Digital BW, The Print

Hello Charlotte,

>How do photographers decide when to use a textured paper for a photo?  
>Are there certain types of photos that just scream out for texture?
>Would appreciate any comments.

Very good questions.  I am currently using quite a lot of Epson Velvet
Fine Art (VFA), a textured paper.  When I was doing mostly BO printing
with Eboni ink I didn't care much for VFA, and for textured papers in
general.  It's dmax was excellent, but it's general appearance wasn't
quite as good to my eye as some other papers.  For me the texture
looked good on some images and weakened others.  But with K3 inks and
the ABW driver this paper is another story, with better dmax than
Eboni, and glowing highlights.  It is such a dynamic and alive paper
with K3/ABW that it outweighs the texture considerations for me.  It
has become my preferred paper and I've just issued a boxed portfolio
set using it.

Here are some thoughts about texture, in no particular order:

1) All textures are not alike.  The patterns can look random, or they
can look uniform and mechanical.  The mechanical looking ones appear
to be applied by rollers that impress the pattern into the paper after
it is made.  Others look more random, as if it is part of the paper
making process.  

The patterns are made up of adjacent raised and depressed areas. 
Either type of area can be dominant.  The areas of the pattern can be
large or small, and the depth difference between the raised and
lowered areas can be slight or pronounced.  All of these things can
vary independently, so the result is a wide difference of appearance
and effect among the various textured papers.  For example, Museo Max
looks like a smooth paper with depressed fissures, which appear as a
wave-like pattern.  Innova Cold Press looks like a smooth paper with
an even distribution of large raised soft-edged bumps.  Innova Soft
Texture has shallow depth and completely random shapes and sizes in
the pattern, PhotoRag has a very tiny pattern of equally sized bumps
and fissures, interspersed with areas of smoothness.  VFA is evenly
patterned, with pattern elements larger than PR but much smaller than
Cold Press (I think of it as being on the lower side of medium). 
Every one is at least a little bit different.  Some look crisp, some
look blotchy.  Some look handsome, some, especially the mechanical
ones, look ugly to me.

2) When a photo is viewed from a distance, such as a large
framed-under-glass print on a wall, texture becomes irrelevent.  When
you are looking closely at a small print, texture is more significant.
 When holding an unmatted print in one's hand, the tactile impressions
become an important part of the mix.  Very different impressions form
in the mind when holding the same image on different papers, say a
textured paper like VFA compared to an ultra smooth matte paper like
Fiba Photo - both with excellent dmax and other visual qualities. 
This is important because, after all, the effect of any art boils down
to the response of the viewer's nervous system.  Tactile and visual
impressions mix in the mind to form the final experience.

3) So it largely depends on how the photo will be viewed.  I recently
issued a boxed set of landscapes on letter size paper.  The prints are
meant to be held in the hand.  I debated at some length on which paper
to use, wondering whether texture would be an asset or a distraction.
 I finally chose to use VFA, mainly because of it's richness with K3
ink.  But also because it is one of the more handsome of all the
textured papers I've seen, and has a very elegant feel to it.  I think
it was a good decision, as the first customer came back with high
praise for the paper.


Ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you just have to
try different papers and decide what looks the best to you.  I don't
know if this answers your question or not, but I hope it helps.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm