Digital BW, The Print

Mark,

Your point is very well taken, and I've been giving it serious thought lately as to how to improve the AaI&A experience for members who aren't and perhaps don't even want to be steeped in all the technical details. My favorite bumper sticker I ever saw was on a Volkwagon Beetle. It said "Don't Honk, I'm peddling as fast as I can".

In fact, I'm currently working on a "Year End Summary" report for members (will be a green link document on my site) in which my goal is to lay out the basic trends and results I've seen in the research conducted over this past year. This summary should probably become an annual tradition much like an annual report for "stockholders".  And written with the typical photographer or printmaker in mind not the color science gurus.

Also, I'm thinking about adding a basic group of tutorials, perhaps even venturing into the whole video clip delivery (I will need to buy a "Mr. Rogers, welcome to my neighborhood" sweater, don't you think?). Subjects, like "What are Megalux hours anyway", "Straight talk about OBAs", "Conservation Myths and Legends", etc.

A little background here if I may. I created the AaI&A test reports to have very strong scientific defenses against technical criticisms from imaging experts who might choose to cry foul against the I* metric as being currently "unblessed" by the scientific community. It's a chicken and egg problem. The metric won't ever get accepted if it isn't used, and because I'm the inventor, I'm willing to put my money (and my scientific reputation) where my mouth is and start the "vetting" ball rolling in the right direction...hence AaI&A's use of the I* metric in a new and advanced light fade testing protocol.  But to mitigate potential  criticism, I deliberately include all the raw CIELAB data and classic delta E values as well. So, for the experts who are uncomfortable with the I* metric, they can simply use the raw data and perform whatever additional analyses that suit their purposes.  The downside, of course, to all that included information is that the test reports look like a scary read to the lay person.

That said, the I* metric was conceived as a figure of merit (FOM) that will ultimately be much easier for the average person to understand. Delta E and L*, a*, and b* values that often creep into our conversations are definitely not user friendly, and have serious technical shortcomings when applied to color errors in the context of real images.  But I* scores are easy to understand, IMHO, with just one of two minor caveats. After extensive confirmation studies over the last few years, I'm convinced the percentile ranking scale is working very well, and quite like a traditional grade point average (GPA) scale. Hence, 90% and above is excellent tone and color retention, 80% good, 70% satisfactory, 60% poor. The laymen can take this at face value without having to understand any of the underlying mathematics.  Of course, like any concerned parent, one may choose to set higher or lower standards, i.e. deciding that 70% just isn't satisfactory enough where your "child" is concerned.  But nonetheless the laymen ultimately will be better served by I* scores than by color difference equations or percent density loss figures.

Anyway,  I'm actually enjoying the goal of trying to bring complicated concepts in imaging science and conservation science down to earth while at the same avoiding the "dumb it down" marketing approach that often leads to utter silly nonsense. I know I still have a long way to go.

cheers,

Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia <mark@...> wrote:
>
> Mark,
> Might I make a suggestion. I know we are all very technical and scientific on this e-group and you are very technical and scientific about your testing, but reading the results might be a bit confusing or just plain not understandable to the layman. How about a one or two sentence summary at the top of the PDF with your best "down to earth" wording. Perhaps "as of this date I have found the following paper ink combination to be fading fast/slow/not at all" or something like that? Seeing certain numbers going down might be acceptable to some, but others might see it as a big fade issue. I.E... give us your personal feeling.
> 
> Unscientifically,
> Mark
> http://www.stillrivereditions.com