Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony 
Atkielski" <anthony@a...> wrote:
> Peter writes:
> 
> > That's what you SAY, but you haven't provided a
> > specific example.
> 
> That's what the paragraph you backquoted was:
> 
> AA> Measure the spectral distribution of a scene (with a
> AA> spectrometer, for example).  Then take a picture of
> AA> that scene, in color (digital or film).  Now try to reconstruct
> AA> the original spectral distribution curve using only
> AA> the three data points provided by the RGB values in
> AA> the color image.  You won't be able to do it, and you'll
> AA> discover very quickly just how much information is gone.
> 
> See?


You really don't know what "empirical" means, do you?


> If you understand what I'm saying, you have all the 
> evidence you need on that basis alone. 

"Evidence" is not what someone hypothesizes - evidence has to exist 
empirically.  You haven't provided ANY evidence.

Austin also asked you for a clear, real world example, so I'm not 
the only one.    

Why don't you find a common everyday object - some consumer product 
any of us can buy at the local drugstore if we want to duplicate 
your results - say, a can of Pepsi, a Kodak film box, Head and 
Shoulders shampoo, etc.  Shoot it at noon on a sunny day with Portra 
160 and TMax (or whatever films you want).  Scan them both in and 
convert the color image to grayscale and show us where you think it 
goes wrong.   Then we can repeat your experiment with the same 
subject, lighting, and film, and see if we can't do better.

Go to my website where I posted scans of various test images if you 
want to see examples of empirical evidence.   I don't say "pretend 
you set your printer to 'black only' use EEM paper, 2880 DPI..." 
etc.    I DO it and post the results.  That's what you need to do.