I don't think acrylic paint is in anyway deemed less than oil. I don't think acrylic paintings are automatically deemed inferior to oil paintings. Eventually I think RC paper will attain the same status.
Jackson Pollock painted almost exclusively using latex paint and his are among the most valuable ever.
I use RC for testing. Not that it is "unworthy" for fine art, I just prefer the tactile feel of the fiber paper, and the subjective "look" of it.
See above regarding desilvering, Ctien and others demonstrated that it definitely was an issue. (See "Post Exposure", now a free pdf.) possibly it still is an issue. Depending on how it's dried, you can get veiling - Ctein descibes that too. That will mess up your perception of tonality, so some people are going to have a legitimate beef - that's specific to their process. Finally, with VC papers (not just RC) you can hit an exposure/negative combo that puts an important tone right on the split between blue and green response curves, which can look dreadful, and since almost all RC paper people would have used in school would be VC paper, it wouldn't be hard to accidentally conclude that RC paper had worse tonality. So, yeah people were right to question using the stuff, but no, not all the logical conclusions they came to work out.
It's worth noting that despite all the difficulties RC paper presents, Ctien happily turned out print after print using a fast desktop processor unit. (Albeit he went back and re-fixed his prints, just to be sure.)
Its also worth pointing out that the problems identified by ctein et al were a good number of years ago, and Ilford more recently have stated repeatedly that the source of the issues were identified and corrected for the current generation of rc papers
According to Ilford spec sheets both RC multigrade IV and FB multigrade classic have 7 full grades of contrast.
Interestingly enough they have more tech info available for the RC paper.
I have no idea whether RC is "as good as" fiber (or vice versa) I just don't like the way RC feels in my hand, I don't like it's plastic-y "chemical" smell, or the sheen the surface takes on. I do like the quick processing, though, but I don't use it.
Mike
Politically, aerodynamically, and fashionably incorrect.
Originally Posted by Will Frostmill
See this thread I recently posted
after contacting Ctein about the "sealed in a frame" issues. Apparently, even 20 years ago, RC paper had been improved sufficiently so that selenium toning was adequate to preclude problems.
I'm not sure what smell you're referring to. Despite an extraordinarily low olfactory threshold (search for my many complaints about reeking Toyo film holders, Chinese textiles, etc.), I've not detected any repulsive smells from either modern RC or fiber-based photographic papers.
I do vastly prefer the surface of Ilford (all I've used so far, but perhaps others' equivalents too) Pearl RC paper to any currently available glossy fiber-based paper. The latter are all too damn shiny. If only a variable-contrast, low- or no-brightener fiber-based paper were offered that matched the gloss of my F-surface Azo stash, I'd be very happy.
As things stand, given that I neither sell nor hope to place prints with museums (I'd only use fiber-based paper in those cases), I'm quite content using Multigrade Warmtone RC, developed in Adox Multigrade developer, then toned in selenium. I even have no trouble mounting it in a press at 180 degrees F, using Colormount, at sizes up to 11x14.
"Grades of contrast" has nothing to do with DMax or viewed print density range, which is itself affected by both responsiveness to toners, sheen, and character of the paper itself. In color prints, we overlook much of this due to the dominance of color itself. Maybe library-like setting will accept RC prints, but I've never personally encountered any serious institutional or private collector interest in them. "Better safe than sorry" seems to be the mantra, even if this doesn't jive
with the custom when it comes to collecting color. Better take a second look at that Ilford literature - One of the things they tout about FB Ilfobrom is its track record. Anyone can learn to drymount RC prints in a heat press given the right supplies. Whether you can tolerate the orangepeel and sheen blotching is another question, or the occasional bonding failures of low-temp adhesives. Most pro framers gave up on that approach a long time ago.
I don't consider 180 degrees F low temperature. It's the same temperature I use with Colormount for fiber-based prints. Never a bonding failure with either type of print paper.
As for orange peel and "sheen blotching," on Rising mat board or the acid- and lignin-free buffered album pages I use, neither are visible.
R.Duchamp; please get some of both and spend a couple evenings or days testing.
I use both RC and Fiber paper. Probably about 90% RC paper. I like Oriental RC VC Glossy and Ilford's RC papers. Tons of contact proofs, a few prints as gifts or personal use on RC paper. I have prints I made in the late 80's on RC paper which have no de-silvering or fading or other problems. It is quality.
I think there is a tiny advantage in some of the glossy fiber papers which I reserve for prints being exhibited, etc.. Maybe the RC is too glossy? I haven't figured it out, but for some things, fiber glossy is better for than RC glossy. I don't ferrotype it it; just leave it as almost glossy. I like Ilford and Foma FB papers. Then the Ilford Art300 (FB) paper is in a category by itself. The texture is very nice for some things.
I don't have problems with either RC of FB paper in the drymount press when done right. My way of doing it wrong is not to dry out the sandwich before doing the drymounting as I live in a humid area. A damp matboard in there will drive moisture toward the print which makes the gelatin sticky and that's bad.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks