# RC vs Fiber



## loser101 (May 5, 2007)

I'm wondering what the difference is as far as the final picture look. Ive only used RC and from what ive seen fiber is harder to work with. I know fiber takes longer to develop and can put it through the drier thingy lol. So yeah what would be the difference between the final photo quality?

thanx,

oleg


----------



## Alpha (May 5, 2007)

The texture is slightly different. Standard FB paper has a bit of a sheen to it. It's beautiful stuff. Makes for better looking and more archival-quality prints due to it's composition and ability to absorb toner better than RC. Some people reserve only their best shots for fiber. If you've got the money (it is def a bit more expensive) and the patience to deal with the stop baths and the extra washing, it's well worth it.


----------



## ksmattfish (May 8, 2007)

Behind glass it's almost impossible to tell the difference.  John Sexton once compared FB to leather, and RC to vinyl.  That said, in many interviews even he has admitted that there was no real visual image quality difference in modern BW papers RC or FB (other than the surface texture, and toning issues).  FB doubles your processing time, but c'mon, that's like going from 3 min to 6 min.  If you can't spare another 3 minutes you probably wouldn't be printing your own.  

The longer wash times have to be dealt with, but with a print washer you don't have to be there.  FB does use a lot more water.  I used to keep both FB and RC stocked in my darkroom, but once the RC ran out I never restocked.  I also switched to TF-4 fixer, which is an alkaline fixer.  FB wash times are shorter in it than typical acid fixers.  Do some research on low water use archival washing, and much of the literature suggests that removing fixer is more about leeching it out than running water flowing over the paper.  I've been soak washing my larger gelatin silver prints for years now with no problems evidenced so far; we'll see how they look in 30 years  .


----------

