Digital BW, The Print

Is there an optimum dynamic range for a print?

A Kodak paper states the following:

"The range of lightness levels that the eye can perceive at any one time is,
at most, several hundred to one. ..."  See,
<http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/researchDevelopment/technologyFeatures/oled
2002Lum.shtml>

If we are trying to get the maximum impact from a piece of paper/print,
increasing the dmax has been a goal.  However, I think we are seeing
decreasing utility from the increases at about a dmax of 2.0.  That is,
there seems to be little reason to go above log 2.0.  Does this possibly
relate to the 100:1 range the eye can see at a single time?  If I understand
my log scales, each number is a factor of 10.  So, perhaps 2.0 is where our
limit is.

My lightly-selenium-toned silver prints, in the real world of darkroom
printing, usually have a dmax measuring 1.9.  No one ever suggested that the
black tones of these prints were not deep enough.

While I can certainly see the differences between 2.0 and 2.5 dmax prints
when I compare their blacks side-by-side, I'm not sure looking at the image
as a whole there is any difference in impact, or appearance of full dynamic
range.

In the real world when prints are lying side-by-side on my desk, the 1.66 of
a high-load, fairly neutral matte black actually looks deeper than the 2.0+
RC "luster" black due to the latter's reflection or "sheen."  (Someone
suggested that a light satin or matte spray might take this off, perhaps at
a small cost of dmax.)  My 1.6 dmax matte black prints also usually seem to
have a higher dynamic range than my old silver prints.  Reflections and
lighting conditions of the display seem to determine which of these prints
looks best.

So, the reflections are part of the formula to get to any optimum dmax, and
I don't think our densitometers are measuring this.  They work from optimum
lighting that does not exist where my prints are usually displayed.

In addition to limited benefits from higher dmax and dynamic range, I think
there might be a "cost" (lower apparently quality prints) to high dmax that
offsets the benefits as some point.  I think a higher dmax shows more
digital artifacts.

I assume that the higher the dynamic range of the print, the more tonal
variations the eye can see on close inspection of print details.  While the
eye can only see a range of 100:1 at any one time, upon close inspection the
limiting factor probably changes to how small a density variation can be
detected at reasonable lighting levels.

The bottom line is that I think I can see more defects in the high dynamic
range 2.2 dmax prints than in lower dmax prints.  If the initial impact of
the print as a whole is not improved by the very high dmax, I'd rather not
have it and hide the inevitable defects in my files and systems.

There must be an optimum dynamic range that compromises the benefits of
increasing the impact of the print as a whole, and the costs of making
visible the limits of digital or any other printing process.  With some of
my older files and systems, this is probably well below 2.0.

Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com