Digital BW, The Print

Thanks so much for the detailed and inspiring response Clayton. 

> PR is a great paper, Dourian is the same stuff.  I use Dourian because
> it's double sided, so a bit more economical.

Ok. I'll let my naivete show. Why do you print on both sides? Is it
because you display your photos in albums? If so, which ones do you
recommend? Heck, I'm still used to mounting photos with a press.
:)
 
 > >BTW, just how archival are these cotton papers compared with
> >Heavywgt. Matte?
> 
> I don't know the HWM rating, but all of the ones I listed are acid
> free, etc. They are all in the chart in the Paper Chase article, which
> shows the important specs.  

 I'm not sure what the Paper Chase article is.
The HWM is rated 150 years by Epson. I wonder if we'll live to see if
they are exaggerating!


> >I used TX with HC-110 
> 
> My favorite as well.  I found a dilute solution that still gave
> HC-110's famous sharp edgy look but without golf ball grain. 
> Beautiful negs and prints.  Tri-X/HC-110 has got to be the all-time
> champion classic combination.  It should be in a photo Hall of Fame. 

  Yes. I remember the first time I tried TX. I used FG-7 as the
developer. Ugh! So much grain. I also was using the Kodak ASA rating
or 4000 and their development times. I then took a darkroom seminar
with Fred Picker. He spoke about HC-110 (1:31) and the testing needed
to find my own personal ASA valid for my shutter, and, also how to
calculate the true develpment time for TX with my equipment. He said
that Kodak was over-developing the film to push the ASA up.
 Well, the ASA I wound up using was 280 or so. And, the development
time was a minute or 2 less than what Kodak specified. (They were
pushing the ASA by overdeveloping, hence, more grain)
 Viola! TX became a fine grain film! The difference was amazing,
breathtaking!
 And, I agree, I was not pleased with the T-Max films compared with TX.

> "Affordable" is relative, of course.  Probably the Canon 5D is the
> best thing going right now, 12mp and about $3K.  

   Hmmm....I could afford the 5D. But, what would a couple of basic
lenses cost me?

 >8mp is enough to make acceptable 11x14s and
> still have room to crop.  I consider it to be the minimum acceptable
> resolution.

   Is it just me or is it hard to find 11X14 paper nowadays? I really
like that size and would use it a lot more if I could find it! Which
of your favorite papers come in 11X14?

> My experience is that we need to keep on hand at least a
> representative selection of the different types because not all images
> look best on the same paper.  For K3 at the very least I'd recommend
> these four:
 
> VFA - medium warm, best dmax, bright paper, textured
> 
> PR  - medium warm, very high dmax, bright paper, smooth (smooth vs
> texture will important for some images)
> 
> Merlin Natural - a warmer colored non OBA paper, excellent dmax but
> not as good as VFA/PR, for the long scale platinum look (HotPress,
> UltraSmooth or some other "natural" papers might serve here as well,
> but MerNat excels at the long scale look)
> 
> Kayenta - for a cold white paper, excellent dmax but not quite as good
> as VFA/PR.  Kayenta is really nice with K3.  Strong, contrasty, truly
> black tone possible.  Condor BW is also excellent here, a bit more
> finicky re ABW setting, but really fine for some images
> 
> These will carry you a long way.  Of course I'm talking about matte
papers here.  .  

  Thanks for narrowing down the paper recommendations. Amongst the 4,
I've used the VFA and the PR. But, until getting the 2400, most of my
experience with the VFA nad PR has been with color not B&W. I don't
know the others papers. Can you recommend a good supplier?
   BTW, just what does K3 stand for? I know it refers to the inkset
but not sure what it designates.

Thanks for the wealth of info Clayton and the nice sharing of your
early years in photography.

Best Regards
Ginny