Digital BW, The Print

The original "topic"  was concerned with how much instrumentation 
was necessaryy to achieve acceptable to the individual ( a 
subjective question)  grey-scale prints on paper.  Several answered 
this question with their opinions and I for one appreciated both 
sides of the discussion until a few from the instumentation side 
began to throw insults.   As i said before, the English word 
technology comes from ancient Greek "tekne' and would apply to "know-
how" in general without regard for how that knowledge was obtained - 
i.e. by instruments or by emperic obsevation and inductive and 
deductive reasoning.

I am in fact a scientist who makes use of grey-scale imaging for 
medical imaging and image guided intervention for humans. I would 
argue that my field, Radiology, uses grey-scale imaging more, by 
orders of magnitude,. than any other.  What we don't do is print on 
paper!  Increasingly, image viewing is done on monitores and never 
printed.  When we do print it, is on transperency for viewing on 
light boxes.  I'm not sure what scientific field would use grey-
scale imaging on paper to any extent whatsoever, but would be 
willing to be enlightened.

So, I would argue that the vast majority of those on this list are 
indeed interested in printing on paper with grey-scale for the 
purpose of producing "art"`or at least craft.   


What those of us who ask the questions want to know is how can we do 
what our vision leads us to do - and how much investment will be 
required in time, money, and intellectual energy?  For an infinite 
being, more "technology" would always be better as you say.  BUT, we 
are not infinite, and for everything we do there will be something 
else we can't do. 

I belive we can all benefit from other's triumphs and failures 
regardless of how they were arrived at - as long as they are 
respectfully communicated.


So, a long ramble (for which I apologize) to say this stuff has NOT 
in my opinion been Off Topic.  And my opinion is, I must admit, not 
as humble as it might be.... 

Michael j. Vendrell, MD

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> This whole art, subjective vs analytical discussion is IMHO way 
off topic.
> This forum is by definition about the technical process of 
printing.  It is
> not about the image.  It is not about "art" because it doesn't 
define the
> image content.  A participant on this forum could well be 
interested in,
> say, printing highly technical B&W images for scientific 
purposes.  Are we
> trying to limit this B&W printing list to just "artists"?  People 
can decide
> what and how many technical skills to apply based on their 
knowledge and,
> unfortunately, their budget.  But having got the image they want 
the
> rendition of that vision on paper is a technical skill.  
Restraints in
> technical ability or technology itself may impose limits which in 
turn
> require subjective compromise but make no mistake that the 
boundary of what
> is possible once the image is perceived in the mind's eye is 
defined by
> technical factors.  Expand your technical skills and obtain 
greater access
> to technical assistance (be it human or mechanical) and you will 
undoubtedly
> expand your ability to render your artistic talent on paper.  I 
simply do
> not believe that technical skill crowds out existing artistic 
talent.
> Rather it gives it the platform for expression.
> 
> Digital Black and White: THE PRINT