Digital BW, The Print

I've  printed on Ilford MG Fiber (and RC for proof sheets) for over 20
years.  When I started printing digital (Epson 4000, now 7800) I kept
looking for a paper similar to MG Fiber.  About 4 months  ago I tried
Kodak Premium Rapid-Dry Glossy Paper for my medium format color work
and liked it a lot.  I decided to give it a try for B/W and found I
actually prefer it to any other paper for B/W also.  The Kodak paper
is not a very close match to the MG Fiber... in my opinion it is
BETTER! I always wanted more shine/gloss with my air dried MG fiber
prints BUT did not want the plastic  MG RC look.  The Kodak paper
achieves this look, i.e. increased shine and more 'depth' without a
plastic RC look.  I have a 24 x 32 inch Kodak print surrounded by
about 8 11 x 14 MG FB prints in my living room.  Eventually I intend
to reprint or replace all the MG FB prints with prints on the Kodak
paper. ( Note, my remarks refer to prints not mounted behind glass.)

If you give the Kodak Premium Glossy a try I suggest you also consider
coating it with Premier Art Print Shield.  This increases the surface
shine and completely eliminates any gloss differential (either in the
highlights or shadow areas).  I use the Advanced B/W mode with my 7800
and am very happy with the results.

Ken


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roderick Vesper"
<rod@...> wrote:
>
> So, I've just made the conversion to a Digital Darkroom and love
what I am able to get out 
> of my R2400.  I have made prints of some of my medium format images
that I have 
> traditional versions of hanging on my walls and the similarities are
staggering.  There are 
> even some things I like better about the digital print.  
> 
> I'm currently printing on Premium Lustre, and was wondering if there
is a paper that more 
> closely resembles the "look" of a glossy fiber paper.  In the
darkroom I would use Illford 
> Multigrade.
> 
> I think it's just psychological but the digital prints on premium
lustre look a little too much 
> like RC prints, which I equate with non-archival, proof prints, etc.
 And I'm afraid that if I 
> try to show B&W work on it, it will have the same psychological
effect on any 
> photographers who view my work as well (well, traditionalists at least.)
>