Digital BW, The Print

I'm not suggesting that it isn't useful information or that it 
shouldn't be done, but it is far from the whole picture (so to speek:)

Just like lens tests *not* showing Leica or Zeiss lenses to be *that* 
much better than anything else... image magic is complex and is hard 
to measure.

I think any complete test would have to compare the easily measured 
variables and then include actual images to balance out the 
judging... in the end you want images and not targets or stepwedges.

I would like to see the results if they get posted somewhere though.

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Gus J Grubba 
<gus@g...> wrote:
> Well... but that's what it was. It was testing the print quality. If
> you introduce "artistic feel", objectivity is lost. I understand 
your
> point but I don't think it can apply here. The testes were done in a
> "measurable" way. If you need to interpret its artistic values, it
> becomes really hard to be objective.
> 
> g
> 
> MH> This seems way too simplistic to me because it completely 
ignores the
> MH> aspect of "artistic feel" in the resulting prints.  A target 
may be
> MH> good for showing the dither pattern, general accuracy of tonal 
output
> MH> for a given gradient, but actual photos are much more complex 
and 
> MH> have infinitely variable gradiations etc. not tested in this 
> MH> shootout.  I'm not arguing against the findings since I've 
never used
> MH> the Piezography system, and I don't doubt that it is very good, 
but
> MH> don't have much faith this being the acid test for b&w print 
quality.
> 
> MH> mark