Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,174   Online: 710
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32

Thread: RC-V-FB

  1. #11
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    My dislike of RC paper is that when compared to fibre the image looks as though it is sitting on ther surface of RC, there is little impression of depth. I don't really understand why this is the case for I know that the emulsion is exactly the same on both papers, at least the Ilford papers.

    I have no problem with the longevity of RC papers, I made my first prints on Ilfospeed RC nearly 30 years ago and they are still perfectly sound, rubbish prints but no signs of deterioration.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    I agree with most of what has been stated, and use I too, have some 25+ year old RC prints (yes Les, know what you mean when you say rubbish prints).

    That being said, I would like to think that in the future (where is that place?) we may begin to lose some of our materials and I for one would rather have FB paper available, not RC. Just like the folks that prefer AZO and support it (as they should) I will support the papers I know I want to have around when I have more time for printing.

    Your view may differ...these are mine.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,879
    Images
    11
    It is very easy to determine if there is DI (Developer Incorporated) in a paper. Dissolve a couple tablespoons of sodium or potassium carbonate (or borax, etc) in about 500 ml of water and put in a sample of the exposed paper. If the paper has DI, it will develop.
    Tom Hoskinson
    ______________________________

    Everything is analog - even digital :D

  4. #14
    Alex Hawley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Kansas, USA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    2,895
    Images
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by lee
    I am of the opinion that not all RC papers are DI.
    This is true as you and Ole have noted. An easier way to tell is by reading the technical data on the paper. I have always found that DI is stated in the fineprint if it is used.

    Not all papers from the same manf. use DI. For example, Kodak polymax III contains DI while polymax II does not.

    I think RC can deliver quite nice prints given good technique. I prefer it without DI because I believe the DI is simply for non-fine art expediency.

    I also believe FB still has the edge in appearance, print control, tonal scale, and longevity. I've weened myself off of RC after working with FB for a while. FB may appear more difficult at first and it is more labor intensive, but in my opinion, the results are worth it. I've even come to prefer single weight paper over double weight. How's that for being retro?

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,627
    Images
    154
    The only impression I can add is: RC, the image sits on the surface . FB, the image saturates into the paper giving a longer value range. So the blacks and whites have more detail. Matte surface RC does extend the range a little more than glossy but loses saturated blacks.

    This is just my own conclusion with no tecknical data to back it up.
    Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    sao paulo - brazil
    Posts
    127
    Presently threre is no reason to say that RC papers have not archival properties.
    sergio caetano

  7. #17
    David Ruby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Boise, Idaho
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    203
    Images
    6
    I should know better then to jump into this, but....I'm a bit dissheartened that RC is getting such a bad rap. I'm pretty new to this, and I've really never used anything but RC paper. By reading some posts, I take it that this makes me a "hack" so-to-speak. Ok. I can take that.

    I'm not an artists making a living at this, I mainly do it for my own enjoyment. In fact, most of the prints I make I like to give away to the people whom I took the photo of. I think it's silly to argue if one can make a "true" expresive print on one paper vs. another. Heck, you can make something that is expresive out of found objects. Quality might be another issue altogether, and I'm in no place to go into that.

    This NG has peaked my interest however. I spent last night printing three winter landscapes that I took on my little ole Ricohmatic TLR. Of course I used RC, Kodak Polycontrast III, Lustre. Tonight (hopefully) I'm going to print those same images on some Kodak fibre that a friend gave me when moving. It should be a fun experiment, and I may have a better feel for what you all are discussing here. I'll let you know.....

  8. #18
    Ed Sukach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    4,520
    Images
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by David Ruby
    I should know better then to jump into this, but....I'm a bit dissheartened that RC is getting such a bad rap. I'm pretty new to this, and I've really never used anything but RC paper. By reading some posts, I take it that this makes me a "hack" so-to-speak. Ok. I can take that.
    Take heart - you are not alone. I've used both - from when there was *No* RC paper.

    My choice is RC - Ilford Multigrade "Portfolio" - and it is interesting to note how quickly Calumet, in this area, will turn this stuff around. Obviously there are other photographers involved with "fine art" who agree with me.

    This is not to *knock* anyone's choice. It is fine with me if anyone - or everyone - else uses something else ... what was it ... Potassium bi - or di (??) chromate and any fat will produce a light sensitive emulsion... see "milk" prints -- If that rings one's bell -- by ALL means - GO for it!!
    Carpe erratum!!

    Ed Sukach, FFP.

  9. #19
    Les McLean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Northern England on the Scottish border
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,610
    David Ruby Wrote:
    I should know better then to jump into this, but....I'm a bit dissheartened that RC is getting such a bad rap. I'm pretty new to this, and I've really never used anything but RC paper. By reading some posts, I take it that this makes me a "hack" so-to-speak. Ok. I can take that.

    David, as one of the people who was critical of RC in this thread I have to apologise if my post left you feeling a "hack", it certainly was not my intention to be critical of anyone who uses RC, after all, I made my first prints on plastic. The main thing is that you are making photographs and prints and enjoying it.
    [/b]

  10. #20
    Adrian Twiss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wigan (oop North) United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    611
    Images
    10
    As to developer incorporated papers. My experiences have left me to conclude that Forte Polygrade and Polywarmtone are not DI. They are both very responsive to different types of developer and also respond to two bath development.

    Apparently Ilford MG Cooltone is developer incorporated. I'm not 100% sure about Ilford MG IV or Warmtone.

    These are the only papers I have used for quite some time but have recently acquired some Kentmere Art Classic and Document Art (both FB) and look forward to see how they perform

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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