Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'B&W: Film, Paper, Chemistry' started by modafoto, Jan 10, 2005.
I have for a long time wanted to ask this question.
For those who have voted for Fibre and against RC, what is your reason? For me, RC just looks right some times. Other times Fiber is the only way to go.
for me, fiber is for the final work.. RC is used for quick contact prints and to test a neg to see what burning/dodging work i need to do before applying it all onto a fiber print.
I'm not voting on this one. They're both as "real", but FB often looks better IMO. NOt always, though - and if I'm making a big stack of prints for someone else (not "fine art", I'll happily use RC.
I am not up to having a vote on what is best. But I have seen here on APUG that fibre is the only way to go with B&W printing...so I want to know how many means that RC is not to be used for serious prints.
Agree with general sentiments here. RC is perfect for commercial work, any print for repro, and contact sheets. RC behind glass is quite hard to tell from FB. BUT ... FB certainly has a richer black, is more tactile, is infinitely easier to retouch and is a must for any toning process involving bleaching (RC emulsion will soften and literally fall off the base).
I'm another that's voted that both are real. My preference is usually for FB but each have their own uses and look. To say that only FB is real would be restricting the materials available and almost class dividing like the arguments between oil and watercolour.
I find RC to give me great results. I am doing a bit of fibre, but don't get good results (yet). I will work a lot more with fibre, but think the elite's opinion on fibre as the ONLY REAL paper and RC as a toy and for the non-serious is CR*P. I like RC and it makes GREAT prints for me and my customers are very happy with them. Maybe RC is not as good as FB (can't really say what is the best as it is subjective), but surely very usable for the final print!
My 2 dimes!
Morten the thing that has struck me recently is that why we as photographers debate the merrits of FB -v- RC, many non-photographers I give work to who I shoot in public such as street shoots prefer the look of RC Glossy. That has the advantage of making them happy because they prefer the look and me happy as it's quicker to process and less expensive.
I prefer FB paper for my final prints. RC paper I use for contacts, work in progress prints, and in school. The ease and speed of RC is a plus, but I prefer the look of a well printed FB.
Dito, tho for sale it is FB. RC is perfect for evolving prints and proofing.
I really like fiber, but there are times when RC is perfectly acceptable. Workshops and other learning situations, proof sheets, and prints that will be sent away with no hope of return (eg, for contests or publlcation) are excellent applications for RC.
RC is okay for proofs, certain kinds of prints for reproduction, prints that are going to be handled a lot or not mounted, postcards, and other ephemera. My "real" B&W work, though, is on fiber.
When I first returned to photography some years ago, I was delighted with the results I got with RC and made a portfolio of about 15 images I was happy with for a couple of workshops I was to take. At the workshops, however, I was amazed at just how much better the FB prints looked...no contest really. I went home and reprinted most of the portfolio then and it made a BIG difference, at least to me. So....I agree with many above....RC is excellent for a lot of 'work' processes, but just doesn't cut it for display of one's best work. I can't ever say that RC isn't good though so I vote with the both are 'real' group.
I use RC for proof prints only
A few days ago, I was going through some boxes of photographs. To my eye, the RC prints have a quality about them that is immediately appealing. They have a snappy look that grabs attention. Fiber prints are more subtle. I like them both.
Ever notice how otherwise old photos, even mediorcre ones, have a special aura because they are of time that has gone for good. I believe that an archivally processed and toned...selenium, gold or sulphide..fibre based print will last for centuries. I also prefer the look of an air dried glossy fiber based print. I believe that RC prints have questionable archival quality. I only wished that I could work in carbon. Too expensive for me.
I didn't vote because I don't think of one as "real" and the other as not real.
I do print everything I print using FB, though. If I'm going to prybar a darkroom session into my day, I don't want to devote the time necessary to an RC print.
For me, at least, printing with RC is like cooking with a great recipe, but ingredients that aren't fresh.
I didn't vote because neither choice suited the way I feel. 90% of what I print is fiber and feel the look of RC is definitely inferior. But there are times I print RC such as for contact prints and for family members. Also my postcards are on the Ilford RC stock. So as many others I can't say fiber is the "only" way to go.
The vote is about the acknowledgement of RC as a real B&W paper.
I guess I am pretty alone with my RC prints...but then I might just remove my inferior and disgusting RC scans from the gallery...damn
...and I only shoot 35mm and some Holga...damn I am not into the fine-art-smart-fibre-only-society
Do ya need a shoulder to cry on
don't worry i'm not in the fine art-fibre-only-society either but at least we have our Rodinal
No...I just think that fibre isn't a holy cow...
I don't either.
My favorite is Ilford MGIV portfolio... in whatever surface.
I *love* this paper.