Re: Fiber base paper vs RC paper quality

If one is printing snapshots with no regard for archival properties then RC paper works fine. However if one is printing a serious photograph there can hardly be any question of which paper to use. I suppose due to the lack of silver content RC paper cannot retain the detail of a full range negative. Just as important is the ability of fiber base paper to be selenium toned. And modern day fiber base papers do not contain the silver content of papers manufactured in the period from the 1930s up through the 1950s or 1960s. That is why photographs made during this era do not have the same look as photographs made during the old days. I think I read once where some well known photographer when notified Kodak was discontinuing a particular fiber base paper purchased all of their remaining stock and put it in cold storage.

-- Dell Elzey (potog@mindspring.com), October 12, 1997

Answers

From experience printing the same negs on both Fibre based and RC papers, the RC version of Multigrade IV has a longer tonal range than the fibre based papers. Brighter whites & blacks that are really deep. I still prefer the Fibre paper because it gives the 'feel' & depth I prefer even tho the densitomiter shows the RC to have the greater range from black to white. I can also take my newer paper & compare to and AA original & the newer ones aren't in any way inferior. They keep getting better. As far as I can see we are better off now than ever with B&W papers that are as good as or better than they have ever been. I see only more improvement in the future. The only read disadvantage of RC right now is its different surface effect. I love its glossy surface but wish it were available in one that would give the same effect or look as the fibre paper surface. Then, the archival question. With all the date we have, RC should last as long or longer than fibre papers due to less absorption of humidity, etc. The base should be more stable & the silver is only coated on top of it. We won't really know, despite all the testing, until the hundred years have passed. But I print the same images on both RC & fibre, and in asking other fine printers to compare, they seem to choose pretty evenly between the two. I print on what I want for the final image effect. But I tend to print more on fibre papers-mainly because it gives me what I want. Both Ilford & Kodak say there should be no difference but it still comes down to how I want my images to look. That personal preference is enough for me as I am the sole judge of how the final image looks. As for which is 'better', that one is still open to debate.

-- Dan Smith (shooter@brigham.net), October 12, 1997.

FB vs RC

Dan is correct. Until the introduction of Ilford MG IV RC, plastic paper was pretty good, but suffered in comparison to fiber paper. Ilford has turned that around with their MG IV. In many ways, it is the best paper I have used! Especially in the critical highlight area! Geez, the stuff even tones well! Now if only it weren't plastic!! MG IV FB, while still best VC fiber paper, is just not quite as good in the top end as their RC. FB WT is a little better, but it is warm tone and expensive. As far as the surface on RC, the pearl surface is quite pleasing and when framed under glass (or plexi) is very attractive. My main reservation is the plastic; will it yellow, crack, or flake? I just don't take chances when making archival exhibiton prints. As to the old, high silver bromide papers of bygone eras: you can get this same quality from Zone VI. Their Brilliant II is a silver saturated(!) bromide emulsion available in grades 1 thru 4. I still get my best prints using VC paper, but the old formula paper is out there for you, if you want it.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), October 18, 1997.