Digital BW, The Print

Having tested a number of papers over the last month, I'd settled on 
VFA for tonal scale, but hoped to find something with less texture 
and similar tonal performance.  My final candidate (after testing the 
HPR/Red River Dourian, Hawk Mountain Condor, Arches, Crane and a few 
others) was the Epson USFA.  Note that all my work is done with the 
K3 inks.

I've profiled the paper and done several test prints, and here are my 
impressions:

1.  The paper does not have nearly the dmax of the VFA (about 1.75/L* 
14.23), but approximately the dmax of HPR (1.657/L* 16.53).  The USFA 
measures 1.660/L* 16.44.
2.  In looking at just the shadow areas of the USFA and HPR, they are 
essentially indistinguishable.  Neither has the very strong blacks of 
the VFA and this is a very apparent difference visually.
3.  In looking at the whole print, which has a wide tonal scale, the 
shadows look stronger on the USFA than on the HPR.  I believe this is 
becaused the dmin of the USFA is considerable better than the HPR 
(.014/L* 98.72 vs. .027/L*97.64).  The greater contrast of the USFA 
gives the visual impression of better shadows and a "punchier" tonal 
scale (though there is no shadow compression in the USFA, probably 
less than the HPR). 
4.  Although the USFA looks warm, it is not as warm, yellow or creamy 
as the Crane or Arches papers.  Like those two, it contains no OBAs.  
Both HPR and VFA contain OBAs, the latter more in my impression.  
Despite being cooler in color, a sheet of the HPR looks dingy and 
gray held alongside the USFA and the HPR prints look flat and a bit 
dingy in comparison.
5.  The USFA is a very luxurious paper in the hand, equalled only by 
the Arches to my taste.  It is about 350gsm and it is beautifully 
packed with an oversize box with a styrefoam "ring" to protect the 
corners and edges.  It is a very high grade, Ph-buffered paper.  The 
USFA costs less than the Arches, but slightly more than the HPR.  The 
USFA is, however, double-sided, which should save some money in 
botched test prints.  I have heard suggested that the USFA is 
actually Premeier Hot Press Fine Art, which might be less expensive.
6.  Although I am disappointed in the dmax, this paper would be my 
second choice after the VFA, particularly where the VFA texture might 
be objectionable (although I don't find that the VFA texture 
interferes with detail unless the print is lit at an angle).
7.  Finally, I am guessing the tonal performance of the VFA is partly 
a product of the texture, rather than incidental to it.  Perhaps the 
textured surface can hold more ink or reflects light differently.  
The VFA is unrivalled in my experience for a full-scale matte print 
with the K3 inks.

So, I think the USFA is quite good, but not the smooth-VFA panacea 
I'd hoped for.

Walt