Digital BW, The Print

Keith

If ever you are successful in convincing manufacturers to limit the quality
of their output to what you can see, please make sure that you can see at
least as well as I first.

Todd

> 
> 
> 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