Digital BW, The Print

At 12:30 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>Finally, I asked him to pick which of the pairs he liked best. He had
>problems making the decision but finally picked the BO print of each
>of the four pairs.

Did you ask him afterwards if he could see the dots?

As I said, in my experiments the people who liked the
B-O prints were mainly ones who couldn't see the dots.

If he couldn't see them, obviously they wouldn't bother him,
and in most other respects B-O would be superior so of
course they would be preferable.   The catch is that lots of
people CAN see the dots.

It's a bit like metamerism - it doesn't bother people who are
colorblind  but I can't assume anyone I give a print to is colorblind.

I absolutely agree that from a sufficient distance B-O prints
look great - but I look at darkroom prints from all sorts of
distances so I want to be able to look at inkjet prints that
same way.

I like your experiment but I would have included a test
for whether the subject could SEE the dots, like I do
in my experiments on this.

> Did you ask him afterwards if he could see the dots?

No, I didn't ask about dots. I was more interested in his view which
were the better images, not dots. The man curates photo exhibits of
some rather famous photographers so I believe he knows images. I
figure if the dots are not a problem to him, why should they be to me?

Bob Michaels

> 
> As I said, in my experiments the people who liked the
> B-O prints were mainly ones who couldn't see the dots.
> 
> If he couldn't see them, obviously they wouldn't bother him,
> and in most other respects B-O would be superior so of
> course they would be preferable.   The catch is that lots of
> people CAN see the dots.
> 
> It's a bit like metamerism - it doesn't bother people who are
> colorblind  but I can't assume anyone I give a print to is colorblind.
> 
> I absolutely agree that from a sufficient distance B-O prints
> look great - but I look at darkroom prints from all sorts of
> distances so I want to be able to look at inkjet prints that
> same way.
> 
> I like your experiment but I would have included a test
> for whether the subject could SEE the dots, like I do
> in my experiments on this.

At 12:30 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>I then asked if he could see any dots (these were 11X14 prints) and he 
>could not.


GOOD.  That's the key!

I have no trouble seeing the dots with my naked eye from
a distance of about 18 inches or closer.   Some people can't
focus that close; others PREFER to look close.  Myopic viewers
who wear glasses, especially with prescriptions stronger than
-4 diopters, often take their glasses off to look at photos so
they can ONLY focus that close!   As photographers we
need to be aware of different viewing styles and make prints that
accomodate them.

At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
wrote:
>I
>figure if the dots are not a problem to him, why should they be to me?

Because maybe he can't SEE them.

And maybe other people who look at your photos can.  So
the question is whether the dots are a problem for people
who can see them.

It's like saying metamerism isn't a problem because you
showed a 2200 print to a colorblind person and he said
it was great.

Peter: I doubt it. One does not reach his level as a fine art photo
critic with bad eyesight. 

However, the evaluation was on print quality, not dot size. I'm
concerned with the best prints, not the smallest dots. 

Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, peter nelson
<peter@s...> wrote:
> At 09:27 AM 2/12/2003 +0000,
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 

> wrote:
> >I
> >figure if the dots are not a problem to him, why should they be to me?
> 
> Because maybe he can't SEE them.