One question, one comment:
Question: Now that there's been time to get used to the change, what media setting turned out to work best for the new paper, PPP Glossy or PPP Luster? (I use a Canon 6300 & will be needing a new custom profile, & would like to get the media setting right!)
Comment/opinion: I too am always unhappy when a preference or habit has to change. But couldn't a slightly less glossy surface on the Harman Warmtone be a gain?
My 'gold standard' for a paper surface has always been Portriga Rapid 111, lightly selenium-toned for archival preservation. (I still have a Zone System scale printed out on it, & protect it like an archival print.) And because Harman Warmtone matched it better than any other paper, that was my choice when not using HPR.
But the main difference between PR111 & HarWT was that the latter was a bit slicker on its surface. The match was perfect for paper-base tone, & with a little bit of split-toning I could match the slight duo-tone look from diluted selenium toner, but the surface didn't quite match. In fact the Epson Exhibition Fiber paper was a better surface match (looks just like Brovira 111!), though its OBAs weren't acceptable.
So if the new HarWT is just a bit less glossy than the Ilford version, then might that not be a gain – assuming others are on pretty much the same gold standard'?
(I'm stating this hypothetically, without using the new paper yet – I had a good supply of the old version.)
Kirk
PS, what does bother me is disappearance of the 17x25 size. The Harman gloss papers were so stiff that I got occasional head strikes at the end of a roll (on Canon 5100), & so switched to the sheets. I do wish this size were revived, because it's a better fit for full-frame 2:3 images. (And while praying for gifts from the paper gods, how about making A4 available in the US, for the same reason?)
K