I do home processing of casual kid portraits and generally print on Ilford RC papers. A friend insisted I was ripping people off by selling them prints on RC. My stuff looks great (generally ;-) but will the RC paper hold up? Will I be getting calls "Hey this print is crumbling into dust after a year!" ? I charge a very reasonable rate and RC is the only way to keep my overhead low enough to offer good b&w prints to customers and make a profit.

-- Garry Segal (bluesngr@ix.netcom.com), September 08, 1999

Answers

RC paper longevity has improved in the last few years, according to the manufacturers. That said, I have 15 year old RC prints that look just fine, kept in albums, accordion folders, and frames. Never put a print directly against glass in a frame. Type C (negative) color prints have been RC only for a long, long time and it seems the color dyes (red first) fade before the paper breaks down. IMHO there are three things you can do to greatly extend the life of your prints, RC or fiber: two bath fixing, proper washing and selenium toning. I do the first two. RC paper is easier to wash and dry, so I can devote more time to actual printing. Some say, with varying degrees of hyperbole, that fiber paper prints look better than RC. Not to my eye, just different types of surface finish.

-- Tim Brown (brrownt@ase.com), September 09, 1999.

Recently I participated in a workshop with Clyde Butcher in Miami ( www.cydebutcher.com ). Clyde displayed a number of 20x30 Ilford MG IV RC prints that had been returned by customers. Areas of the image had discolored. Clyde explained that the silver had somehow oxidized. All of Clydes images has been archivally processed and toned in selenium.

I believe Etien has published an artice in Photo Techniques that outlines the chemistry and physics behind the RC problem. Clyde has had to reprint dozens of images (at his cost) and replace them for customers. Needless to say he now prints on FB papers.

In answer to your questions;

1. Will RC paper hold up? Maybe, but for what period of time? No one can really say.

2. Will you be getting call.... Clyde Butcher did, perhaps you will also.

The cost between RC papers and FB papers is really minor when compared to the time and effort it takes to craft a fine print. Why gamble. After all the final print is the product you are selling to express your talent and ability.

Here is an example of paper cost; Multigrade IV Fiber Base 8x10 100 Sheets Glossy $55.59 (Calumet) Multigrade IV RC Deluxe 8X10 100 Sheets Glossy $40.00 (Calumet)

Lets see, Fiber Base - $55.59/100= $0.56 / Sheet Resin Coat - $40.09/100= $0.40 / Sheet

Your statement that that you need to keep your overhead low to make a profit is a key to any business. However, if your prints go bad, replacing them will certainly cost you more the the 16 cents a sheet difference.

My recommendation would be to use FB papers. Raise your price $0.16/print and not worry about your images "crumbling into dust".

Regards and good luck, Mike

-- Michael J. Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), September 09, 1999.

Michael just gave you some very good advice. Pat

-- pat j. krentz (krentz@cci-29palms.com), September 10, 1999.

Thankyou for the help Michael. I have been fighting this RC vs FB for a while now and you have put it in monetary terms more easily understood by all. When anyone prints their own images and uses RC they are just missing the true beauty of their images. I have found that the main point that people use for continuing to use RC is the cost factor. It doesn't cost that much more for what you get in the end. A great print commensurate with the strength of the image of course. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), September 10, 1999.

There is one other thing that I wish to contribute to this thread. Although I do not doubt that there are some folks who can not see a difference between fiber and RC prints, I must say that for me, the difference is dramatic.

I have a gallery of my landscape images here in my office. As an architect I tend to be very detail oriented and somewhat of a perfectionist. The depth and range of tonality in my fiber prints is certainly very noticeable. Clients and friends come into the office a comment about the "presence" of the FB images.

I have used the same "fine print" processing and archival techniques for both FB and RC images. The RC images that I have made are certainly lovely in every sense. But the FB images have that little extra that makes a truly outstanding print. (I am not saying that my images are compositionally outstanding pieces of art mind you!)

For me, if I am going to spend that much time and effort in quest of an expressive print, you can bet that I will make every effort and use the finest quality material to ensure that I have done my best to provide the quality that that image deserves.

"The most talented architect may create the finest building design, but sloppy tradesmen will reduce it to simply pedestrian"

Thanks Mike

-- Michael J. Kravit (mkravit@mindspring.com), September 10, 1999.

I've recently switched back to FB papers after several years of using RC papers. I recently pulled out several RC prints and compared them side-by-side with the FB prints I am now making. WOW-The selenium toned FB prints "sing" while the FB prints are dull, like a coating of dust has settled on them. I am comparing Ilford MG IV, non ferrotyped glossy FB and Pearle RC. I will never print exhibution prints on RC again!!

I never liked glossy RC papers as they look to "plastic"

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@worldnet.att.net), September 10, 1999.

Hey I'm not that cheap! I posted the original question and mentioned my overhead with RC vs fiber. I was referrring to the added time it takes to process the fb papers not the .16 difference. I do agree fb is better...but RC is not bad or wrong in any way. I dont do proofing and I generally print up all the good poses on 5X7 rc and let the client choose or give them a break if they get all of them. I found using a contact sheet was to confusing to most people. That is why the shorter process time with rc is key to making it all work out.

-- Garry Segal (bluesngr@ix.netcom.com), September 20, 1999.