Digital BW, The Print

> From: kenstrain2000 <kenstrain2000@...>
  
> 
> 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.

From what I understand the ink and paper work together meaning that one
ideally designs substrates/coatings and inks together.



> 
> Do you have a reference for the "inks in development"?

Just rumblings on the grapevine  ;-)  It's not worth anything until you can
buy it on the shelves and print with it.  Fingers crossed.


> 
> 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.


Well the final image still needs to be good and printed well.  But a broader
dynamic range for matte paper would be a big equalizer.

Steve