Digital BW, The Print

Carolyn Frayn wrote:

>>Come on folks, you all knew this was a dynamic range conversation waiting to
>>happen.  ;-)
>>    
>>
>
>
>Oh man Todd, you can't be that bored!
>
>
>  
>
Back to the issue of NUMBER of tones...

The baseline for measuring tones HAS to be the human eye..  Otherwise it 
doesn't make much sense, right?  I mean we could theoretically design 
color spaces that incorporate the IR and UV portions of spectra, but 
they wouldn't add a single tone the human eye could discern..

IF Cone and others are creating tones the human eye can't distinguish 
form another tone, who the HELL CARES?

PLUS, the standard FOR differences between tones is WHETHER the human 
eye can discern them as different..  Accordingly, if 4000 plus tones can 
be measured as different by a high quality spectro, BUT the human eye 
cannot differentiate them..  They simply ARE NOT 4000 different tones.. 
They ARE only however many different tones the human eye could discern 
out of a 4000 swatch sample of those tones..

PS - I refuse to start making prints FOR butterflies and bumblebees... 
The ubiquitous and smarmy prints OF butterflies and bumblebees 
throughout the interiors and furnishing market are bad enough..  ;-)
Keith
 
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]