Digital BW, The Print

As background, I have been printing digitally for only the past four 
or five years.  Although I've been through the QTR RIP and K7 routes, 
I presently use an Epson 4800 with the K3 inks and Paul's warm carbon 
in the yellow position, using the ABW driver and QTR Create ICC 
profiling.  I do only monochrome work.

My favorite matte paper has been Epson Ultrasmooth Fine Art and, to 
some extent the Velvet FA for its tonal crispness. I have found some 
of these prints wonderful--the EUS with the right image and very 
careful processing, can be exquisite both visually and tactilly.

I have been interested in the PK/fiber route mostly because I find a 
very fine, tenuous balance between murkiness and contrast with the 
matte papers.  My tendency, which I must counter constantly, is to 
raise contrast to keep things reasonably alive (and of course this 
does not work outside a very narrow range).  This is partly the 
result of barely acceptable dmax (1.6 or so on the EUS and 1.75 on 
the VFA), but also because the surface and ink is dull and completely 
sheenless.  I was at one time a photojournalist and "35mm Tri-X" 
characterizes my work.

In the past month, I have spent considerable time with four of 
the "new" papers and my personal observations follow below.  I have 
now realized that I went into this with certain ideas about paper and 
that these often obscured my actual observations of these papers.  In 
going through archives of fiber prints, I was able to find papers 
that were *extremely* close to three of these new papers in terms of 
surface, weight, texture, sheen and tone.  So when someone speaks of 
a new paper "looking like" F-surface or air-dried glossy, I think 
that has to taken with a grain of salt.  There were a lot of 
different looks with fiber paper and we were much less sensitive to 
them then than we are now with the IJ papers.  This is partly because 
a lot of us are trying to legitimize IJ printing and we have gotten 
into all kinds of peeping, not just at pixels.

1. Hanemuhle Fine Art Baryta.  I just don't like this paper and it is 
the only one of the four that resembles nothing from any fiber 
printing I've done.  The K3/MIS ink on the paper is very glossy and 
glittery and produces, to my eyes, a distracting and ugly surface.  I 
find it barely better than the Epson plastic PK papers.
2. Ilford Gold Silk.  I like this paper.  It has lower gloss and 
sheen than any of the other papers and is the smoothest surface of 
the four.  It is also quite warm, which I don't really like for my 
work.  The ink looks good on the surface, though because of the low 
paper sheen shows the most gloss differential.  The surface is 
unobtrusive, which is good, but not particularly attractive, and it 
has a bit of the mottling or uneveness that you see in blacks on 
Epson Enhanced Matte (on unprinted areas).  I also had a fair number 
of scuffed or damaged sheets.
3.  Epson Exhibition Fiber.  I have looked forward to this paper 
because I like Epson's quality control and consistency with papers.  
Out of the box, it gives the impression of a slightly rough air dried 
fiber paper and is, at first blush, very reminiscent of wet papers 
both visually and tactilly.  So, I developed the *idea* that this is 
a good thing.  On living with the paper further, I realized that I 
actually find the surface a bit ugly, particularly when inked areas 
are tilted to reflect light.  The paper is also too blue (the LAB 
figures are off the chart).  It's still a good paper and the best of 
the four in the hand.  When not peeping, I think I find it a good 
paper for photographs.
4.  Harman Gloss FB AI.  This is the paper about which I most had an 
idea that obscured my actual perceptions.  Out of the box I thought 
it too glossy and almost RC-like in feel.  For those reason I 
dismissed it quickly.  Over time I've realized that this is a 
beautiful paper with a beautiful surface and, if it matters, it is by 
far the closest of these four to a nonferrotyped glossy paper.  The 
paper is not shiny, it's high sheen, but the reflections (of both 
paper and inked areas) are actually much less disturbing than the 
others because one gets an even sheen rather than a texture, 
particularly in inked areas.  The color is fairly neutral (not blue) 
and the gloss differential is very low.  It is the one of the four 
that doesn't constantly make you feel that the ink is on top of the 
paper--the K3/MIS ink integrates incredibly well with the surface of 
the paper.  In short, these prints are, to me, the most 
like "photographs."

I haven't mentioned dmax or grayscale because all of these papers are 
fine--much more robust in these regards than any of the matte 
papers.  While I find myself missing the exquisite, luxurious quality 
of the best E. Ultra Smooth prints, I am not really after prints, but 
photographs.  Any of these four papers, but particularly the Epson 
and Harman (to my tastes), are much better at conveying a photograph 
of the type I do than any of the matte papers.  For the first time in 
years I feel that I am actually just looking at photographs rather 
than "prints of photographs."  This is a very important distinction 
for me and one I'd lost sight of.  I'm really enjoying that 
experience of looking at photographs and really enjoying not fiddling 
constantly with the dmax issue.  Unless something really bad comes up 
(like these papers gives everyone cancer) I can't imagine going back 
to the matte papers, exquisite or not.

Good wishes,
Walt