Digital BW, The Print

At 10:30 PM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Peter Nelson's provocative theory that people who like BO prints have 
>defective
>vision doesn't take into account that seeing/viewing is always done with 
>one or another
>intent. I think he sees disturbing dots in BO prints because his intent 
>when looking at
>pictures is oriented by his highly valuing full-scale continuous-tone 
>photographs --


I addressed this in an earlier post.  (It's been such a long thread it's
easy to lose track).

I have no fetish for continuous tone.  As I said before, I started
off doing PUSHED Tri-X in the 1960's for astronomical
and nighttime street photography, so I'm very comfortable
with grain.

My "provocative" theory is that grain is intrinsically less
distracting because it has a relationship with the original
scene - the grain is where photons reflected off objects
in the scene and struck silver halide molecules in the
emulsion.   So the grain was part of the photo from the
start - it's been there, done that, paid its dues, it has a
raison d'etre, it's a founding father.

But as I said, I used to write inkjet drivers back in the 1980's
and at that time my drivers had SELECTABLE dithering
algorithms.  I could give you your choice of dot patterns.
The point is that the dots are merely an artifact of the algorithm
used by the driver - they have no organic connection
to the original photo. they're interlopers, party crashers,
- THAT'S why they stand out.   Your eye tells you that somehow,
they don't belong there; they have no intrinsic relationship
to the original photo.

At least that's my theory about why I find dots more annoying
than grain.

My point about people having poor vision was only that
OBVIOUSLY if someone couldn't see it they wouldn't
be annoyed by it.