Digital BW, The Print

on 4/5/02 7:19 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:

>>> How come a property, such as dynamic range, as cited here, applies in this
>>> "meaning"/"understanding" in digital imaging, and not in analog imaging?
>>> 
>> Because noise becomes much less of a limiting factor than chemical and
>> optical 
>> phenomena?
>> 
> I don't believe so.  Limiting or not doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  It may
> make the significance of "it" less, no doubt.

So just when are you going to define "noise" WRT to a silver print and an
inkjet print so that we have a basis to judge whether it's existence is
RELEVANT? You've been asked to do so numerous times but instead of answering
you repeat that "just because you can't see it doesn't mean it doesn't
exist". I'm not interested in it's spiritual and metaphysical existence, I
think it is relevant whether or not the noise is large enough to be limiting
to perception. Please stop skirting that issue.

> Point is, it's really clear that WRT digital imaging, number of bits IS
> dynamic range.  Many technical resources (not ones of Photoshop gurus) state
> exactly that, as well as the Higgins book on Digital Signal Processing
> clearly does.  Why are people willing to accept it "exists" as one "meaning"
> when applied there, but as a different "meaning" when applied to chemical
> prints.

Because it's the difference between analog and digital, continuous tone or
steps. Let me phrase it with a question: what is the analog equivalent of a
bit? And don't tell me contrast, because a bit is on vs off, contrast has
VIRTUALLY (emphasized to indicate I'm not being absolutist, I don't want to
get bogged down in the quantum physics of this again) infinite positions
between.

Todd