It seems to be generally advocated within this forum that fibre paper gives superior printing results to resin coated material. May I offer the argument that this is false, misleading, and probably driven by snobbery? Assuming the same image is printed equally well on both products of an equal finish, it is almost impossible to tell which medium is providing the support without physical help. Further if the finished print is displayed behind glass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used. After all it is the emulsion that we look at, not the sub-carrier. So, why do we make life even more difficult, and expensive for ourselves than it already is? I accept that some fibre papers tone a little better than their resin counterparts, and certain processes will not work on RC, but thats mainly because the emulsion type required isnt available on that bearer. Im thinking here of Bromoil, and Lith as examples. So, what argument can the forum offer for the exclusion of RC papers?