Digital BW, The Print

davelongviews wrote:

>I think the key is that the viewer is seeing the print (paper surface) from a different angle 
>than the angle of incident light. Light hitting a mirror-like surface (smooth) reflects at the 
>same angle it went in (think of bouncing a ball at an angle to the floor), and none of it 
>comes reaches the viewer. In the case of a rough surface the incident light hits the paper 
>and bounces back at a range of angles, some of which put the light in the viewer's eyes. 
>Again think of bouncing balls on rough surfaces-they go all over the place.
>
>For me it is interesting to contemplate ways of getting around this. Strictly I think there 
>are none, but I wonder if in practice there is a solution that amounts to a compromise 
>(other than the obvious semi matte). Reflections depend on differences in refractive index 
>of the two materials at the interface.
>
>
>  
>

First I removed a tail of messages from this reply, happens more often 
these days.

The only surface that can compete with a gloss surface in Dmax is a 
non-surface,  the hole of a black jar that at the inside is painted with 
black paint that absorbs all the light and energy getting in through 
that small hole, the total absorption of the surface inside is 
concentrated in that hole. That's what causes high contrasts in 
landscapes too. Most extreme example is a black hole in space.

We need inks that have a black hole in every drop to get near the total 
reflection of the ideal gloss surface. That ink needs thick paper 
coatings though :-)

Ernst