Digital BW, The Print

> > 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.
>
> What about books, magazines and journals?

Name them.

> BTW, this is the first time I've heard Ansel Adams and his ilk referred to
> as pedestrian photo technicians...

I wasn't referring to AA at all, exactly the opposite.  We have, in the
group here, what, hundreds of people, very few whom are professionals, and
even fewer who are technologically savvy professionals.

There certainly is a crossing over of non-professionals who are more
technically savvy than most professionals...and I wouldn't call them
pedestrians.  For the most part, most photographers are "pedestrian" in
their understanding of technology, few are very technically inclined, most
are somewhat technically inclined.

> > People didn't meet on a street corner, and
> > televise their discussion. nor write the discussions up.
>
> Baloney. One could fill your studio with taped and printed discussions of
> dynamic range as it relates to prints.

What are these "taped and printed discussions of dynamic range as it relates
to prints", aside from discussions posted on a web page, or in news groups
on the Internet?

BTW, I do understand that people have confused the term dynamic range when
they mean density range, for what ever historical reason...probably because
those doing it didn't really know what dynamic range was.  It is very
similar to the misuse of the term resolution when talking about computer
monitors (or digital cameras ;-).

Austin