Is fiber paper worth the additional cost for selling prints compared to rc paper?

[LabRat]

There are pros & cons to both, but a primary concern is production facilities, time, and space for the resale prints...

Fiber will have a richer, longer scale, but more expensive and many little steps to follow to get a flat mountable print for sales... But worth the effort for high-end work...

RC is much more poo-pooed, but can produce nice results fairly quickly in limited space if careful and last a reasonably long time... The glossy surface is the clearest surface today without effort, and final prints will be reasonably flat that dry quickly... The MG grades are versatile, and wet times are short... The clarity of glossy surface is easily scannable so it is also used for prints to be used in publishing (even fine foto books)...

One tip is RC is the wet time should be short as possible, meaning in development time should be slightly shorter than full time or print can look harsher, a fresh rapid fixer at film strength for a shorter time than fiber, then straight to a single print wash for manufacturers recommended minimum time, as excessive wash time leads to water piping into print edges that can cause uneven flatness and can cause future surface peeling when exposed to regular bright lights later... Prints can be dipped it very dilute photo-flo + distilled water bath before wiping with a slightly damp photo sponge after draining excess water, and dried hung or face up on blotters (should be totally dry in less than half-hour... Prints can be flat enough to be archival taped along top on backing board, then over matted and be pretty flat if careful...

For production work, can be nice enough, but gotta keep the wet time low, and best to finish one print at a time during shorter process...

Steve K

[jnantz]

Behind glass RC prints look as beautiful as FB prints, the problem ( as Photo Engineer over on Photrio would talk about ) is "outgassing" of the substrate. This doesn't happen all the time just under certain conditions and it always seems to happen when the print is in a frame. The result of the outgassing is something called "silvering out" so some of the silver on the print turns to something like metallic silver, shiny like an aged and oxidized old black and white #55 polaroid. Maybe something like AG STAB, or selenium toning the prints, something that converts the silver into something else will rectify this silvering out issue, I have no clue. Unfortunately it's more chemicals to use, and deal with their hazards and disposal issues.

===
sorry Oren I repeated what you said, didn't see it.
It's pages 155-16x in Ctien's book, free download off the link Oren posted!

[neil poulsen]

I tried some RC paper when I was in my 20's. Instinctively, I wanted nothing more to do with that "paper". Since then, RC "paper" has never again made its way into my darkroom.

. . . I have some 30 YO framed RC prints hanging on my walls and all of them have bronzed to various extents. I live in the 'burbs and air quality is good - much better than when Cleveland still had steel mills. I don't know if current Ilford RC papers have the same problem. Loose RC prints from the same time that are stored in flat files look fine.

I have framed, dry-mounted, fiber-based photographs that were printed decades ago, and they all look like they did (to my eye) the day they were mounted. None of them have shown any deterioration.

The above says it all for me. It appears that my instincts were right on target.

[Tin Can]

Recently I bought four 30 sheet Promo boxes of Ilford 8X10, B&H

3 Pearl
1 Glossy

I wonder which I prefer

I believe Ilford has vastly improved RC in the last 25 years

[Jim Noel]

Over the decades of making B&W prints have developed an absolute dis-like for RC paper. They look like artificial RC plastic pix.

Fiber base B&W paper usually comes in gloss or matt, of these two the gloss is preferred and has been that way to this day.


Bernice

I totally agree with you. I see no value in the use of RC regardless of price. Some say they use it to see if an image is worth printing on fiber paper, toning, etc.
The 2 prints will be too different to help with this decision.

[sperdynamite]

I've been recently having a 'how I learned to stop worrying and love RC' moment personally. Mostly due to time constraints and frustration with print flattening. Seal presses are super hard to find and always a bit more than I think they 'aught' to cost. I have been using merely as a flattener, the Arkay print dryer I have but it sometimes leaves the edges curly.

Personally with the newest MG paper from Ilford I think it's a bit foolish to proof and contact on fiber. You can do 90% of your work on RC and then when it's time for that show or gift or sale, you do a run on fiber. The previous generation of RC papers looked noticeably worse than FB stocks, but this new one is really nice.

[Bernice Loui]

Part of the print making process often involved finishing the print in some way. Historically for silver gelatin prints it was dry mounting on high quality acid free mat board. This was part of the print making process from loading film to making the print to finishing the print as the goal's end result.

At some point, the cost of Foto materials should far exceed the cost of gear as the rational for gear should be driven by print making. This means the "gear" needed to mount and finish the print, regardless of RC or fiber based print papers.

IMO, some folks complain about the cost of a good mounting press, paper cutter and all related but not even a flinch dropping $$$$ on a "new fangled camera or lens or ..." then ignore the needs of the print making process.



Bernice

[xkaes]

IMO, some folks complain about the cost of a good mounting press, paper cutter and all related but not even a flinch dropping $$$$ on a "new fangled camera or lens or ..." then ignore the needs of the print making process.

Bernice

That same line of thinking is probably at work when people buy incredibly expensive digital cameras, justifying it with "I'll never have to pay for film and processing again".

But you are correct. Paying for post-processing material -- mounting boards, mats, cutters, frames, glass, press, etc. -- really adds up, even if you buy in bulk -- and it takes a lot of time. Which reminds me -- I've got to get back into the habit of looking frames at my local GOODWILL store.

[Tin Can]

I have all those tools and learned to use them 23 years ago

I have fancy boxes filled with interleaved Hot mount on 23 year old Light Impressions matt board

and plenty of that good old LI matt board still sealed

I for one am tired of 'experts' banging their drums

A few years ago every expert had classes that few could afford as the travel, time, gear and 'expert' guy add up

Nobody does Print exchanged any more, my 2 were mounted FB. Duh!

and I doubt we survive to 2023

I feel no shame in doing what I want, when I want and how I want

I also suspect many of the loudest Experts are good friends with the suppliers and get deals

Salesmen and their lackeys do lie

[John Olsen]

I've been using the same Ilford papers as the OP in FB and RC. Over 30 years both have improved greatly. I trust the RC to give a good test print, but it's the FB versions that have the full depth. As Drew says, if the buyer doesn't care, RC is fine. But if you've got an image that you care about, only the FB is right. The added time? If you're doing film, you've already committed to a time-consuming method. Having done so, go all the way!