Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <atkielski@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 4:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Number of tones was Re: Do inkjets dither or not?


> 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).

Anthony,

Since there is always conversion of the data via the driver then there is
always interpolation (or interpretation) of the image data in the making of
the print.
>
> > 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.

Why? The end print is all that ultimately counts. If it looks good and
matches your intent in making the print, it is good.
>
> Unsharp masking, for example, creates the impression of greater
> sharpness--and yet in reality it degrades image quality.

The amount of sharpening to use is a subjective judgment. Some people like a
little sharpening, some a lot and some not at all. Artistic decision.
>
> > 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.

No marketing involved just my personal assessment of the current quality of
the prints.
>
> > 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.

I am a terrible painter. Photography accurately represents reality? Ha! It
is always an interpretation of reality be it Ansel Adams, Walker Evans or
Jerry Uelsmann.
>
> > 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.

Quality equals fidelity to reality?!? So a perfect print of a shot of a
neutral gray density card is a quality photograph. Well you are entitled to
your opinion but my interest in photography is as an art form.
>
> > 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.

Because I want to make a photograph and not a painting. Give me a break. If
they are not tools what are they?
>
> There are other uses for photography besides artistic expression.
> Communication is one of them.

Artistic express is generally held to be a form of communication.
>
> > 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.

In perspective to what?
>
> > If inkjet does not meet your own standards ...
>
> My standards vary depending on my intended use.

Well what are your intended uses?

Martin Wesley