Digital BW, The Print

As technical editor of a trade magazine, I must understand what goes on 
in the world of photography to a much higher level than my readers 
require. As a working photographer, I have tried to "retire" from 
endless testing to get to the truth, event though that is impossible. I 
have, however, in my 20 years of digital output (11 years digital input 
with some film overlap), managed to sell over 500,000 digital prints in 
the event world.

Since I still do personal work in B&W, and as a former "zoner," I can 
appreciate the work of Clayton, with his use of RELATIVE rating. 
Empirical testing of only 2 components, with a VERY useful conclusion. 
One can readily make some informed decisions about substantial paper 
batch investments (financial committment) from a guy who can "hang them 
on the wall,' as opposed to a meter reader. To that I say:  nice work.

While I see both sides of the argument, I don't see where the more 
ABSOLUTE and repeatable rating system would increase the immediate 
usefulness of Clayton's rating system.

I own a spectro, but I can plainly see the difference in relative 
blackness of different papers using my eyes, the ultimate comparator 
(but terrible quatifier). My customers couldn't care less about Dmax 
since they don't know what it is.

Claude Jodoin