Quote Originally Posted by lee
The fiber issue is one of longevity really. RC is just not meant to last like the fiber paper. Some will argue but it is a demonstrated phenomena. A great majority of galleries and museums will not accept RC for that very reason. For proofs it is ok. I don't want to start a war here but this is the way I feel about it.
APUG is the *last* place I'd ever expect to see a "war". This place is wonderfully tolerant of differing opinions. Someone just asked me why I was on here.. my answer was, "I can even be *wrong* without having my fingers broken.

I've developed a preference for one particular paper: Ilford MG Portfolio -- which is "RC" paper. Again, the late and *sorely missed* Camera and Darkroom had an extensive article about the construction and longevity of "Resin Coated" - as compared to "Fiber Based" papers. Two significant differences were that FB has an emulsion applied to a "Baryta" (a form of white clay) support, and, with RC, the emulsion is applied to Titanum Oxide (typical white pigment in oils); and, of course, the polyethelene encapsulation of the (usually) paper fiber base. The emulsions themselves were the same.

C&D concluded that there was *no* significant difference in longevity between the two.

Ilford "Portfolio" is in demand here in this area - I've managed to stockpile four or five packages of 16" x 20" (ordered and waited for).

This is the first time I've heard of a gallery - of any sort - refusing RC prints.