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?
Bookmarks