is printer with and the one that looks better wins as far as I'm concerned.

[John Cook]

Robert, I believe your observations are correct. I would simply add the following:

Print longevity is usually calculated on objects which are stored in total darkness under controlled humidity. If you hang prints on your wall in daylight or pass around prints to house guests not wearing museum-approved white gloves, all bets are off.

In short, carefully protect your negatives and don’t get too crazy worrying about the prints currently in circulation around the house.

As far as collector demands, I would suggest waiting until someone actually has money in his hand for a print before pre-printing a large stock of fiber goods for sale. There are many fewer high-rollers collecting expensive prints than we are sometimes led to believe. In this area, as in all of commercial photography, overwhelmingly abundant supply far exceeds the meager demand. For all intents and purposes, collector preference is a moot point.

The matter of image appearance is more important from a display aspect. Generally speaking, the actual quality of the silver image of modern RC emulsions (especially Ilford) is indistinguishable from the image on fiber paper as a raw material for offset lithography. The final printed page will be identical.

There is a huge difference, however, in surface texture and overall image “feel”. Handheld RC prints have a “plastic-y” artificial credit-card look and feel. Definitely don’t look like the product of an Olde Master with a wooden camera.

Mounting and matting an RC print under glass goes a long way toward mitigating this unfortunate non-fiber appearance. Likewise however, the luxurious feel of triple-weight fiber paper is also lost when mounted under glass. Glazing is the great leveler.

Next, if you are toning prints for the color change rather than for longevity, the results from most RC papers is a tad underwhelming. Passable, but not remarkable, considering the extra expense and effort involved in toning.

Finally, your “Content is King” philosophy is well worth our attention. Many of us are nutty about finding the secret formula for chemical magic, to the exclusion of making quality exposures of quality subjects under quality lighting situations. I think of it as a modern novelist concentrating on the best word-processor, typeface and paper stock, instead of focusing on writing his story.