Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,953   Posts: 1,522,754   Online: 990
      
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    678
    Images
    11

    Do you wish RC papers were thicker?

    I find them too thin. Old AGFA RC paper were on par with todays Portfolio paper from Ilford, everything elese on the market is thinner.
    I would use much more of RC paper if thicker as I rarely frame finished prints.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Trier, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    97
    I do. Portfolio is just right.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,740
    You could be right, but I never had a problem with RC paper being to thin.

    Jeff

  4. #4
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    I do. I think modern RC papers seem to be pretty darn capable and potentially as archival (??), but cannot stand using such a thin sheet! Drives me nuts.
    K.S. Klain

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    20
    Why, since RC is mainly for work prints, quick commercial and handout head shots. No serious B&W fine printer used RC for finished work.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    678
    Images
    11
    Some prefer RC to FB, serious or not

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Slovenia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    678
    Images
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by ndrs View Post
    I do. Portfolio is just right.
    Have you tried the new one, released in 2011? It is said to be on an even thicker base.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    15,930
    Quote Originally Posted by ndrs View Post
    I do. Portfolio is just right.
    +1
    ask me how ..

  9. #9
    Roger Cole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Suburbs of Atlanta, GA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelph View Post
    Why, since RC is mainly for work prints, quick commercial and handout head shots. No serious B&W fine printer used RC for finished work.
    Simple "we've always done it this way and the early RC papers were awful" bias.

    I do print my finished prints intended for framing on FB, but today's best RC papers are do darn good I often wonder why I bother with the hassle. This is especially true of 16x20s and the ease with which thoroughly wet DWFB is creased or otherwise damaged in handling.

  10. #10
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Cole View Post
    Simple "we've always done it this way and the early RC papers were awful" bias.

    I do print my finished prints intended for framing on FB, but today's best RC papers are do darn good I often wonder why I bother with the hassle. This is especially true of 16x20s and the ease with which thoroughly wet DWFB is creased or otherwise damaged in handling.
    ^ This
    K.S. Klain

Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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