Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:


> One of the problems in the debate aspect of this thread, 
> as I see it, is that some of the participants have so 
> far refused to acknowledge some of Anthony's important
> points. 

I think that's because Anthony has done such a god-awful job of 
articulating what he thinks the problem is.   We're dealing with very 
straightforward physical properties here.   Notice that in all my 
examples I use specific wavelengths and actual physical properties of 
specific light-emitting or absobing materials. 

. . . deletia . . . 
  

> Both I and another photographer have reported that we
> have so far failed in our efforts to get a color->bw 
> result that satisfies us, and I think that fact is an 
> important part of the topic.

I disagree, because it's not a "fact" it's a PERCEPTION.  (I suppose 
it's a fact that you have that perception, i.e., it's a fact that you 
are dissatisfied).   For it to be a fact that's useful to this 
discussion someone needs to specify what exactly is missing when you 
go from color to black and white, and where in the process it went 
missing.   Anthony said that informationed "between" the R,G, and B 
peaks was getting lost or attenuated and I have repeatedly asked 
Anthony to identify a wavelength of light where this problem occurs.

Photographic composition is an art.  But there is (or should be) 
no 'art' to getting a good scan and print - it's pure science and 
engineering.