Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,329   Posts: 1,537,191   Online: 827
      
Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 92

Thread: The RC Myth.

  1. #41
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by VoidoidRamone
    ... each paper has it's strenghts and weaknesses, which is why there is both. -Grant
    No, both are produced because there is a market for both, it's a commercial factor at work. However your are quite correct in stating that they each have their strength and weaknesses.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  2. #42
    titrisol's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rotterdam
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,671
    Images
    8
    I favor RC lately, due to the convenience of procesing, but when I have "nailed" a print I make a few in FB, selenize/polysulfide them and voila!
    Mama took my APX away.....

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    193
    I'm a fiber snob that keeps being embarrassed by how good RC can look. Over 500 prints into head-to-had testing, I find I like MG Cooltone. And the new Polycontrast IV looks really good, too (a shade better than Cooltone, to my eye).

    That said, being a fan of glossy surface, I find most RC papers TOO glossy (they look plasticky) for my tastes. And, I still have found only one other paper that matches or exceeds Forte Elegance Polygrade V and Ilford Galerie, and that's Azo in Amidol...

    So I continue to say that if you're wash-water impaired (Santa Fe, for instance, where people should shower with friends during their continuing drought), RC is just fine, but otherwise there are better choices for the same cost.

    But in sum, I agree with those who stress that it's the picture that counts more than what it's printed on. A bad picture on beautiful paper is still a bad picture.

  4. #44
    argentic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Echandelys, Auvergne, France
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    Assuming the same image is printed equally well on both products of an equal finish, it is almost impossible to tell which medium is providing the support without physical help. Further if the finished print is displayed behind glass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used.
    Sorry Dave, but there are only two ways you can make such a statement. Either you have never compared the same image printed excellently on both papers. Or you should check your optician again.

    I sometimes have to print the same image, the best way I can, on both Ilford MGIV RC and FB for exhibitions. And I immediately see the difference. FB just has a more threedimensional quality. And I'm not the only one to see this. Non-photographing people around me notice the difference too. They cannot always describe it, but they almost always prefer the FB version. There really is a visible difference.

    I grant you that the difference is smaller when frames behind glass. But I still recognise the FB version at exhibitions.

    G.
    Wilbert
    http://www.photovergne.com
    Cours photo en Auvergne

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    468
    "...generally advocated within this forum that fibre paper gives superior printing results to resin coated material. May I offer the argument that this is false, misleading, and probably driven by snobbery?"
    I think from past experiences, (my own included) RC has problems with stability and because of it is not taken seriously.

    Snobbery, perhaps... But the pros for RC always seem to come down to how convenient it is to use.



    "Further if the finished print is displayed behind glass then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used. "
    So how can I tell when I look? There are often subtle clues, but often by looking on a bit of an angle, one can tell more by surface finish and "a look" that is difficult to articulate.



    "So, what argument can the forum offer for the exclusion of RC papers?"
    Longevity, surface finish, and that feel of holding something of substance in your hands.

    joe
    (fiber based print lover)

  6. #46
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,241
    Images
    20
    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Symchyshyn
    I think from past experiences, (my own included) RC has problems with stability and because of it is not taken seriously.

    Snobbery, perhaps... But the pros for RC always seem to come down to how convenient it is to use.
    Like they say, "live fast, die young."

  7. #47
    Dave Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Middle England
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,894
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by argentic
    Sorry Dave, but there are only two ways you can make such a statement. Either you have never compared the same image printed excellently on both papers. Or you should check your optician again.
    G.
    I have done both, but will take up your second suggestion again shortly.
    Regards Dave.

    An English Eye


  8. #48

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    965
    Images
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Miller
    I have done both, but will take up your second suggestion again shortly.
    I did this last week, and MAN, what a bummer. I am now the latest in my family with progressive lenses... It seems I have spasms (I can't spell) in the focusing muscles in my eyes.

    Oh, well, at least I'm not going blind.
    Last edited by Andre R. de Avillez; 08-30-2004 at 06:12 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #49
    mobtown_4x5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Baltimore
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    244
    "then it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell which type of paper was used. "


    Sorry, but I can tell. Fiber looks better to me.

  10. #50
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer
    Hi,
    I have noticed reference to single weight paper. Kodak has DISCONTINUED
    SW Polymax fiber paper. Soon the only thing they will have is discontinued
    products list !.

    Jennifer
    AHHHH CR@P!

    Alright! Who told Kodak that I have settled on Polymax 8x10 FB SW as my absolute favorite printing medium and am using it exclusively?
    Over the years I have shot literally miles of Ektachrome a hundred feet at a time and used lakes of E-6 chemistry, not to mention the color neg, paper and B&W. And yet... they just never seem to miss a chance to sit on my face at every opportunity. It's gotta be personal.

    Well, hopefully there will still be Polymax DW... at a dime a sheet more.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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