Is Rc paper archival?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : B&W Photo - Printing & Finishing : One Thread

How can I find out for sure? Is Resin Coated paper archival or not? Is there any technical data available on it's "lifespan"?

-- KL Vance (kmdrum@home.com), March 10, 2001

Answers

I have just invested the time in reading other threads on this subject - sorry for the redundancy...

I have never used fiber paper because of the extra time and money, but also because I have never thought my images were good enough to justify either.

However, not to be immodest, but my skill level is increasing, and I feel I might have a few images that I would like to preserve long term. Believe it or not, people actually pay me money to take their picture, and I have been published as well (book covers). I think that people respond to the subjects, poses and feeling that my images represent...and not to the image quality.

Personally, the more I learn, the more I look at my pictures and think, "yuk! who would buy this?" - but then again, what does the general public know, right? But for my own satisfaction, I am hesitantly moving toward, (gulp!) fiber paper...

So my question: how much of a problem will I have if I make "work" prints on RC, then save the fiber for printing the final image when I think I have it right? I'm sure there will be exposure differences, but would there happen to be any formula...such as: increase exposure by 15% and development by x, that sort of thing? Or is it totally random? It would seem there would be some kind of relationship between the two...

Any help out there? Thanks in advance.

-- KL Vance (kmdrum@home.com), March 10, 2001.


I print mostly on Ilford MG IV RC Deluxe and have been pleasantly surprised to find that the exposure data from it 'translates' very nicely to Ilford MG IV FB.

chris

-- Christian Harkness (chris.harkness@eudoramail.com), March 11, 2001.


I don't have any testing data on RC prints, but I do have a lot of RC prints made in the last 10 years with cracks, silver spots and brown spots. FB papers is not that different from RC, except it looks a whole lot better and will last longer. The FB prints I made 45 years ago still are in good shape, although my processing technique was not that great back then.

FB is not that more expensive and the processing times do not have to be much longer using the Ilford archival processing chemistry ro similar. A drymount press is a definite plus with FB paper, I picked up a nice one for about $200.

There has not been any RC paper in my darkroom for the last two years.

-- Gene Crumpler (photocrumpler@att.net), March 13, 2001.


To put this a bit provocative: RC is about as archival, or about as much in danger as FB. I made some literature and web research for an article some time ago on ther permanence of RC and FB papers. The paper manufacturers claim that the problems with the titanium dioxide in RC bases were solved some years ago by adding anti-oxidants. Whether you believe this or not, it didn't take long to find out that too often, it is indeed not the base that is in danger but the silver image itself. I was invited to Agfa's in the course of the research, and they showed me examples of prints, both RC and FB, which had been hung at a barber's shop. Practically all of them looked really bad after as little as a few weeks (silvering out, brown stain). I don't think I could say that the FB stuff looked much better than RC. Enquiries to other manufacturers seem to confirm this. Fotospeed, e.g., gave an expected print life of 60+/80+ years for properly processed RC and FB prints, respectively. So the jury is still out on this one, but the following is consensus:

1. Light is bad for prints. 2. Air pollution (including cigarette smoke, solvents, etc.) is bad for prints. 3. High humidity is bad for prints. 4. If permanence is to be ensured, you must use some kind of stabilisation, be it sulphiding, selenium or gold toning (which are only effective when taken to completion), or a stabilising agent, such as Agfa Sistan. 5. "Archival" stability is an illusion outside an archive with controlled environmental conditions. 6. A *little* residual hypo is good for prints, because it acts as a sulphiding agent.

Regards, Thomas Wollstein

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), March 13, 2001.


Thomas, I'm a little hesitant to come out in support of RC here, myself, as I know emotions on this forum run high about the astethic quality of fiber paper. But your closing papragraph is pretty much right on. I do a ton of printing on rc paper, and when I started here almost 10 years ago, I was something of a fiber base ("archival") printing fanatic. Over the years, I've learned that just about anyone can call something "archival", but the storage/viewing environment (light, air quality, temp, humidity, enclosures, etc.) is so important, that few things are actually "archival". There are all sorts of things that can doom even the most carefully processed, toned, image. My views on archival methods have shifted greatly to preserving negs/transp. first, then moving to your prints. However, if I were selling prints to clients, under the guise of an archival print, then I would make sure I could back this up. I don't think there's anything inherently evil, or wrong with RC paper. Aside from things like people saying they like "the feel" of fiber, and certain astethic qualities ( I still on occasion print fiber for nice photos to hang on my wall), I'm not convinced that just the fact that someone chooses to print on one material over the other makes them a "better" photographer, or even an "archival" one at that. I'm sure some of you will take issue with this, but if you can't make a good RC print, moving to fiber isn't going to help either. Now, we use RC here, but we do a large amount of production printing (fiber is not practical for this in any field), and short run exhibits where the prints will be continuously on display for 2-5 years or so, then they are pretty much thrown away. RC has worked admirably for this. I have seen RC prints from the 70's that have held up just as well as some (albeit poorly processed) fiber prints. When you talk of "preserving" your images, don't think it stops with making a fiber-based print. It also extends to storing your negs. properly. If that prints is damaged, or maybe maybe is not as "archival" as you believed, then having the neg. still intact is being "archival". All that stuff that happens to prints when they break down, happens to negs too. Sometimes it can be surprising how fast it can happen too.

I understand the appeal of fiber paper, so don't get me wrong here, but I'm just trying to offer another perspective on this case that I don't see too much of here.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), March 13, 2001.



Hi DK. Why hesitate to point out facts? I, too, like FB, and use it for most of my serious prints. Yet, archival permanence is not the killing argument. If you want real permanence, make platinum/palladium prints on rag paper. They might last for a few hundred years und good conditions.

Greeting, Thomas Wollstein

-- Thomas Wollstein (thomas_wollstein@web.de), March 14, 2001.


Thomas, you know I was thinking about what you were saying, and it struck me as the right response, because working in a history museum has given me the chance to see prints & negs/transp. in all different stages of their lives, and the effects of storage upon them. In my own personal work, I've learned to be very careful about claiming something to be archival. There are just so many variables involved, even beyond one's best intentions. I'm not saying that RC material will last as long as a properly processed/stored fiber print. But I do think it's important to figure out what the term "archival" means to you, as a photographer. If an RC print will last 25 years, maybe more, then perhaps this suits the purpose. To perhaps put it even more "provocatively" (as you say), RC paper is similar to the B&W film we shoot. It's coated onto a plastic base. Some base materials are more stable than others. There has been a fair amount of study as to the effects of temp./humidity, and atmospheric pollutants upon film bases (especially acetate). Alot of times, I read people's comments about the instability of RC materials, and wonder if they extend their concerns to the film they shoot as well. Just a thought, but I think neg. storage is not as glamorous (or fun) a topic as making prints, so it's easy just to accept the fact that since it's silver based B&W it's "archival".

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), March 14, 2001.

It seems we should add barber shops to the list of things that are bad for prints and suggest they are also not a good place to exhibit your work. I use RC for short term stuff like actors head shots which are often updated but I would not be comfortable with selling a"fine" print to someone if it was on RC. Poor processing can ruin any print on any suface. I have a small collection of vintage prints from flea markets and junk stores all printed on fibre, all looking very good without any special handling over the years, that is proof enough for me that fibre prints appear to be very stable.RC certainly has its place but why fix some thing if it is not broken.If you have a negative worth printing and preserving why take a chance for the sake of a few cents and some time.Your work is worth the effort, no?? Regards Steve

-- Steve MItchell (mitmad@telus.net), March 16, 2001.

Steve, that's a good point, but that's what I mean when I say figure out what your needs are. I agree that if you selling fine art prints to people, if they're going to frame and display them, and if you don't have any control over their future life, then yes use fiber based paper. Tone it as well, because untoned fiber is pretty vulnerable to atmospheric pollutants too. I think the point of the barber shop test, was that this was a good worst case scenario for them. I'll bet there were alot of byproducts from hair sprays (peroxides) etc. that just ate away those prints. Just like oil based paint would, or a carpet gassing off stuff, or auto exhaust, or pressed wooden shelving, or...

Now, in my completetly unscientific observations of various RC prints hanging on walls all around this bldg., v.s. ones I have at home, I can see various things. For one thing, I think it's dependent upon certain papers. Like MG II Rapid prints that turn that overall brown color (from the dev. incorporated layer going bad & staining) I have a toner ringaround test here in my office that I made about 5-6 yrs. ago. My "control" print was made on Polymax II. All prints were run through our Ilford 2150 processor with the dryer turned off, they were rewet, and toned in a variety of seleneium (at about 6 different dilutions, Viradon, and Polytoner (at 3 dilutions). I had a second ringaround made on Forte Polywarmtone RC paper, that was toned this way as well. This Forte paper was supposedly inferior to the Polymax (according to H. Wilhelm's observations), and yet it's untoned control has outlived the Polymax II. All the toned versions of the Polymax II paper look fine, including the ones with a very dilute (1:20) selenium. The control has silvered out and has form small redox, or reddish patterns on the areas of tonal change. I have also observed this on prints that are hanging on walls close to areas like a spray booth, or a woodshop. Identical copies of those prints in filing cabinets, or even old paper boxes, are okay. If a toned print, same paper, is in these areas, it appears to be fine. Our humidity stays fairly low in this bldg. (less than 40%RH), and it's cool. But, we have alot of fluorescent lights. Now, prints made this way, seem to fair much better under tungsten lighting, and in areas outside the bldg.

What does it all mean? I could draw some conclusions, but as I said it's not "scientific". I think it's safe to say, that you should tone everything. When you talk about time and the little extra cost of fiber, that may be the case for a fine-art print, or if you're not working in a production setting. But, that's what I mean too, when I say figure out what you need. For making reference prints that will be handled, short run exhibits, publicity uses, RC paper is great. I know you can tally up the time for an "archival sequence", but in reality these processing numbers aren't a practical guide. Especially if you're using a processor that runs in under a minute. Even my converted Thermaphot proc. at home runs a b&w rc print in 2 minutes. I tone and wash outside, and use an Arkay dryer. It's pretty efficient. For the sporadic freelance work I do, when I sell a print to client, I offer them a choice of a toned fiber base print, an RC, or a toned RC. I price this all realistically (not based on how much a sheet of paper costs), and I'm upfront with them about longevity. I let them decide what they want. That's why I'm rambling on here, if you are selling prints to clients, you need to be upfront with them about any concerns you might have. I don't view the "general public" (as was stated above) as being ignorant, nor do I try to decieve anyone about a print either. That's just bad business. That's also why I say to save your negs as best you can. I want to stand behind my work, I don't tell anyone an RC print is going to last as long as a fiber based one. But, I do believe they have a place in the darkroom.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), March 16, 2001.


I didn't mean that the general public wasn't capable of understanding the potential lifespan differences of RC and fiber. What I experience is that most people buy photos based on composition, not on image quality or technical expertise. Recognizing and appreciating a "fine art" print is not a skill that most people have.

Hmmm...I'm not sure this is coming out right. What I mean is that if I change to fiber, it will be more for me than for the people who buy my photographs.

BTW, I really appreciate all the thoughtful answers that I read on this forum. Most forums aren't like this.

-- KL Vance (kmdrum@home.com), March 16, 2001.



Is RC paper archival? No.

-- Michael D Fraser (mdfraser@earthlink.net), March 16, 2001.

Hmm...okay, I think I get an idea of what you're talking about, but for me a "fine art" print is the whole package. It could just be that because I am a photographer, I look at the technique/craft aspect as well, but I agree that there has to be something that makes people like one photo over another. And everyone has their own tastes. Now me, I've always considered myself to be more of an editorial photographer, and outside of working here, that's pretty much what I'd be.

Back to your original question though, no you won't find any accelerated tests for Life Expectancy of RC materials. Which is a real bummer, in a way. I know I didn't paint such a rosy picture in my description above, so I'll give you all a few more things to think about. I can look in this one area I'm talking about, and see machine processed Ilford MG IV Deluxe paper, untoned, that looks okay. I can see tray processed paper that looks fine, both Kodak, and Ilford untoned. There's a few Polycontrast II prints that are at least 13 yrs. old, that have been hanging on that wall for 6 yrs. or so, that are tray proc., untoned, that look fine. Now, this is a dev. incorporated paper too. In general, the tray processed untoned papers look better. So, it might be easy to dismiss the machine stuff as not getting washed well, or fixed right, but some brands do better than others. I have seen machine processed, untoned Polymax prints, having been on continuous display under mixed lighting (quartz & fluorescent) for several years on end, do just fine. The only reason why I'm saying all this, is that I think there are alot of variables that can come into play.

I've also seen quite a few older fiber prints that look pretty bad. Although, unless you've been watching them for the past 25-100 years, it's sort of hard to say what got them. I suspect alot of it was poor processing, using heated dryers with dirty belts, bad storage, bad mounting materials, lacquers, etc. What I'm talking about is a print that's come in with a collection that has been acquired. Old family photos. So, that pretty much sums up my viewpoint here. Regardless of which way you decide to go, don't sell yourself short with the technique/craft of printing. I do believe that even the untrained eye can appreciate a fine print.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), March 16, 2001.


Clyde Butcher in Florida has had to replace a number of his fine art prints that were printed on RC paper. Let's not beat this to death, but it's almost universally accepted that FB prints last a long time with proper prosessing, washing and potective toning. If you want your prints to look their best, FB is better. I've made a number of comparison prints on Ilford FB and RC papers and the FB almost always have more depth and luster. RC paper has a plastic look, since it is on a plastic base.

The only way you can resolve this for yourseld is to do side-by-side comparisons.

RC has it's place for many uses.

-- Gene Crumpler (nikonguy@att.net), March 16, 2001.


Hey Gene, yeah that has happened to some people. In a way it's similar to what happened with portrait studios and Ektacolor papers back in the 70s, but they were also using alot of color neg. film, so that wasn't so hot.. Sorry, if you all think I'm beating this to death, but I find the argument of which material looks better to be a personal/subjective one at that. I was merely trying to share some observations. If you get into a side by side comparison, you might want to try heat drying your RC prints as well. I know you're not going to have an infrared dryer like the 2150 has, but even a hair dryer will put a higher gloss, and a deeper black on an RC print. But as Gene says, longevity aside, it's up to you. That's it for me, I'll go back to lurking.

-- DK Thompson (kthompson@moh.dcr.state.nc.us), March 16, 2001.

Please don't go back to lurking!!! There are lots of people who come here to learn. I've tried other forums, but the people are sarcastic and live just to slam a newcomer.

I read all the Ansel Adams books, some of Picker's stuff, the Horenstein manual, and I pick my father-in-law's brain (he was a photographer in the navy). I try to do the very best that I can, and something must be working, because people buy my pictures...

...but for my own...artistic integrity, if you will, I want to improve and learn more.

That's why a place like this is so important. What is old hat to you might be new ground to someone else. Your generosity of spirit and time is appreciated. Of course there are different opinions, but that is healthy! That's how new ideas are spread and developed.

In the days and weeks to come, I hope to see even more helpful info. Thanks to everybody who took the time to answer!!

-- KL Vance (kmdrum@home.com), March 16, 2001.



Moderation questions? read the FAQ