Anyone use double weight RC paper?

Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by Arcturus, Oct 21, 2013.

  1. Arcturus

    Arcturus Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Ilford offers a double weight RC paper that looks interesting. Does anyone have any experience with this paper? I've been getting good results with RC paper and am mulling over a switch to fiber paper but don't know if it's worth the extra cost and effort. Is double weight RC paper a viable alternative, or is there no substitute for fiber paper?
     
  2. miha

    miha Member

    Messages:
    1,217
    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2007
    Location:
    Slovenia
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Ilford Portfolio is my preferred RC paper, but it's even dearer that their FB paper. I have no experience with the new version of this paper which was released two years ago.
     
  3. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    16,809
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    The Ilford Postcard paper is on the double weight Portfolio stock. If you join in the APUG Postcard exchanges you will get to see how it holds up to the rigours of the postal system.

    The heavier paper is nice to work with, and more durable if the prints are going to be handles a lot. Otherwise, the regular Ilford RC paper is of similar, very high quality.
     
  4. BMbikerider

    BMbikerider Member

    Messages:
    825
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2012
    Location:
    County Durha
    Shooter:
    35mm
    The double weight RC paper is almost the same price as FB paper so there is no competition really except it takes a lot less washing afterwards
     
  5. Arcturus

    Arcturus Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    That sounds good, I think I'll give it a try.
     
  6. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,211
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    if you intent to sell your prints,there is no substitude to FBpaper.has to do with perceived valueand your reputation as a printer.it's worth the extra money and effort.you cannot advertise 'archival'quality otherwise.
     
  7. Arcturus

    Arcturus Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I've thought about this and doing some research I found that most people don't know anything about paper and are more interested in the photo than the process. Even some people who claim to be photographers know pretty much nothing about paper. Only collectors will note things like paper type, and being an almost unknown I am well out of their area of interest. I think I will still switch to FB paper eventually, but I feel the extra effort will be lost on most.
     
  8. ROL

    ROL Member

    Messages:
    792
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Location:
    California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Well, if you believe the proselytizing ad nauseum in this ponderous video, regarding the archival nature of platinum prints, I would say fiber gets you a lot closer to archival, whatever that is, than RC.
     
  9. eddie

    eddie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,979
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Vir
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    It may be lost on most, but shouldn't be lost on you. The creation of the photo has to please you, and your requirements. If you're intent is to produce the finest image your eye/ability allows, fiber is the only choice. I don't see the use of fiber as "extra effort". I see the use of RC (with the exception of proof sheets) as a lack of proper effort, shortchanging the image's potential. If an image is worth printing, it's worth printing on fiber.
     
  10. Arcturus

    Arcturus Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Is there a difference in the actual image? I've never used FB paper before, but I thought the main differences were in how they felt. If the image quality is better I will be switching as soon as I can. My prints are all framed though, I feel it's important to the presentation. So if no one can tell the difference without holding it in their hands would it still be worthwhile to use FB paper?
     
  11. eddie

    eddie Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,979
    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Vir
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think there is, although it's less noticeable under glass. There is a difference in print longevity, though. The extra time in producing a fiber print will ensure that it lasts. In the grand scheme of things, the extra effort involved in making fiber prints isn't that much, when considering the print's lifespan. For me, the few minutes saved, using RC paper, isn't worth the potential loss of image quality over the decades to come.
     
  12. Arcturus

    Arcturus Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Interesting, I'll give FB a try after I run out of RC this time.
     
  13. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    16,809
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    Delta, BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    On the subject of longevity....

    Fibre based papers have the history that proves their potential longevity, whereas modern, quality RC papers are the subject of projections that assert they will be long lasting.

    There are adverse conditions that RC may withstand better than fibre based paper.

    In either case, if you properly process and finish and store/present your prints, they will last for a long time.

    I print RC almost exclusively. I like the results I obtain. If I had a dedicated darkroom and a reasonable amount of space, I would use both.
     
  14. Arcturus

    Arcturus Member

    Messages:
    94
    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I went to a gallery showing today and they had a number of prints of musicians from all different time periods. They were all framed and the process labeled. They were all large prints, over 20 inches, and I really didn't notice a difference from RC or FB paper. There were RC portraits from the 1970's that were side by side to FB and "archival pigment transfer prints" which I think were modern inkjet prints. I didn't see any noticeable difference or degradation of the RC paper, and that was old paper from the 70's. It was labeled as RC, but that was the only visible difference, at least to me.
     
  15. RalphLambrecht

    RalphLambrecht Subscriber

    Messages:
    8,211
    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Location:
    Florida
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    also, RC PAPERS ARE MORE FORGIVING to processing mistakes such as under washing than FB papers.
     
  16. brian steinberger

    brian steinberger Member

    Messages:
    2,561
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2007
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter:
    Med. Format RF
    I'm a seasoned FB printer but appreciate RC's ease of use and nice flat laying qualities and feel. Nice for small prints, 8x10 and 5x7. Larger prints look and feel better on FB. But I've been intrigued by Portfolio RC for sometime and may have to try it out. It may change me over to RC for most of my work, as my time of late is much more limited.