 |
 |
Articles / TULARC / Recreation / Photography / Darkroom Work / |  |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
   |
|
||
|
6.1. Resin-coated of Fiber-based paper? |
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
|
Articles / TULARC / Recreation / Photography / Darkroom Work / | |
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
6.1. Resin-coated of Fiber-based paper? |
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
This article is from the Darkroom
Work FAQ, by Cees de Groot
Which one you will use depends on a lot of things. First, the facts:
o FB paper has proven archival qualities (given proper processing). That's why collectors, musea, etc. often insist on FB.
o RC paper has shown good keeping qualities in accellerated aging tests. If it is just for yourself, friends and family, I think you can rest assured that it will keep the rest of your life. But, until RC paper has been on the market for another 100 years, it's not called archival.
o RC paper is much easier to process. It is especially easy to wash and dry, and it won't curl.
o FB paper is less sensitive to the temperatures in a dry-mount press.
o FB paper can be kept wet for a very long time, whereas with RC paper, you risk separation of the layers.
Then the opinions: there are people who simply like the look and feel of FB paper better. You should decide that for yourself, of course. Invest in a small package of both, that will give you a better answer than asking the newsgroup.
Continue to:
darkroom, photography, water, chemicals, film processing, kodak, enlarger, developer
|
|
|
|
 |
|