Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,499   Posts: 1,543,240   Online: 1002
      

View Poll Results: Is resin coated paper real B&W printing?

Voters
88. You may not vote on this poll
  • NO. Fibre is the ONLY real B&W way to print!

    32 36.36%
  • Yes, of course. RC papers are as real as fibre

    56 63.64%
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

Thread: Fibre Only?

  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,025
    Quote Originally Posted by bmac
    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.
    Dito, tho for sale it is FB. RC is perfect for evolving prints and proofing.

  2. #12
    Monophoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,691
    Images
    44
    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.

  3. #13
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,279
    Images
    20
    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.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  4. #14
    jovo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Jacksonville, Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,085
    Images
    191
    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.
    John Voss

    My Blog

  5. #15
    Juraj Kovacik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Bratislava, Slovakia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    475
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    35
    I use RC for proof prints only

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    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.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    3,242

    life expectancy

    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.

  8. #18
    kwmullet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Denton, TX, US
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    889
    Images
    16
    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.

    -KwM-
    Last edited by kwmullet; 01-10-2005 at 08:38 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: my Freudian slip was showing. replaced 'digital' with 'RC'.

  9. #19
    geraldatwork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Hicksville, NY
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    414
    Images
    24
    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.
    "When elephants fight it is the grass that suffers"
    African proverb

    IRAQNAM is Bush's legacy

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by geraldatwork
    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.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin