Digital BW, The Print

Martin writes:

> Even when it is converted to CMYK and with
> six different shades of gray ink?

Conversion involves interpolation.  The rule holds only for situations that
do not involve interpolation (such as constant resolution and no change in
color space).

> If the visual appearance of the print is enhanced
> then what else do we need to be concerned about?

It's important to not confuse the visual impression created by an image with
its information content.

Unsharp masking, for example, creates the impression of greater
sharpness--and yet in reality it degrades image quality.

> But it does improve the appearance of the print
> to the point that they are of photographic quality.

There's no such thing as "photographic quality."  It's just a marketing
buzzword.

> If the information being created results in a
> more pleasing print then I would say that is
> the exception to the rule.

If you extend that logic, you may as well paint the scene instead of
photographing.  Photography's distinction is that it draws upon images that
accurately represent reality; remove that, and it's not photography any
more.

> This is photography and not information theory
> after all and it is only the quality of the end
> result that counts.

Quality in photography is fidelity to reality.  Other aspects of photography
may be artistic, but they are not quality.

> The camera, negative, scanner, software and printer
> are all simply tools for artistic expression.

If that's all they are, why not just use a paintbrush.

There are other uses for photography besides artistic expression.
Communication is one of them.

> It seems that you do not agree and are still
> looking for a way to go digital with your printing.

Neither.  I'm just putting things into perspective.

> If inkjet does not meet your own standards ...

My standards vary depending on my intended use.