Digital BW, The Print

Sarah,

I think others have mostly answered your questions--and you have to 
try these papers out for yourself.  But I would add a little:  the 
dmax of the VFA is the best (of the matte papers with K3) and a dmax 
difference of .05 is quite visible, and a difference of .10 is a 
completely different class of paper.  The VFA is pushing 1.8, unique 
among the matte papers with K3 inks.  I, too, don't want texture, but 
the texture of the VFA does not obscure detail.  It is apparent only 
if the angle of the light illuminating the print is acute.  This 
effect is no more apparent (probably less) than the obscuration that 
results from the sheen of a "glossy matte dried" silver print at the 
wrong angle.  After working with 15 or 20 papers, I find the Epson 
Ultra Smooth Fine Art my first choice.  Both of these papers are of 
very high quality and consistency, much better in this regard than 
anything else I have tried.  (The HPR that so many people love I have 
found only good by comparison, though they have a "famous" name.    
The USFA is also of better quality and consistency.)  The advantage 
of the USFA over VFA is not only the smoothness of the surface, but 
the lack of OBAs (brighteners), which I suspect are a liability over 
the long term.  Purely for *the image* in the present, the VFA is the 
standout for me.  So I'm still divided on these two papers.  With 
different inks (not the K3s) one would have a different experience.

Walt  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" 
<sagaface@y...> wrote:
>
> Lou, thanks for your comments. I had not heard much about Museo and 
it seems like 
> some of the heavy-weight, textured papers do have higher Dmax than 
others (is that due 
> to the optics of looking at the ink on textured surfaces? I thought 
it was supposed to be 
> glossy papers that gave more of an illusion of higher Dmax due to 
relfectance.....it's all 
> somehwat convoluted to me), which is a drag becuase I don't want 
texture. I also don't 
> want to get too hung up on micro-fine Dmax distinctions, but having 
said that it is still 
> important as there is so much deep black in my images.
> 
> I guess there is no such thing as a perfect paper, just ones that 
do the job better than 
> others, depending on what that job is and what tools you're using. 
I can't believe how 
> much $$ I have spent on ink and paper!
> 
> Thanks again,
> Sarah
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Louis Dina" 
<lbdina@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Sarah,
> > 
> > Some possibilities.....
> > 
> > Innova Papers are about 1/3 the price of the HPR.  Supposedly, 
some 
> > people from Hahnemuhle formed Innova, so the weight is similar.  
The 
> > Fiba-print and Smooth Cotton papers are acid free and have about 
the 
> > same Dmax as HPR.  I have just run a few Dmax tests, but haven't 
> > built any profiles or done any prints yet.  www.shadesofpaper.com 
has 
> > a sampler pack with two sheets each of 4 different Innova papers, 
if 
> > you are interested.  Included in the sampler are Cold Press Art 
and 
> > Soft Textured Art papers, but of which are much more textured.  I 
> > didn't see any mention of optical brighteners in any of the 
> > litereature, so you will probably have to ask Jim Doyle at Shades 
of 
> > Paper if they have any.
> > 
> > Another good paper at a reasonable price is Moab Entrada.  These 
> > papers are reasonably priced and coated on both sides.  The 
Bright 
> > White has optical Brighteners, but the Natural has none at all.  
Both 
> > are acid free.  I have lots of nice prints on both.  Moab papers 
had 
> > some paper dust problems initially, but they responded to 
complaints 
> > and are doing a good job now of shipping dust free product.  
> > 
> > Crane Museo II is a gorgeous, heavy paper (365 gsm), but has more 
> > texture than the ones mentioned above, more like the textured 
Innova 
> > papers.  It is more expensive than the above papers, but less 
than 
> > HPR.  Museo II is coated on both sides and the quality is 
superb.  
> > Dmax is comparable to HPR from what I have seen in my tests.  
> > 
> > Epson Velvet Fine Art is also a wonderful archival paper.  It has 
the 
> > best Dmax of any paper I have personally used so far (with UC-MK 
> > inkset), but is a little pricey.  Sheet sizes are limited, but 
> > available in 13x19.  One of my favorites.
> > 
> > Epson Enhanced Matte is also a great performer, but is not acid 
> > free.  Many have commented on yellowing, but I haven't seen any 
in my 
> > EEM prints (so far).  I use a fair amount of it, but not for 
prints I 
> > would sell.  It's not worth the risk to me.  Probably one of the 
best 
> > performers, right behind VFA.  Actually, I was testing the Innova 
> > papers looking for an acid-free archival EEM substitute that is 
> > reasonably priced.  They are nice papers but don't have quite as 
good 
> > a Dmax in my testing so far.  The smooth cotton and fiba-print 
are 
> > contenders with a similar smooth finish but heavier than EEM.
> > 
> > All the papers above are available in sheets, and many in rolls.  
I 
> > use them with both my 2200 and my 4000 with the UC inkset.  I 
have 
> > also used some of them with MIS UT-7 inks in my 2200 and they 
perform 
> > well.  FWIW, the 4000 driver seems a little weak on matte papers, 
but 
> > QTR (with standard UC inks) can hit higher Dmax levels than the 
> > driver.  I suspect the 4000 driver was set a little 
conservatively 
> > for matte papers, but Epson will never admit it.  The fact that I 
can 
> > get the 4000 to reach higher Dmax levels using QTR with UC inks 
tends 
> > to support this contention, so it isn't the printer itself.  This 
> > doesn't seem to be an issue with glossy, semigloss or luster 
media.  
> > I haven't had this issue with the 2200 and the 2200 driver, which 
> > seem to perform well with the standard UC inkset on matte 
papers.  
> > 
> > Hope this provides some food for thought.  
> > 
> > Lou
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "sagaface" 
> > <sagaface@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > I have read with great interest Clayton's article on papers but 
> > wondered what some of you 
> > > are gravitating towards, specifically, what are you all 
printing on 
> > for sale or exhibition? I 
> > > like HPR's characterisitcs...all except the price and the 
flaking. 
> > Ultrasmooth sounds 
> > > promising but I'm on a 2200 and would like sheets.
> > > 
> > > Anyone?
> > > 
> > > Sarah
> > >
> >
>