Digital BW, The Print

> > That's not relevant to the discussion.
>
> Of _course_ it is relevant.  The whole purpose of this list is to discuss
> black and white printing.  Black and white prints normally come from black
> and white images, and the latter are often produced with black and white
> film and filters.  It's about as relevant as anything can get.

No, Anthony.  The premise what that you can turn scanned color film data
into a visually indistinguishable image (tonal wise) from that of the same
image taken with Tri-X and scanned, period.  It was not about the use of
filters.  That is another discussion.  FEW people actually use filters
compared to the number that don't.  And as I said, it is NOT relevant to my
premise, and the reason you want to make it relevant is because you somehow
believe it mitigates the correctness of my statement, and it does not.

> This entire discussion, in fact, is far more important than you seem to
> realize,

Being that I've been in the digital imaging business for over 25 years, any
discussion on digital imaging is very important to me.

> because it has some pretty serious implications for
> those trying to
> reproduce one type of B&W print from something other than one type of B&W
> image.

Yes, and that's why it's done all the time, whether you concur or not.

> In particular, it is critically important that anyone shooting
> color--such as digital color--and trying to get B&W from it
> understand these
> principles, so that he or she can understand why certain results can be
> produced, whereas others cannot.

That's very true...but my premise is still correct.

> > Hum.  I see it done all the time.
>
> No, you see approximations.

Everything is an approximation.

Austin