It always helps to start with a 'good' negative and practice to get a 'good' print from it, and go from there. If your exposure and sharpness were good to begin with, and the development was adequate for a printable neg, then all you need to do is experiment/learn what makes a good print.
Don't rush anything, and cut your sheets into strips for testing to get an idea of density and contrast. No point wasting a whole sheet when one can provide 5 tests to get the print right (exposure, contrast, etc).
Mixing paper stock is a road to confusion because it's hard enough to get to grips with a single one. Take frequent breaks, let your eyes adjust and check your tests in the light or you'll miss simple means of improving like seeing the whites aren't white or blacks are muddy.
You certainly don't need to deviate from an all-round paper. Something like Kentmere VC would be good.
It will become fairly intuitive in no time. Then it's easier to focus on the artistic decisions (dodging, burning and a bit on contrast). It's awesome to be involved to that level.
I started with the Kentmere VC and got a few good prints. Moved onto Ilford RC multigrade and that seems to give lower contrast and exposure for the same values: comparing with the Kentmere.
It always helps to start with a 'good' negative and practice to get a 'good' print from it, and go from there. If your exposure and sharpness were good to begin with, and the development was adequate for a printable neg, then all you need to do is experiment/learn what makes a good print.
Don't rush anything, and cut your sheets into strips for testing to get an idea of density and contrast. No point wasting a whole sheet when one can provide 5 tests to get the print right (exposure, contrast, etc).
Mixing paper stock is a road to confusion because it's hard enough to get to grips with a single one. Take frequent breaks, let your eyes adjust and check your tests in the light or you'll miss simple means of improving like seeing the whites aren't white or blacks are muddy.