Digital BW, The Print

Roy writes:

> Anthony's explanations seemed pretty clear as
> well but the nagging thought is -- does it
> make any difference in the real world photography?

That is for each photographer to decide.  Some photographers consider
certain types of prints to be absolutely preferable above all others; other
photographers don't much care about the printing process, as long as it more
or less accurately reflects the original image.

Like others here, I've not been able to get the B&W images I'd really like
to see through any manipulation of RGB color images.  The only way to get
what I want is to shoot black and white film in the first place.  It does
not have to be conventional B&W film--it could be chromogenic or even a
dedicated B&W electronic sensor (if such things were easily to be had), but
it has to be B&W from the start in order to get some of the unique looks of
B&W photography.  This isn't ever going to change, so photographers keenly
interested in the subtleties of B&W are going to have to continue to shoot
dedicated black and white.  Maybe one day they'll shoot B&W digitally, but
even then, they'll have to do it with a camera dedicated to B&W, and not a
color digital camera.

> There's no way that channel mixing from RGB can
> come close to that shape of response curve and
> selectivity.  So at this point I'm inclined to think
> that Anthony not only has a theoretical point but
> an issue that can in some cases has a very real
> effect on an image.

Exactly.  Some people might not care, but others might find it very
troublesome, particularly those who are deeply interested in the very best
of B&W photography.