I have recently started using San Miguel photo lab for my B&W work. I'm very pleased with there quality and work. My concern is the fact that they only use RC paper. I have always read and heard that fiber base paper is more archival then RC. When asked this question of San Miguel there reply was "We print on RC papers because the emultions are more advanced than those of fiber papers allowing us to create higher quality images. The latest evidence is that RC papers, when properly processed as they are here, last every bit as long as fiber papers". Any input on this would be appreciated and I thank you for your reply. Curtis Buyser

-- Curtis Buyser (cbphoto@premierweb.net), April 13, 1999

Answers

I have been a B &W darkroom worker for about 45 years. Recently I purchased a variety of RC papers to try to see how the current crop looks.

I tried Forte- Agfa- Kodak- Illford-

My conclusions are that they are vastly improved from the early RC papers. The Kodak has by far the nicest blacks but it is developer incorporated which kind of scares me. The Illford is nice. The Forte is very nice. My personal favorite is probably the Agfa.

I have heard rumors about some instability problems with Agfa so I contacted them. They stated that about a year ago the made improvements to their product and it is now much more stable. They also referred me to an article written by "Ctein" which deals with this subject. Apparently he was very critical of RC papers but in his most recent article, he has changed his mind.

Can anyone tell me where to find these Ctein articles?

Thanks

-- WES MARTINSON (WESMARTINSON@USA.NET), April 13, 1999.

For the Ctein articles, I think you want the magazine Photo Techniques. Ctein has been doing a series of articles on enlarging, and while I don't have the specific one you want, I expect that it is one of the last several issues. CAUTION. There are two magazines with almost identical names. One is published across the pond in England. That's the other one. The one I am referring to is published in the U.S. (out of Chicago, I think).

-- Richard Newman (rnewman@snip.net), April 13, 1999.

A Ctein article is in the March/April 1998 Photo techniques, I presume that it is the one in question.

The bottom line...tone with selenium or treat rc in Sistan, but the jury is still out on the long term stability of rc.

I would suggest that if you are in doubt take the most consevative approach possible. FB paper, PROPERLY processed, including a toning in selenium.

Some big name, high dollar photographers, have had to re-do rc prints that went sour (they would upgrade to FB, at the buyers expense of course). As far as rc being more advanced, I don't think so, that to me is just marketing B.S. The latest and greatest FB from Ilford or Zone VI Brilliant, my choice of papers, will create an image that is stunning, and superior to any rc print in depth and tone, just ask me and I'll tell you :^).

-- Marv (mthompson@clinton.net), April 14, 1999.

Ask the lab if they treat with selenium toner or sistan as a final step. They very well might, or might do it if you ask. Or you could rewet the prints and do it yourself if they won't. A weak (1:20) selenium bath is sufficient as I undersatnd it. By the way the problems reported in Ctein's studies are realted to RC prints framed behind glass shortly after processing. Prints stored loose or in a box do not exhibit the "plating out" stability problem.

-- Peter Thoshinsky (camerabug1@msn.com), April 18, 1999.

Marv is right. Compare prints on RC and FB papers and you will notice a difference. I've abandoned RC papers and intend to use only FB papers from now on(getting a dry mount press also helps with this). Also FB papers take selenim toning for richer blacks, where as RC papers are not affected by selenium.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

>>> ...RC papers are not affected by selenium.

That may be true for some papers, but not for Ilford Multigrade RC, where selenium certainly does deepen the blacks, and gives a very slight colour shift.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 27, 1999.

Alan:

I was referring to Ilford RC. I've done side-by-side prints with Ilford IV MG in both FB and RC and also testing where I cut prints in half and toned only half and I can't see that RC exhibits any difference. FB blacks are definitely deepened to the point that I allow for both dry down and toning in determining the final exposure. (about 8% reduction in final exposure over the wet print in the fix). I've baned RC papers from my new darkroom!

You experience is different?!?

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@emji.net), May 27, 1999.

Yes, certainly. This is using Ilford Multigrade developer 1+9, and Kodak Selenium Toner 1+4. Testing it by 'painting' it on to the print darkens the tones in that area very substantially, still very visible on the washed and dried print. The darkening is almost instantaneous. The colour change, with a couple of minutes in the toner, is a very very slight cooling. It might be more substantial with a longer time in the toner.

I haven't measured the changes with a densitometer, but it looks as if it darkens the mid-greys more (in proportion) than the blacks. If that is the case, then it gives me a chemical mechanism for reducing the 'gamma', in the computer sense, i.e. pulling down the central portion of the characteristic curve.

I don't selenium tone all my photos, and I don't adjust the exposure time to compensate.

Please understand, I'm not advocating RC above FB, merely relating my own experience. If someone prefers the look, or feel, of FB, that is fine. I'm personally not concerned about the archival properties of my photos, because those made (untoned) a quarter of a century ago are still technically fine but artistically most of them are rubbish. For me, the benefits of RC are that it enables me to print more quickly and expand my vision, and that interests me much more than how they will look when I am dead. Other people will have other priorities.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 27, 1999.

Alan:

Using concentrated toner will probably effect RC. I only use selenium toner at 20:1 to improve the blacks, get rid of the slight greenish color of Ilford paper and for permanence(although my prints are not so great that need to survive a 100 years)!?!

Gene

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@emji.net), May 27, 1999.

Alan;

Have you looked at Ilford Archival Processing? It nearly matches the processing speed of RC processing. 23 minutes total from the time the print hits the developer to the time it hits the drying screens. I've adopted it to get the benefits of FB and still keep total darkroom time down. According to the technical paper published in 1986, the process gives lower residual silver salts and sulfur content in prints then traditional processing methods.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@waorldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

One more point(I've been doing a lot of changing in my darkroom routines). I found the the blacks are much better with Ethol LPD than Ilford multigrade developer. I used the Ilford developer for several years, but tried LPD because of skin problems. I was impressed with the difference in the color of Ilford paper when using LPD at the maximum recommended concentration. And my darkroom rash has gone!

Hopefully I now have my new e-mail address correct!

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), May 27, 1999.

Yes, that explains the apparent difference in results: with selenium at 1+19, I also could see no tone or colour change on Multigrade RC.

The time from exposure to drying screen isn't of major importance to me, but the time required from me is. If I could set up a 'production line' that didn't keep me away from the enlarger (including spending time flattening prints etc) that would suit me fine. What I really need is a larger darkroom, and/or a darkroom assistant. A good print washer would also help, along with a dryer, and a less temperamental enlarger. Ho hum, I can dream.

Ethol LPD sounds good, there is much praise for it in this forum. Unfortunately, I've never seen it here in the UK, and it's not listed on the Silverprint site.

Unfortunately, I've recently got split grade printing working. I say 'unfortunately' because it is a little more time-consuming, and I've realised that many of my negatives will look much better with this technique, increasing my darkroom backlog even more.

My apologies for drifting rather a long way from the topic. I should add, for Curtis, that there is (for me) a trade-off between RC and FB. If FB demands more time for processing, then there is less time for the creative work, and this might explain San Miguel's statement that "the [RC] emulsions are more advanced than those of fiber papers allowing us to create higher quality images". I certainly wouldn't say that RC papers are intrinsically higher quality then FB.

I'm hoping to spend time and money later this year on producing some highest-possible-quality images, and will doubtless be experimenting with different papers and developers.

-- Alan Gibson (Alan.Gibson@technologist.com), May 28, 1999.

Alan:

I did a little experimenting over the weekend and I tried toning a couple of MG RC prints in 20:1 selenium. After 15 minutes of toning, I noticed some deeping of the blacks, although not dramatic. I was salvaging a print made a few months ago and decided to try toning, before reprinting on FB paper. I decided not to reprint after the 15 minutes fo toning. So RC paper will take some toning, but not enough to reconsider my decision to give up RC papers.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), June 01, 1999.

Hmmm, after reading this thread I printed two identical prints (from the same negative). Two using Ilford MG-IV RC Pearl and the one using Ilford MG-IV FB Double weight Glossy. I washed both prints for 20 minutes, placed in PermaWash for 2 minutes then washed agin for 20 minutes then toned one of the RC prints and the FB in Kodak Rapid Selenium toner 1:9 for 6 minutes. The RC Pearl print showed a significant color change from a greenish tint to a deep purple/black. The FB print also exhibited a similar change.

After drying I viewed both prints and displayed them to a number of people in the office. The bottom line was that most people found no difference in preference in the two prints. Obviously the texture was different. One person liked the RC Pearl print better due to the surface.

Personally, I had a slight preference for the RC print as well. I almost always print Ilford MG-IV FB Glossy. This was the first time I used the RC Pearl. I need to spend some more time viewing these prints but I am quite surprised by the results.

Conclusion....RC paper especially the Ilford Pearl has come a long way.

-- Mike Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), July 20, 1999.

There is only one answer to it: STORAGE. Storage conditions determine longivity. Microfilm stored dry at -180C is expected to last for 1000 years. Prints might do as well. But when stored at high humidity/200C AND sunlit none will last for long. Some artists state they switched to platinum/palladium because of the archival quality (platinotypes are said to last 500 years). Balloney. Again, it is all dependend upon how the neg or prints are stored. Archival does NOT mean permanent. Nothing in this world is permanent. Well stored any well fixed/washed print will survive you. The more important question is, whether it is WORTH being kept. I've seen some pretty boring/meaningless platinum/palladium prints I've come to think that sometimes deterioriation is a gift from heaven.

-- c.becker (chribeck@mdc-berlin.de), November 26, 1999.