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. After all it is the emulsion that we look at, not the sub-carrier. So, why do we make life even more difficult, and expensive for ourselves than it already is? I accept that some fibre papers tone a little better than their resin counterparts, and certain processes will not work on RC, but thatís mainly because the emulsion type required isnít available on that bearer. Iím thinking here of Bromoil, and Lith as examples.
So, what argument can the forum offer for the exclusion of RC papers?
It is not or Fiber or RC
But and, and...

And right you are, it is the content of the image that counts, even on newspaper quality a good image keeps "standing".


It's almost impossible to distinguish fiber or rc...
But it is!
Even when it is displayed behind glass.
Many times fiber prints are not presented behind glass (books)
And some of us show their images without glass protection.

Fiber has more life, ther is more dept in it.
When you dry it on glass it receives an extra element...

I think, one has to optimalize his fiber-workflow at a maximum, so that it is not a pain to work with fiber papers. (working with analyser, mounting press, and so on).

For some of us, making a final print isn't a 5 minute job, but more an 4 hours work.
So RC or Fiber it makes not much difference.

Photography Live has to be difficult :-)
Photography don't accept lazyness... :-)