Digital BW, The Print

Keith:

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


Tyler writes:

> I do.
of course you do. So do I.

> When I put my lovingly made quad prints down next to them, they don't give the
> same impression.
> By themselves, they seem to approach it, but next to a great "analogue" print,
> not quite there.

Your prints don't need to be compared to anything. They stand on their own
as an exemplary body of work and a perfect example of what someone with
talent, knowledge and understanding can do with inkjet technology.

> Sorry.
> I don't know if this is illusion. I don't know if it has anything to do with
> how many grays the two processes can put on paper.
> I do know that I would certainly want a system that can produce for more grays
> than I can perceive, for a start.
> Music reproduction systems that have frequency ranges beyond our hearing
> ability still "seem" to sound better than those
> strictly limited to our hearing limits. The same thing may apply here.

Isn't all this based on science yet to be disproven.  I'm curious how anyone
can say for certain how many tones, how many whatever, the human species can
determine.  Science hick that I am.

> I'm sorry this has bored people or seem irrelevant.

Only those with the largest opinions of themselves.

> But any possible way to
> bring the true feel of a great photographic print
> to the Epson, whether it be file prep, materials, or highly technical issues
> about software/hardware are certainly of
> immense interest to me.

As I thought it was to those on the rest of this list.

> I think this list is called "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint".
> Tyler

Lately I believe it is called the "my opinion is the only one that matters"
show.

Carolyn