Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "J Michael 
Sullivan" <michael@h...> wrote:
> What you are advocating is a wasteful workflow for those who may have limited 
> resources. It certainly is an EXPENSIVE workflow -- hence my assertion of bragging 
> rights (which you quickly fell into) for those who, by right of better equipment and 
> the latest software, are somehow "greater than thou". Yuch.
> 
> There are many on this list who seek to achieve "best practices" without the  
> wastefulness of your 16-bit dogma (i.e. 16-bit is always better -- and by implication: 
> 8-bit users are less than real photographers).
> 
> My recommended workfow for most users remains: generate an *optimal* scan, save 
> in 8-bit and you have achieved the equivalent of the zone system. You seem to not 
> understand the concept of putting the effort into the scan before it gets into 
> Photoshop.
> 
> Your workflow: scan anyway you want as long as it is in 16-bits. Doesn't matter how 
> good or bad it is. Even raw if fine. Then when you have the inclination, fix it up. 
> Great. Good for you. But your result (for the vast majority of all B&W images) will be 
> as good as an optimal 8-bit workflow. And it still remains wasteful and suggestive of 
> "anything less is not worthy of consideration". Talk about demogogery. Not everyone 
> has Photoshop CS. Not everyone has 2gb ram. Not everyone has 1 Terabyte of hd. 
> 
> (however I do).

Whopdeedoo for you. I have none of those things.
"bragging  rights (which you quickly fell into) for those who, by right 
of better equipment and  the latest software, are somehow "greater than 
thou"."
Hmm.
Excuse me but you have no idea what my workflow is, or what my dogma 
is, I have stated neither. You also mis-characterized my "implication".
I'm out of this one kids, good luck.
Tyler