Digital BW, The Print

Dr. Vendrell's post about methodology and goals, abbreviated below, is
appreciated.

My own academic background was (a long time ago) in Experimental
Psychology, with a strong Perceptual orientation. This involved
measurement of perception...quantification of what some would call
"subjective" responses (I happened to do my own research with a
"sensory deprivation chamber", a steel room that floated on oil and
springs at San Francisco State University).  

I've had occasion repeatedly to quantify photo technicians'
"subjective" evaluations of color and density, found them to be
comparably accurate to photometers in the main, and more accurate in
the case of the most skilled tier (perhaps the top 20% in a top lab). 

Preoccupation with peripheral technology and methodology by the wrong
people (perhaps meaning real photographers) can be as distracting and
counter-productive in digital/inkjet as it was in the "old days" of
custom color photolabs.

The big amateur-oriented labs generally have/had more "instruments"
and fewer highly skilled technicians than do the top tier of custom
labs serving graphics professionals, exhibit designers, advertising
agencies, and commercial photographers. IMO. Worth considering, perhaps.
 
Djon

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "mjvendrell2"
<mjvendrell2@y...> wrote:
> 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.
 
> Michael j. Vendrell, MD
>