Digital BW, The Print

Martin Wesley wrote:

>-
>
>This comes back to the idea of distinguishable pairs. We can't just take the
>range and divide it by the smallest difference we can see and say that is
>the total number of levels we need. We need to determine what is the number
>of distinguishable pairs needed to give us a tonally rich and continuous
>tone print.
>
>  
>
Certainly...

Of course, we will come up with different numbers for differing 
combinations of ink, media, lighting., etc... I think what what is clear 
so far is that:

1)    Speakers, and sometimes reporters, use terminology in imprecise 
ways to represent ideas either they or the listener imperfectly understand

2)    Marketers have ALWAYS taken advantage of the imprecision of 
language (from Pharisees, to snake oil salesmen, to Olli North, to Bill 
Clinton, to those who write TV commercials, etc..) our goal as consumers 
is to force the marketers to give more precise answers. (kudos to those 
asking Jon to be more explicit instead of using vague "smoke and 
mirrors" terminology)

2)     A lot more basic research is still to be done in this area..

3)    The playing field will keep shifting as technology gets better

4)    The bottom  line is that we all need to use the best tool we can 
to produce the best print  we (both generically and individually) can 
produce


Keith
 




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