[Ryuji]

I do use FB and have no problem with them, but for the types of images I produce, RC works better due to brighter base. Seriously, many images I make look far better on RC than FB. The key is to select the surface texture carefully, and process and tone the RC prints with equal attention that you would give to FB prints. Another reason I don't post much about FB is that there are good info about them already but there is not much useful info for serious users of RC paper.

People are concerned about the longevity of RC, but with papers I tested (they are all made by AGFA or ILFORD after c. 1995) I haven't seen any problem that cannot be prevented by polysulfide toning, and indeed this is what I do anyway, so I am not concerned. Indeed, color papers on market today are also RC and they are also heavily tested by manufacturers and third party labs, and they conclude the limiting factor is the lifetime of the dye and not support. With b&w images the standard accelerated testing condition is high concentration of peroxide fume in high humidity as the silver image is the weakest point and this weakness is most accurately measured by peroxide fuming. Silver sulfide is very stable and extremely resistant against peroxide and other oxidative attacks. On the other hand, the color materials are tested with a host of compounds as well as lighting conditions because the color dyes can be degraded by several ways. Many of these testing conditons are also harsh to the paper base as well. It's worthwhile noticing that those tests of color RC papers didn't find problems that are fatal to the support. Silver sulfide is more stable than color dyes used in those papers, and the support is very durable. The choice between FB and RC should be made primarily based on the aesthetics not outdated opinions of poorer RC permanence.