Digital BW, The Print

> Dan's whole point was that there are a lot of people who watch their
> histograms rather than their images and the proof is in the image not the
> representation of the image. IOW, trust your eyes over the math or the
> histogram.

I can agree with that, that's why I specifically said that if you have
combing, you MAY get posterization, but if you get posterization you WILL
have combing (there were disclaimers in my initial statement that still
stand).

> > Yes, you are absolutely correct.  Because you have "holes" (missing
> > codes/values) in the histogram, doesn't mean you are going to get
> > posterization, but I guarantee you, if you have posterization
> (due to image
> > "problems", not ink/printer problem) you WILL see holes in the
> histogram.
>
> Not taking issue with the possibility of what you say, just the
> absoluteness
> of it. My experience is suggesting otherwise, and I think a lot of us make
> the assumption that some of these failures are due to insufficient bit
> depth, when in fact it's something else. I know I did.

That's why I added that there MAY be other problems, like with inks or
whatever...you are right, posterization can be caused by many things...but
my point was, if you ARE getting it because of insufficient number of codes
then your histogram will be combed.  Kind of like saying if you have two
quarters, then you have $0.50...