Digital BW, The Print

Austin,

I'm trying hard to follow along with you guys, but these equations loose me.
Is it that the main point over which you and Martin disagree is whether or
not noise is part of the equation?

You make some excellent points toward the end of your post, maybe because
you use words to make them rather than math <g>, but then I thought Martin
did too, so, so much for what I think. ;-)

One thing I request though: this is turning into a classic debate, one I'd
like to see continue to some kind of resolution if possible, or at least
continue in a friendly way, on both sides, and you do get a bit burley
toward the end. I understand your frustration when people don't "want to
understand the truth" in what you say, but please understand this isn't just
Martin you are trying to convince, there is an entire establishment of photo
and computer gurus who represent the opinions Martin is representing. Don't
expect to turn that establishment on it's ear overnight.

In fact, the extent to which there is an establishment that seems in
contradiction to your definition makes me wonder if this isn't simply a case
where each field uses it's own jargon, and in the parlance of these
different fields the term dynamic range doesn't have two different meanings?

> Of course noise applies.  Anything that as distorted the actual image
> information has caused noise, anywhere in the system.  It is not relevant if
> the print is "finished" or not.

This confuses me. What exactly is the noise in a finished print? What I'm
getting at is where in the process is the noise accounted for? Is the noise
you speak of the noise that is introduced when making a print from the
generation that proceeds it (file for digital, film for traditional), or the
noise of the instrument that is measuring the density range?

I guess what I'm wondering is when discussing the dynamic range of a
finished print one even needs to consider what the dynamic range of the
original was, and therefor the noise incurred between the two. If one
doesn't, and I don't believe they should (meaning one should be able to
assess the Dynamic range of something for what it is without regard for
where it came from), then what IS the noise you speak of, and how do you
measure it? If the noise is that of the measuring instrument, who cares
about that, that's a little too "dynamic", if you know what I mean...

So, long story short, please clarify the noise issue as it relates to inkjet
and traditional prints, which seems to be so relevant to your definition of
dynamic range. 

Thanks,
Todd