Digital BW, The Print

Yep,  Just think back to what most of us have done in the darkroom over many years.  We tested, tested, and tested materials 'till we just couldn't tolerate looking a one more test strip.  Most of us found these test useful to weed out the technical process/materials that simply weren't useful.  The remainder we tended to keep on hand because most had at least some application to images we made.  Different film/paper/developer for differents subjects/situations.  And it woked well.  In a sense we have given up that flexibility with digital.  It is simply too expensive for most of us to have all of the ink/paper combinations on hand that might be useful for certain images.
 
In short, I find tests useful for providing 'don't buy' information, not 'buy' information.
 
Tom Baker

Mark Hahn <markhahn2000@...> wrote:
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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]