Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Message

Atkielski's Pathos (was: RE: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale)

2003-11-29 by Jon

> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:52:28 -0800
> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
> 
>> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>> 
>> RGB is worse because it collapses all the spectral energy of the
>> original scene into just three numbers.  There is no way to restore that
>> spectral distribution from those three numbers.  True black and white
>> capture (be it electronic or film) captures an image as a function of
>> the continuous spectral sensitivity of the capture medium and the
>> continuous spectral emission of the image being recorded.  There is no
>> way to simulate that continuous function with just three numbers.  So
>> there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
>> accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.
> 
> Excuse me, but black and white film "collapses all the spectral energy of
> the original scene" into just one number.
> 
> In theory, you can certainly acheive results with a narrowband filter in
> front of B&W film that cannot be attained precisely by using an RGB sensor
> and Photoshop. However, there are some practical problems:
> 
> 1) You only get one particular result with a particular filter. Once it's in
> the B&W domain, you've lost all ability to make adjustments to anything but
> the grayscale.
> 
> 2) You can't see the results of your filter choice until hours later.
> 
> 3) The commercial filters used for B&W photography aren't narrowband anyway.
> The blue and green ones are no more narrowband than the filters in a
> digicam. The red and yellow ones are actually low-pass filters.
> 
> You may indeed like the results you get with filters and B&W film, but
> there's no ground on which to argue that these results are unquestionably
> superior or more correct, or contain more information.

Paul,

He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
because he wants to _argue_.

This is a guy who argued on USENET for days that you can get a better
understanding of the optical performance of a particular lens by reading the
manufacturer's MTF curves over actually using the lens.

He doesn't do B/W inkjet printing--he is here to fan the flames. Look at the
archives for the other capture spats-- you will see his posts, ad nauseum.

Oh yeah, you might want to ask if he actually has any experience with
digital capture...

Jon

Attachments

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.