Digital BW, The Print

"Real images of the world"??????? You gotta be kidding!!!!! For nearly thirty years I have been a commercial photographer and NEVER, NOT ONCE, has there been a colour film that shows "real" images, or "real" colour. There is an enormously, hugely, gigantically, big industry out there constantly trying to get what a fim sees to match what a "real" colour might be, but it hasn't happened yet and it won't anytime soon. Through the years there has been one interpretation after another of "colour", resulting in one photographer going this way, and another going that way. VPS isn't real, nor VHC, nor Ektar, nor Velvia, nor the new "saturated" ektachromes, nor the "warm" ektachromes . . . ALL of them offer an interpretation, as does black and white. ALL of them are false. As for black and white, I frankly think it gives a more "real" representation of what I see . . . perhaps because it minimizes the neon efforts of Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa. 

I shoot black and white to get an image I want. I shoot phony colour to pay for my house, car, food, kid's education, etc, etc.

Paul Aparycki
(an expert colour shooter, but a sensual pussycat in B/W)
  > As for me being in the dark ages, surely it's the devoted B&W fans who are 
  > still in the dark ages when B&W was the only way to produce images of the 
  > world around us. But they invented color photography quite a long while ago, 
  > and now we can get real images of the world on paper, that match what we 
  > see. I'd hate to be one of those animals whose eyes only detect B&W; but I 
  > sometimes get the feeling that some on this list would prefer not to have 
  > color vision!
  > 
  > Now look what you've made me say. ;)
  > 
  > Bob Frost.

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