Digital BW, The Print

> 
> 
> I'm not interested in looking at RAW files.

Since this forum is for black and white (luma information) prints, the RAW information is 
relevant, since it's just gray-scale information. My point is that 6.1 megapixels of luma 
information (spatially)  is more information than 3.4 megapixels of luma information, 
spatially. Thus there is, in fact, >>>as far as B&W goes<<<, an advantage to having a 
Bayer layout, since it provides twice as many photosites... twice the resolution. (The size of 
a native Fuji image is 3024 pixels by 2024 pixels... 6.1 megapixels. The size of a native 
Foveon image is 1512 pixels by 2268 pixels ... 3.4 megapixels.) 

>It's the photo, stupid (we 
> are studid in another's frame of reference).

I'm sorry. I'm a veteran, and thought that most folks would recognize the reference to 
"KISS - Keep it Simple, Stupid" as that reminder is intended: not to get lost in minutia, and 
keep site of the ultimate goal: a quality picture.

If you were unfamiliar with that phrase, and thus failed to understand my usage, I 
apologize.

(In case it was missed, my "50% more" (instead of 100% more) comes from retail-speak. 
While it is counter-intuitive, in retail  an item that sells for $3, and cost $1.50 has a 50% 
markup... There is no such thing as 100% markup, unless the cost is zero, and then 
anything from one cent to a million dollars is "100%" markup...)

> > 
> > Pixels (outside the world of Foveon marketing literature) are spatial. The 
> > X3 sensor has 3.4 of them. It doesn't matter if you sample 1 color, 3 colors, 
> > or 31 colors at each pixel, it's still a pixel. I enjoy working with Foveon 
> > cameras, but their attempted redefinition of the term "pixel" is, as far as 
> > I'm concerned, an excellent example of your old salesman's credo "BS spoken 
> > with conviction sounds better than the truth."
> > 

Thank you, sir, for that explanation, for it is exactly what I was saying. I'm sorry if I did not 
explain it properly, and failed to understand that my vitriolic friend did not know the 
proper definition of the word.

I do not believe that I have propagated -any- misinformation here, and if that is not the 
case, again apologize, and would appreciate a clear explanation of how I have 
misinformed, so that I can learn from my mistakes, and correct my misunderstandings.

While I've not found it necessary to trumpet my own experience, I'll say that I've been 
involved in pushing pixels around on computers since 1978; and a photographer since 
1957. I purchased the first consumer digital camera and have used them since. 

All that however does not mitigate that there is always more to learn. If someone with a bit 
more tolerance than the gentleman(?) who issued personal attacks would care to explain 
exactly what I've gotten wrong in all this (other than perhaps my failure to define my 
terms) I'd be delighted to learn.

Finally I must say, in my 30 years of technical experience, and countless postings on 
hundreds of boards, seldom have I been so unfairly vilified. Fortunately, it does not appear 
to be the general tenor of this board, but it has gone a long way toward turning me into a 
lurker, rather than a contributor.

There are always "list bullies" and it has been my apparent misfortune to run into one.

I consider this matter closed now, and although there will most likely be further personal 
attacks, I'll refrain from replying, since I believe my postings to be correct, not "gross 
misinformation" unless it can be otherwise shown.