</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RAP @ Mar 3 2003, 10:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
RC papers are taboo for fine art. .... That he nearly went broke having to reprint many of his RC prints because they were deteriorating? Apparently, RC papers are not archival. But RC does have commercial value when large quantities of prints are needed and permenence are not a factor.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>
The late - and greatly lamented - Camera and Darkroom had an extensive article of an analysis of RC papers. The major differences lie in the polyethelene encapsulation of the paper base layer -- (there are exceptions - at least one RC does have a plastic base) and the necessity - and subsequent subsitution of titanium oxide (common white pigment) for the old baryta (white clay) layer. From the titanium oxide up, the emulsions are essentially the *same* for both RC and Fiber papers (the usual warm/cool etc., differences noted).
C&D suggested that deterioration could well be caused by many other factors - one of the most common they specifically noted was the exposure to phenols outgassing from oil-based paints .... likely affecting ALL papers. Another could well be the matting and mounting materials - at least one company is marketing acid - alkaline - phenol free - and balanced everything else - materials for - you guessed it - additional money.
I am using Agfa "Sistan". Should be useful in extending the permanence of RC - and all other papers.