RC vs. Fiber based papers

[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.

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.

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

[kthompson]

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:

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

[james mickelson]

Paul, take a pil or something. The question simply asked which paper people preferred and why. It also asked about RC's vs FB longevity. Fact: RC doesn't last as long as FB. Period. There is too much evidence. Fact: Most fine art prints are made on FB paper. It is a nicer more expressive paper for fine art interpretation. That is why most all fine art prints are made on FB paper. Period. Nothing here diminishes RC's uses as a good printing medium if you need 20 copies for a board meeting or other bussiness presentation. But the question asked which paper each of us would recommend for printing images as gifts. Seeing as RC has had a reputation for deteriorating and FB has not, then it is obvious which should be the choice in this instance. I'm glad you find RC paper suits your needs. Many amayeurs print on RC. But have a look at professional black and white fine art prints and that answers the question. Period.

[Catherine C]

Clare: Before I started doing my own darkroom work I had a photographer come into my home and do a family portrait which I hung proudly above the mantel. This particular photo was special because it included a family member who is no longer with us. The point of this story is that the photo turned silver beyond repair after about 2 years. The reason...........the photographer used RC paper (possibly not washed properly) and once behind glass it deteriorated rapidly. Now that I do my own printing, I use RC paper for test prints and portfolio work for quick reference. Work created for sale is ALWAYS done on fibre based paper and washed thoroughly. All else being equal (proper processing and washing) the fibre based papers are far superior for tonal richness and texture selection and I would not take the chance on a special image (especially if it is a gift) of it deteriorating before it's time - just to save a few pennies or a few minutes in the washing process. The main difference between processing RC and fibre is the washing time. A simple syphon running from your darkroom tap to a large developing tray makes washing for 20 or 30 minutes quite easy. There are several drying methods for you to chose from to ensure that your paper dries flat. My conclusion is this.....for a little extra cost and washing time, why take the chance on those important images. The peace of mind is worth it!

[BH Morrow]

Wow, what a minefield, Shall I add some explosives. I can't dispute the longevity issue, but here's some food for thought. All my colour prints are done on resin coated paper and Kodak claims that they have an archival storage rating of 100-200years. I think some independent testers have placed it at more like 75-100 years. Check out the Kodak web site because I may be misquoting here. Ilford has their own set of claims. One of Ilford's claims is that their RC papers can be toned to give similar longevity to an FB paper.

I started out using FB paper because of all the snobbery reasons, but found that it can triple the amount of time I spend in the dark room. So I tried out some RC paper (Ilford MGIV Pearl) and immediately fell in love. The crispness of the image beats anything I've had on an FB paper. Of course some images want to be softer and warmer so I'll use FB for that. Now my hunt is for an FB paper that will give me the image quality of the Ilford pearl so that I can do my prints to "archival quality"; any suggestions?