RC-VC or Fiber VC? Which, and why?

[nelsonfotodotcom]

Greetings:

I'm enrolled in an alt-process printing course at university and it's time to purchase supplies for darkroom.

I've printed before on RC-VC, but shopping Freestyle's selection I am finding Fiber VC as well as RC and wondering what major differences, if any, exist as well as the benefits of each.

Thanks in advance.

Craig

[willwilson]

searches on apug and google will definitely help you on your way.

But for starters...

RC = Utility and Proofs
Fiber = Fine Prints

[nelsonfotodotcom]

Will - thanks. So, fiber VC will be a nice final print medium. Thanks. No ready to move to graded fiber but wanting something nicer than RC for my prints.

Cheers!

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with Will. Be aware, though, that FB paper requires different handling than RC paper. With RC paper you want to minimize the wet time, or you can get edge delamination. With FB paper, you should use a wash aid and a fairly long washing time. In addition, FB tends to curl when it dries.

[Greg Lockrey]

Fiber has been richer in rendering the blacks than RC. Toning was better with fiber too. RC is nice if you need a quick print.


I just noticed: Nelson! How the heck are you? Haven't seen you in a while. :)

[nelsonfotodotcom]

I'm well. Got sidetracked from LF interests for many months. I'm slowly getting back to it. Happy for an opportunity to experiment in the darkroom again.

I decided to go with Arista Private Reserve VC RC Semi-Matte. Not sure if any here have printed on it, but I'm sure it'll serve my purposes.

[percepts]

There is a lot myth and old wives tales perpetuated about RC not being as good as FB.
Fact is they are different and each has its own pros and cons. No one knows if RC will last as long as Fibre but everyone assumes Fibre will last longer.

Try both and use the one you prefer for what you are doing. Fibre usually responds better to toning and may well do so for the alt process you are thinking of. RC is much quicker to process and deal with after development. Infact it has greater range than Fibre becuase of the high gloss which doesn't scatter light as much as Fibre.
Under glass you would be hard pressed to tell the difference unless you get up close.
But fibre does a give a special look.

So, as you can see, it is not cut and dried as to which to go for. They are two mediums with different properties and you must find the best for you.

[BetterSense]

I only use RC paper. I like it better and I'm used to printing on it; I see no point in changing my materials if I'm happy with them.

I also don't see the point in printing sometimes onto one and sometimes onto another. Since FB is more expensive and more labor intensive I know people that use RC proof sheets and work prints and then try to make a FB answer print. I just think that at that point my answer print would be better if it was on the same material I'd been working with the whole time, so for me it's RC all the way down.

I wasn't raised around tons of people insisting that FB is better so I never absorbed the obsession with the old material. I like RC better and FB does nothing for me.

Nobody knows how long they will last; I'm happy to test RC longevity out for everyone by printing everything onto RC.

[Ari]

I started using RC/VC because of the cost, and later, when I started getting paid for photos, quick turnaround necessitated the use of RC/VC (this is pre-photoshotop).
As it is, I've learned to use them, and how to process my film to get the most out of those papers. I always use matte, or at the very least semi-matte, as I find it "encourages" strong blacks and whites.
As much as I enjoy working in the darkroom, I like that prints can be made quickly and efficiently with the RC/VC papers, and with a minimum of equipment and water usage.
This is a photo from a month ago, using Shanghai film and Ilford MGIV, satin finish.
It's a straight scan, no photoshop adjustments; I can't account for how it looks on your screen, but in one's hand, it's a handsome print (if I do say so myself:) )
Good luck.

[William McEwen]

I haven't used RC since college. How do you wash it? For how long? We just used a tray with a Kodak tray siphon back then.

[Ari]

Tray siphons work fine, but you need to monitor constantly for continuous motion, and always shuffling prints from top to bottom. I find siphons practical for 2-5 prints, but for larger quantities, I love having a vertical, slotted archival washer. Just drop the prints in when you've finished all your printing, and wash for 5-10 minutes (RC papers). When they're done, pull them out and hang them to dry. No wet hands, and they all wash at the same time.
You can cut down on washing time by 50% by using hypo clear as a fourth bath.

[Oren Grad]

I haven't used RC since college. How do you wash it? For how long? We just used a tray with a Kodak tray siphon back then.

I still just use a tray with a Kodak tray siphon. For my RC prints it's 30 seconds rapid fix, then 2 minutes in running water, per Ilford's recommendation.

Which paper has richer blacks or tones better is entirely a matter of the specific paper. If you want to see inky blacks and a hyperactive response to toner, try the RC version of Ilford MG Warmtone.

But the surfaces are certainly different, even comparing glossy against glossy. Which you'll prefer is up to you.

[eli]

I seem to remember a 'blind' test in which folks that were shown prints on high grade FB and RC papers actually preferred the RC glossy papers. I don't remember much more so, does anyone here know anything about this test?

Eli

[Bruce Barlow]

For a university course, I'd go cheap and use RC. I proof on Arista EDU and it's just fine.

Set yourself a goal to learn as much as possible, which means print as much as you can. With inexpensive RC, you'll feel better about that. Using less water to wash all those RC prints will let you feel morally righteous, too!

BTW, graded papers aren't necessarily better than VC. Download the now-stale articles I wrote on papers and developers from my website for some ideas and, maybe, insight. The exception to this is Lodima, but that's an entirely different animal, since it's limited pretty much to contact printing.

[Sal Santamaura]

I seem to remember a 'blind' test in which folks that were shown prints on high grade FB and RC papers actually preferred the RC glossy papers. I don't remember much more so, does anyone here know anything about this test?...No, but Fuji's consumer preference tests lead to things like Velvia. Relying on the public to have good taste isn't necessarily a wise approach. :rolleyes:

[William McEwen]

I just looked at Ilford's data sheets -- says Ilford Multigrade RC should not be wet for longer than 11 minutes. That's from developer to end of washing. WOW! I tell people that when I walk into the darkroom to print, I've committed to about four hours (which includes wash time for fiber prints).

[eli]

"No, but Fuji's consumer preference tests lead to things like Velvia. Relying on the public to have good taste isn't necessarily a wise approach."

I don't disagree but recently I've been considering offering both RC and FB prints of the same subject, perhaps with a size differential to let potential buyers decide for themselves which they prefer.

I do think of photograph as an art form but I also believe that even though I think FB is the way to go, I want people show their appreciation of what I'm doing with the medium by taking it home and enjoying it. Income aside, small as it might be, the idea of my work in someone's personal space is more important to me than the ground it is printed on.

When I start doing carbon printing I'll likely still make silver gelatin as well.

Eli

[Sal Santamaura]

...recently I've been considering offering both RC and FB prints of the same subject, perhaps with a size differential to let potential buyers decide for themselves which they prefer...Even though photography's not a business for me, I almost always print on fiber based papers. The difference is apparent even at normal viewing distances, even under glass -- as long as one uses the correct glass (Tru Vue AR Reflection-Free).

If I ever did sell any work, I'd never consider offering RC. See Ctein's "Post Exposure" for his experience doing that.

[Greg Lockrey]

When I was in college, RC papers were still new and lousy. We were forbidden to use it. Later it got better for b&w and color was pretty much all RC. It was great for commercal applications especially if you had an Arky RC print dryer so you cold dry 900 prints an hour if you had to.

[Santo Roman]

You might want to find out if the university has the room and the water baths that FB papers require. It does need to dry a bit longer and having large steel plates also help as the FB paper will tend to curl a bit when it dries. I prefer FB when I can use it but for daily use...RC is the way to go.

santo

[William McEwen]

If I ever did sell any work, I'd never consider offering RC. See Ctein's "Post Exposure" for his experience doing that.

Summarize, please?

[William McEwen]

Even though photography's not a business for me, I almost always print on fiber based papers. The difference is apparent even at normal viewing distances, even under glass -- as long as one uses the correct glass (Tru Vue AR Reflection-Free).

If I ever did sell any work, I'd never consider offering RC. See Ctein's "Post Exposure" for his experience doing that.

Helmut Newton was frustrated that numerous photos that he had printed for magazine reproduction were never returned and they ended up in auctions. So he decided to have all press prints made on RC and insufficiently fixed and washed so they wouldn't last. And if they were not returned, he would bill the magazine a crazy expensive amount.

[Oren Grad]

Summarize, please?

Ctein sold a bunch of B&W RC prints that started silvering out when framed and on display in his customers' homes. After some background investigation, he set up an experiment which demonstrated that both Sistan and selenium toner, independently or together, have a protective effect against this mode of deterioration. How long the protective effect will last is unknown.

[jp]

I've got 20 year old B&W RC prints that look as good as when I made them. Mostly Ilford MG and Kodak polycontrast stuff. Some have been poorly archived in boxes, others displayed. Most are not toned. If there are one or two that haven't lasted, then it's purely an oversight in processing like McEwen described of Helmut Newton.

[EdWorkman]

Codgers and Geezers, such as myself, were brought up in the era when RC was getting more popular and greatly improved. Photo authors copy old info, and tho' a few actually did controlled experiments, old saws/myths and real Booolwah were repeated ad infinitum and add some nauseaum. Until recent years, maybe a decade, VERY FEW folks tested anything photographic using repeatable and measurable methods. Yes I have been frightened by the twenty-seventh hand reports of RC fading [ gotta qualify that as "post 1980"], but I've not seen it nor do I recall any seeing first person accounts. I DO have a buddy in south Arizona who I showed how fast RC paper clears in rapid fix, and he has had some test strips in his window- direct afternon sun- that were not visibly faded or discolored last I looked- after about 3 years- and despite 20 second fixing [ this is not scientific!!]

I have "warped" RC prints by letting them sit soaking for waaaay too long.
NOw to save water I use hypo clearing agent and 4 trays of sequential wash- that's more than mfrs recommendations, but LOTS less than accepted mythical practice.
But, no one is going to pay me a bunch of money for a print, and actuarily the chances of me outliving my prints is small indeed.

[rdenney]

Back when I did the wet stuff, I used both, but I ended up preferring Oriental Seagull RC VC paper. It had everything I wanted in a print, but maybe not everything the next guy wants.

And some of those prints have been hanging on the wall with no concern for preservation for 20 years with no visible evidence of deterioration. I did tone them in selenium.

Everyone has to compromise somewhere. For those who adopt an excruciatingly laborious process, their compromise is in the number of images they can make to that standard. The RC paper was my compromise with the time I had available, and I don't think I gave up all that much in the grand scheme of things.

It isn't just wash time, or tonality that is different, or that enters into one's situation. I found that I needed a (far too expensive at the time) dry-mount press to mount dried fiber prints because I could never get them to dry reasonably flat. With RC prints, I could mount with a number of different methods, even a hinge. That fit much better with my situation at the time.

A caution on using communal washers, if that's the way your university is set up: I learned the hard way that with fiber prints, the required wash time clock had to restart every time some idiot threw another print into the washer.

I did wash my RC prints for longer than the manufacturer recommended. I never had edge delamination, but the water where I lived was pretty hard and I didn't think a short wash time was sufficient. I washed my RC prints for a good half hour, and some ended up in the water for much longer. My archival washer only goes to 11x14, so I tray-washed 16x20 prints, and they have lasted as well as the smaller prints.

Rick "who did try both" Denney