if you call kodak, they will tell you rc prints will outlast fiber prints.
it doesn't matter to me one or the other. if something is printed and processed well
it will look on any paper, rc, fiber, hand coated ...
sounds like a to each their own sort of thing.
As a matter of interest, this exact theme on resin was the subject of a Reader's Workshop I did a few weeks ago for Black & White Magazine (UK), which I sometimes contribute to. I think it will be in the next issue, but if not, the one after that.
All the best
In an archival chamber, likely so, but RC prints use a plastic coating that is more prone to damage from UV and air contaminants than selenium toned FB prints. So far, it is an observable situation that is true for any RC materials I have used. Ten years on your wall will invariably demonstrate the difference. That is my experience so far. In ten more years I will be able to tell you about "todays" materials. I doubt they are much different. So this is anecdotal and not the sales brochure specification. Just what I have observed so far.
For me the choise is fiscal. RC is cheaper to buy costs me less to wash as I am on a water meter and the finishes give me the look I want, I think Ilfords satin finish is the equal of most of the FB papers I have used. RC dries flat in 5 min. and a print can be printed and mounted in half an hour.
I do use FB as the only short coming I find with RC is the lack of a truly matt finish.
As for longtivity, they will see me out and after I am gone who will care? FB might last 300 years and RC only 70 but if no one wants them they will end up in the land fill with all the other rubbish. It is an unnessisary ego trip to worry too much about the work we produce, it only has value if it is wanted.
It is not that I will me the next Ansel and my photos will need to last a hundred years. It is the passing on of a family legacy that involves materials that will be viable in 100 years. I have photos of my great grandfather from the late 1800s that look better than the photos my folks took of me as a kid. The color is shot and so is the rest of that paper is too. My mom and dad's wedding photo looks like it was taken yesterday. The materials I work with will allow me to create what is enduring, I am satisfied. 70 years is unacceptable for an important image of people and places that will be of interest to my great grand kids. Selling an image that goes on someones wall requires a material that has staying power in sunlight and smoke filled rooms. RC is convenient - It looks OK. To me the fiber looks like art and I can see the difference in aging on my walls. For longevity and looks, I choose FB properly fixed, toned and washed. Not for everything and not every day, but for those images that will hang for a while or those images that mark something of generational interest, it is my gift to my great grandkids to produce something that will give them a heritage.
Better to have your prints on any silver paper, fibre or RC, than floating in space as digital bits and bytes.
intangible and vulnerable those bits are
Originally Posted by PHOTOTONE
Fhovie : here, here:
I think many of us underestimate the social history inherent in the photograph we create :
I have always believed that all photography is incredibly important...it may just be a picture, technically it may not be the best, but it tells a story and stays important to the person who took it and who or what it portrays and to a moment in time that can never be again.
I know our marketing director on occasions has referred to the advent of digital capture as the death of the shoebox in the cupboard..in other words, and in many cases the on-going story of a family...I guess we all have those boxes, and I guess some of those images are the most precious things you own, mono, colour, RC, fibre does it really matter ?
Simon ILFORD photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
If we're speaking purely in terms of image qualitative aspects, I tend to find that RC has better whites, while FB has better blacks. I always find that my FC print lack "meat" but I have to be very careful with FB not to let the whites go dull.
I usually push the sale of FB prints over RC for the extra quality in appearance and the fetishist delight in the object.
Simon's reply is spot on but the discussion on social photgraphy is a whole new thread;)
I usually proof on RC and if the image deserves it then I print on FB. However this weekend I was battling with a neg that had a very white sky. As much as I tried it wouldn't burn in sufficiently on RC and flashing the paper muddied the other tones just a little too much. I then printed it on FB (Ilford WT and Forte Polygrade) and managed to get a very nice burnt in tone in the areas that I couldn't with RC.
In terms of aesthetics a lot of punters, e.g. non photographers, prefer the look of my 5x7 glossy RC contact prints. Go figure:confused: