Digital BW, The Print

Helene,

I wouldn't characterize either the Epson Premium Glossy or Harman FB
glossy as having glitter/sparkles.  That might be a term I would
reserve for a luster paper.  

I think I know what you are getting at though... I would characterize
the Harman FB paper as having a pleasant sheen.  The Epson paper is a
little more 'in your face' kind of glossy surface if that makes any
sense?  If you've ever seen Pictorico White Gloss Film the Epson
premium is less glossy than that and they are all way less glossy than
Ilford Ilfochrome (Cibachrome glossy) which has a wonderful mirror
like surface and resultant 'depth' (that some people hate because of
the reflections).

There is also a difference in the suface patterns (stipple?) of Epson
Premium and Harman Glossy papers.  The Harman paper, as I mentioned
before has the same random pattern that looks like my Ilford
Multigrade FB paper... sort of like an eggshell surface (described by
someone else).  The Epson paper surface is a bit more pronounced with
a different randomness to it than the Harman FB paper.  I suspect a
magnified cross section of the Harman paper would reveal it to be
smoother although it is possible that the higher gloss of the Epson
paper makes the suface texture more visible too.

I slightly prefer the Harman surface texture, but it's not a big deal
to me.

BTW, concerning my earlier remarks about the paper color, I expect to
try reprinting a few image with the Epson  7800 ABW 'Color Tone' set
to remove more yellow from the Harman paper vs. the Epson paper. If
anyone is interested I will post results. 

Ken





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Helene Penn"
<grdglass@...> wrote:
>
> Ken,
> 
> Does the Harman Gloss FB have the same glitter/sparkles when held
> under light as Epson Premium Photo Paper Glossy?
> 
> Helene
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >>Just finished printing 4 different B/W images on this paper. Printed
> with an Epson 7800, K3 inks, Advanced B/W mode, 1440 dpi, paper set
> for Epson Premium Glossy (250).
> 
> The gloss and surface of this paper is indistinguishable (to my eyes)
> from my wet darkroom Ilford Multigrade IV prints. The paper is a
> slightly cooler white than my traditional prints but warmer than Epson
> Premium Glossy (now called "Premium Photo Paper Glossy"). It is
> noticeably less glossy than the Epson inkjet paper.
> 
> I don't have a way to make quantitative comparisons but a visual
> comparison among the 4 Glossy Harman FB AI prints and 4 Epson Premium
> Glossy prints indicates they are very very similar in terms of
> contrast, max blacks and white tonal range and transitions and image
> detail.
> 
> Both the Epson and Harman glossy papers have the same minor gloss
> differential (shows up in the clouds and white water in my landscape
> photos). In diffuse lighting (vs. harsh specular lighting the GD is
> not noticeable in either paper).
> 
> Application of PremierArt Shield is very effective in removing any GD
> from either paper. However, based on one try so far, it is probably
> easier to get a smooth coat on the Harman paper (less liklihood to get
> blotches or streaks).
> 
> I suspect dry mounting the thicker Harman paper will be somewhat
> easier compared to Epson Premier Glossy (i.e. less likely to show a
> slight orange peel effect)
> 
> I think most people would prefer the thicker and more 'artistic'
> tactile feel of the Harman paper over Epson Premium Glossy. I do.
> 
> ... and here's where I will probably loose a lot of readers... I
> prefer the Epson Premium Glossy over the Harman FB glossy. I try to
> shoot and print dramatic landscapes, I like contrast (but always want
> to retain subtle shadow and highlight detail)... both papers allow
> this, but the whiter (cooler) Epson whites and the glossier surface
> are more attractive to me. I mat and frame my prints without glass;
> tactile paper feel is not a concern. Having spent over 20 years
> making air dried, selenium toned glossy fiber based prints that were
> never quite glossy enough for me I am probably coming from a different
> place than many who are currently trying to achieve the darkroom paper
> look.
>