Digital BW, The Print

> The idea of distinguishing between tones and the number of tones are
> concepts that I do not ever recall hearing in discussions of traditional
> photography. If not new concepts, they seem to be new to the discussion of
> photography. I believe that they were not discussed in traditional
> photography because they simply were of no interest.

Martin,

There WAS life before mailing lists and Internet web sites you know!

That's just so untrue.  I believe it wasn't discussed by "pedestrians", and
given communications as it was until the Internet, there really wasn't a
"general" place TO discuss it.  People didn't meet on a street corner, and
televise their discussion. nor write the discussions up.  But, my point is,
I know personally that I've had this conversation as far back as the mid
70's...with other photography teachers (yes, I taught photography in the mid
70's), students and professionals.  Now that doesn't mean they actually
understood it as dynamic range...but whether you assign a technical name to
a concept or not, the concept still exists, as well as has been discussed
for a LONG time.

I hear photographers talking about the difference between the tonal
gradations of Plus-X and Tri-X somewhat frequently...and how Plus-X looks
"flat" compared to Tri-X...  It isn't density range (as that is defined by
the printing "system), and it isn't tonal "mapping" that causes this (as
that can be re-mapped any way you want)...

I am amazed at how much energy is being put into "fighting" the concept of
dynamic range.  It reminds me of "bokeh" discussions...

Austin