Digital BW, The Print

> >>>You missed the point...PS is not REQUIRED for digital pictures, you can
> >>>simply hook your camera up to a printer and print the image,
> with out the
> >>>need for any image manipulation software intervention.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Of course..
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Of course, there is
> >>>firmware in the camera and printere etc., but that's not the same.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>My point exactly.. the firmware mediates..
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >The ORIGINAL comment was that PS (or any manipulation program) HAD to be
> >used, and it does not.  The firmware does not do the same
> manipulations that
> >a user can do in PS.  All the firmware MAY do is apply a LUT
> (Loot Up Table)
> >to the data to simply match the calibration between the camera and the
> >printer.  That is NOT image manipulation of the sense that has been being
> >discussed.
> >
> >
> >
> It may well be...
>
> Many  digicams apply an arbitrary unsharp mask.. or arbitrarily correct
> the whitepoint..
>
> At the print end, drivers do not print pixel for pixel.. more accurately
> dot per pixel..  Remember there is stochastic dithering involved in many
> if not the vast majority of printers..  PLUS, color spaces and models
> differ....  Need I add that one is representing a transmissive model
> (the CCD captures in that mode) with a reflective model (the print)..?
>
> Keith

Keith,

The point, and what my comment was to, was Photoshop is NOT REQUIRED for
EVERY digital picture, period.  It IS not, that's a simple fact that stands
on it's own.  I don't understand, what's so difficult about that to
understand?  Gack, put your energy into the other discussion, this is really
not debatable.

Austin