Digital BW, The Print

tboleyyh wrote:

>--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@p...> wrote:
>snip
>  
>
>>IF Cone and others are creating tones the human eye can't distinguish 
>>from another tone, who the HELL CARES?
>>    
>>
>
>I do.
>Well done B&W inkjet prints look great, I've certainly committed to pursuing this form of reproduction for my work.
>But,
>When I look at a masterfully created silver fine art print, or a beautifully done platinum print, they seem to have virtually 
>unlimited scale, that you can fall right into. One of the comments people make when viewing a great platinum print is that 
>there seems to be an infinity of grays, even between close tones.
>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.
>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.
>I'm sorry this has bored people or seem irrelevant. 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.
>I think this list is called "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint".
>
>  
>
I'm not talking about the final output.. of course if you can notice a 
difference, then that means axiomatically THAT YOU  MUST be able to 
distinguish  the tones..

The example you posit of sound systems (MP3 and CDs being the obvious 
inference) where you cannot "hear" certain tones is faulty and likely a 
result of having bought into what the PR says..  The fact is that the 
tones they leave out of the compressed versions of these files ARE 
individually perceptibel, but, in the vast majority of listeners, no 
appreciable difference is noted when they are removed IF those tones 
occur simultaneowuly with certain other tones..  That's a problem of 
processing in the brain, not the simple ability to perceive the sounds.. 
(In many cases it may also reflect the inadequacy not of the listenter 
but of the equipment used for the repro)

I agree with you wholeheartedly that I prefer the sound of  full 
spectrum stereo reproduction audio.. BUT, that is only superficially 
analogous to the color/tone issue and the way you present it is 
certainly NOT analogous..

Surely, piezo prints may be ineffably better than a similar print with 
the same or  similar inks and another driver...  BUT, simply because we 
can't immediately SEE why  print A is better than print B, does not make 
the explanation of oodles of tones the human eye cannot see any more 
acceptable..

Now, that said, we need to differentiate between being able to discern 
tonal differences when tones are presented in close proximity and those 
presented in the absolute..  The fact is, in a smooth transition, tonal 
differences between different swatches may be blurred perceptively (i.e. 
we  may not pick the right points where tones actually do shift 
perceptibly).. I would differentitate that from the aboslute of being 
"unable to perceive" a specific tone as being different from other 
similarly toned targets..

BTW: I never implied the topic was boring.. It's not.. But if you 
cannot, in the absolute sense, perceive a tonal difference it may 
actually be counterproductive in that you design something to print to a 
tone the human eye does EVER perceive and invite problems in more 
crossovers, etc..



Keith
 
 



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