Digital BW, The Print

Hello Tyler,

>However, that BO printing can render a scale workable and 
>reproducable down to increments of 256 is a valid statement 
>based on your experience, and that it is "enough" is supportable 
>as well.  In other words, it probably doesn't matter.

Thanks for the clarification.  I can appreciate (and do not doubt,
coming from you) that on some theoretical level there are limitations.
I have just gotten impatient with the theorists who claim or imply
that BO printing should not be considered a viable technique, when the
practical reality is that it can produce beautiful prints that
unbiased viewers sometimes prefer over quadtones (I'm referring to the
tests reported here where viewers were shown identical sets of
quadtone and BO prints and asked to select the ones they liked best). 

You are, in my experience, the first person who understands the
theoretical side who has been willing to acknowledge the practical
reality, and I appreciate that very much.  

All I am trying to do, in my replies to statements like Wendel's, is
to keep BO printing from sliding back into the pariah status it once
suffered under.  BO printing offers some attributes which may or may
not appeal to the user, like any other system.   Its viability is
evidenced by the fact that it is the preferred method of many people.

What has me excited about this digital capture thing is that it
appears to reduce by several orders of magnitude one of the two
drawbacks of BO printing. If this holds true, it has huge
implications for BO's viability for BW photographers using digital
cameras.

Every system has its strengths and weaknesses, and BO printing
deserves its rightful place in the line up.  That's all I have ever
pushed for.  Perhaps someday there will be a system that has BO's pros
without its cons.  I would certainly welcome it.

Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm