RC advocates please chime in

[RodinalDuchamp]

I've had this conversation in person with a few friends and we seem to be split.

The argument is that fiber based paper is inherently better than RC paper in every aspect. The response is that RC paper had been used successfully now for decades.

1. I've been told that fiber paper had better latitude. Based on this more Gray tones can be pulled out of a print.

2. Fiber paper lasts much longer ( I agree with this but not sure if it matters once the print is circulating in the market)

I am really interested in this claim that fiber paper had more latitude.

I know for sure all traditional color prints are done on RC. I know the MOMA has RC black and white traditional prints in its collection.

If RC is good enough to be in the MOMA's collection what is the divide for? I feel at a certain point it's preferential but many printers hold on to the idea that fiber based paper inherently makes better prints I assume this is because of the latitude claim.

I have no real dog in this fight I want to be a spectator and hear what you seasoned guys have to say.

I print a lot on RC but I've printed on fiber also. Honestly besides the feel in hand and surface textures I haven't been convinced fiber makes better prints. I am from the thinking that good negatives make good prints.

[Bruce Barlow]

Years ago I made a lot of tests. At that time, Kodak Polycontrast 4 RC was pretty darn good in direct comparison (same neg, exposure to have comparable prints) to Seagull, Ilford Multigrade FB, Bergger, and several others. Not quite Galerie, but little is. Since it was so good, of course Kodak almost immediately discontinued it.

I think the smart photographer does what I did, and makes some direct comparisons. He or she invests a couple hours, and sees for one's self.

I use the cheapest RC I can find for proofing. Way good enough for photography.

[vinny]

ya lost me..........."The argument is that fiber based paper is inherently better than fiber paper in every aspect." but I agree. Fiber is better than fiber so that's what I use.

[RodinalDuchamp]

Woops sorry. Edited for correction.

Fiber is inherently better than RC in every aspect.

[LabRat]

If you need a perfect smooth gloss for scanning/reproduction prints, RC has it...

Steve K

[RodinalDuchamp]

Well let's keep the conversation based on physical prints/characteristics. I wonder if anyone has actual literature on the respective latitudes.

[Michael R]

1. I've been told that fiber paper had better latitude. Based on this more Gray tones can be pulled out of a print.

This is not correct. The emulsions in current RC papers offer all the tonality FB papers do. In fact from the perspective of sheer reflection density range, RC papers can exceed the range of FB papers in some cases.

RC papers have also come a long way in terms of "archival" characteristics.

For me the main issue is the tactile/surface characteristics. I prefer FB glossy and don't like any of the RC surfaces. But that's simply a personal aesthetic preference regarding the physical characteristics of the papers, and has nothing to do with tonality (ie "gray tones" etc.).

[RodinalDuchamp]

Michael,

I can't tell the difference. I have to agree with you. Besides the tactile/surface aesthetics I believe them to be generally very close if not identical.

Now some also raise the question of price. Well fiber is more expensive it HAS to be better right? Well maybe it's the added security of archival quality that they are selling at this point and that's fair. Fiber is older, tried and true this come with a certain premium.

[RodinalDuchamp]

By the way I have contacted Ilford directly regarding this question and will post their response if they do respond.

[Drew Wiley]

If you like the look of certain RC papers, go for it. But you will have an uphill battle in terms of how collectors perceive these, if that is the kind of thing you havein mind rather than just commercial work. Most of the color C-prints, which are indeed a form of RC, once collected and shown by museums have probably either
faded or discolored into oblivion unless they're of a relatively recent generation of more stable Fuji dyes. Museums show a lot of things for public interest which
aren't necessarily permanent. Some of these are sold to private collectors after showings if they're too big to be realistically archived, which is often the case today when big has become too big to store anywhere. But I'm not aware of any RC paper that could legitimately be termed "premium" in terms of richness.
It's always been a price point and convenience market. Another issue is that they don't drymount well, so unless they're pretty small, don't look all that good
in a frame.