Digital BW, The Print

Thanks Scott, Clayton and Steve for the comments.

Steve makes an important point about print size and I should have 
mentioned it.  I print at 13 x 19 and 17 x 22 (images at ~ 14.2 x 9.5 
and 20 x 13).  The 13 x 19 is small enough that much surface texture 
is intrusive and this makes a difference in paper preference.  If I 
printed much large (30 x 40), I might well have a different take on 
the papers.

On the idea of the paper speaking to me, I'd rather have the 
photograph speak to me and not much notice the paper or print except 
to the extent that it serves the photograph unobstrusively.  On both 
the Harman Gloss and, to a slightly lesser extent the Epson 
Exhibition, I have that.  A photographer friend was over last night 
and found a pile of old fiber and some of the new prints scattered 
around the dining table.  She asked what I was doing with "the old 
prints."  In talking further, she hadn't really looked at the prints, 
but at the photographs, and commented that with my "new work" (my 
matte printing) she was much more aware of the print.  My point is 
not that I am trying to imitate wet fiber prints, but that I am after 
the same function--a transparent conveyance of the photograph.  
Certainly there is a place for the more luxurious, cotton print, but 
in work more "pictorial" than mine.

On the Harman seeming like an RC paper, that was my first response 
too.  I think this is a result of having worked so long with the 
luxurious-feeling cotton papers and of an intuitive defensive stance 
about IJ printing.  In fact, the Harman is nearly a dead ringer for 
fiber, gloss, air-dried wet work with certain papers and the surface 
is subtly elegant--more so, I think, than the other papers which try 
to more conspicuously imitate a fiber paper with pronounced texture.  
The Harman surface is really very organic and not at all RC-like and 
under the thumb it is the most tactilly convincing of these papers 
for me.  It also has the elegant visual smootness of the Epson Ultra 
Smooth that I like so much.

On the image sitting in the Harman paper rather than on it, I wonder 
to what extent this has to do with using the paper at 1440 dpi per 
Harman's recommendation for the 4800.  The other papers, at 2880, do 
seem to have a lot of ink on them.  What do people think about this 
1440/2880 idea?  I have tried the Epson paper at 2880 and don't see 
much improvement.    

On printing with the PK vs. matte papers, it is like getting a camera 
(or film) with a few more stops of dynamic range (eight vs. six 
stops?).  The more limited dynamic range of the matte papers requires 
extremely careful processing and the density and contrast musy be 
absolutely perfect.  The PK prints are much more resilient and 
forgiving and, for me, can do things that the matte papers simply 
cannot do satisfactorily.  As with limited dynamic range in a camera, 
the matte papers can be very good given careful exposure, but six 
stops is six stops.

Best,
Walt
www.waltodets.com/photo