Me and my RC?

[Ironage]

I've been working in fiber and RC and am really liking RC paper. So, much simpler, and results are great! Are collectors taking RC prints serious these days?

[Toyon]

They should be, since many archival inkjet prints are supercoated. You should tell potential buyers that they are buying a genuine photo-sensitive print, not merely a reproduction of information from a photo-sensitive chip.

[Dan Henderson]

I have not used RC paper for several years, but I still recall the nicer "feel" of fiber based paper in my hand compared to the plasticky feel of RC. I have no idea whether "collectors" take RC prints seriously. All I know is that I like my prints better on fiber vs resin coated paper. And once you get used to using it, I'm not sure that RC is really "simpler" than FB.

[ROL]

So, much simpler...

Yeah, that's what collectors appreciate all right (probably not). Are you selling to collectors? If not, I doubt whether anyone else cares much about anything other than the image and the frame (:eek:), including many galleries these days. From my perspective, there is no inherent difference between RC and non–fiber inkjets/pigments. But then, I'm not a collector, just another opinionated out–of–the–loop fiber printer (i.e., a*^hole). It's all a matter of increasingly indiscernible degrees. Do what makes ya happy. In the end, that's all that really counts.

[rdenney]

I'd have to market my images as objets d'art, because the images themselves might not otherwise be strong enough to appeal to "collectors." For that, the craftsmanship story is probably part of the schtick, which would probably exclude me on those grounds, too.

But if I was selling to people at flea markets who just like pretty pictures for their walls, I doubt it would matter.

All conventional color prints are resin coated, by the way, including those from photographers with star power like Cindy Sherman, whose print seems to hold the record for auction price at the moment.

My own RC prints from decades ago still look fine, hanging on my walls. And I sure as heck paid a lot for 'em, heh.

Rick "who has never sold a print to a collector, but who has bought a few" Denney

[Ironage]

Do what makes ya happy. In the end, that's all that really counts.

That would be a vote for RC!

[Ironage]

but I still recall the nicer "feel" of fiber based paper in my hand compared to the plasticky feel of RC.

I like it too, but only when the prints have been flattened. They all come out wavy and curly right now.

[Cletus]

I like RC paper for its 'simplicity' (and lower cost) for making work prints, test prints, experimenting, printing maps, prints for "friends" who don't know the difference but want a print, contact prints from rollfilm, etc., etc., etc..

When I make final prints to go into my portfolio, or on my wall - I've never sold one to a collector either - I use FB paper and would not use RC. I personally don't think RC should be used for finished fine prints. To me that would detract significantly from the inherent value of the photograph as an objet d'art, as Rick has already called it. And is a term which I agree with. :)