Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

> I think it requires great printers, great ink and great paper.  I
think we
> have the first already.  

given the differences between existing matt papers, when used with the
same inks, I wonder if it is really the surface-coating-ink
combination that is key, rather than one of these in isolation.  The
surface has to be locally smooth enough, and the ink settle in just
the right way (depth distribution) to balance absorption and
scattering of light (you'll have seen the other thread attempting to
explore that issue, in a somewhat round-about fashion). The "photo"
ink problem is much easier to solve. 

I hear there are inks in development that can
already
> produce in excess of 2.0 on matte paper (eg HPR) with longevity to
rival
> anything we have today.  I hope they find their way to market very
soon...

Do you have a reference for the "inks in development"? It sounds
fascinating as 2.0 on (true) matt would be almost miraculous, and very
worth having.

But then, I find it easy to forget that densities around 1.8 and above
tend to jump out when comparing prints, but can fade into
insignificance when viewed in isolation. Tonal curve is much more
important than dmax of 2.0 vs. 1.8 (say) and digital allows all the
flexibility one could want to get that right (or wrong).  Some of my
matt inkjet prints look terrible, some look OK  (compared to my best
oriental-seagull/forte/record-rapide prints from yesteryear, and some
of my few glossy inkjet prints) - I'm not convinced that new "matt"
ink would be a panacea, perhaps a help though.