Digital BW, The Print

> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:52:28 -0800
> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Subject: RE: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
> 
>> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
>> 
>> RGB is worse because it collapses all the spectral energy of the
>> original scene into just three numbers.  There is no way to restore that
>> spectral distribution from those three numbers.  True black and white
>> capture (be it electronic or film) captures an image as a function of
>> the continuous spectral sensitivity of the capture medium and the
>> continuous spectral emission of the image being recorded.  There is no
>> way to simulate that continuous function with just three numbers.  So
>> there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
>> accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.
> 
> Excuse me, but black and white film "collapses all the spectral energy of
> the original scene" into just one number.
> 
> In theory, you can certainly acheive results with a narrowband filter in
> front of B&W film that cannot be attained precisely by using an RGB sensor
> and Photoshop. However, there are some practical problems:
> 
> 1) You only get one particular result with a particular filter. Once it's in
> the B&W domain, you've lost all ability to make adjustments to anything but
> the grayscale.
> 
> 2) You can't see the results of your filter choice until hours later.
> 
> 3) The commercial filters used for B&W photography aren't narrowband anyway.
> The blue and green ones are no more narrowband than the filters in a
> digicam. The red and yellow ones are actually low-pass filters.
> 
> You may indeed like the results you get with filters and B&W film, but
> there's no ground on which to argue that these results are unquestionably
> superior or more correct, or contain more information.

Paul,

He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
because he wants to _argue_.

This is a guy who argued on USENET for days that you can get a better
understanding of the optical performance of a particular lens by reading the
manufacturer's MTF curves over actually using the lens.

He doesn't do B/W inkjet printing--he is here to fan the flames. Look at the
archives for the other capture spats-- you will see his posts, ad nauseum.

Oh yeah, you might want to ask if he actually has any experience with
digital capture...

Jon

> From: Jon [mailto:vze249jf@...]
>
> He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
> because he wants to _argue_.

You may be right, but he's no stranger to me. I'm not arguing with him to
prove _him_ wrong...I'm arguing with him for the benefit of anyone else who
might be swayed one way or another.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

I think I'm just going to not open his posts anymore.
 
Tom Baker

"Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...> wrote:
> From: Jon [mailto:vze249jf@...]
>
> He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
> because he wants to _argue_.

You may be right, but he's no stranger to me. I'm not arguing with him to
prove _him_ wrong...I'm arguing with him for the benefit of anyone else who
might be swayed one way or another.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I just took a previous suggestion, and put him in the spam/trash filter.
 
Tom Baker

Jack M Kucy <jmk@...> wrote:
He is THE REASON why I have said nothing on this fprum. Why bother, if 
every statement will be turned upside down - and against you.
---
I guess it's a role af the moderator to cut short the threads which 
become tiresome and lead nowhere.
Jack

Jon wrote:

> > Message: 10
> > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:52:28 -0800
> > From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> > Subject: RE: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
> >
> >> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
> >>
> >> RGB is worse because it collapses all the spectral energy of the
> >> original scene into just three numbers.  There is no way to restore 
> that
> >> spectral distribution from those three numbers.  True black and white
> >> capture (be it electronic or film) captures an image as a function of
> >> the continuous spectral sensitivity of the capture medium and the
> >> continuous spectral emission of the image being recorded.  There is no
> >> way to simulate that continuous function with just three numbers.  So
> >> there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
> >> accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.
> >
> > Excuse me, but black and white film "collapses all the spectral 
> energy of
> > the original scene" into just one number.
> >
> > In theory, you can certainly acheive results with a narrowband filter in
> > front of B&W film that cannot be attained precisely by using an RGB 
> sensor
> > and Photoshop. However, there are some practical problems:
> >
> > 1) You only get one particular result with a particular filter. Once 
> it's in
> > the B&W domain, you've lost all ability to make adjustments to 
> anything but
> > the grayscale.
> >
> > 2) You can't see the results of your filter choice until hours later.
> >
> > 3) The commercial filters used for B&W photography aren't narrowband 
> anyway.
> > The blue and green ones are no more narrowband than the filters in a
> > digicam. The red and yellow ones are actually low-pass filters.
> >
> > You may indeed like the results you get with filters and B&W film, but
> > there's no ground on which to argue that these results are 
> unquestionably
> > superior or more correct, or contain more information.
>
> Paul,
>
> He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
> because he wants to _argue_.
>
> This is a guy who argued on USENET for days that you can get a better
> understanding of the optical performance of a particular lens by 
> reading the
> manufacturer's MTF curves over actually using the lens.
>
> He doesn't do B/W inkjet printing--he is here to fan the flames. Look 
> at the
> archives for the other capture spats-- you will see his posts, ad nauseum.
>
> Oh yeah, you might want to ask if he actually has any experience with
> digital capture...
>
> Jon
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


-- 

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

He is THE REASON why I have said nothing on this fprum. Why bother, if 
every statement will be turned upside down - and against you.
---
I guess it's a role af the moderator to cut short the threads which 
become tiresome and lead nowhere.
 Jack

Jon wrote:

> > Message: 10
> > Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:52:28 -0800
> > From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> > Subject: RE: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale
> >
> >> From: Anthony G. Atkielski [mailto:anthony@...]
> >>
> >> RGB is worse because it collapses all the spectral energy of the
> >> original scene into just three numbers.  There is no way to restore 
> that
> >> spectral distribution from those three numbers.  True black and white
> >> capture (be it electronic or film) captures an image as a function of
> >> the continuous spectral sensitivity of the capture medium and the
> >> continuous spectral emission of the image being recorded.  There is no
> >> way to simulate that continuous function with just three numbers.  So
> >> there exists an infinity of black and white scenes that cannot be
> >> accurately reproduced using a conversion from RGB.
> >
> > Excuse me, but black and white film "collapses all the spectral 
> energy of
> > the original scene" into just one number.
> >
> > In theory, you can certainly acheive results with a narrowband filter in
> > front of B&W film that cannot be attained precisely by using an RGB 
> sensor
> > and Photoshop. However, there are some practical problems:
> >
> > 1) You only get one particular result with a particular filter. Once 
> it's in
> > the B&W domain, you've lost all ability to make adjustments to 
> anything but
> > the grayscale.
> >
> > 2) You can't see the results of your filter choice until hours later.
> >
> > 3) The commercial filters used for B&W photography aren't narrowband 
> anyway.
> > The blue and green ones are no more narrowband than the filters in a
> > digicam. The red and yellow ones are actually low-pass filters.
> >
> > You may indeed like the results you get with filters and B&W film, but
> > there's no ground on which to argue that these results are 
> unquestionably
> > superior or more correct, or contain more information.
>
> Paul,
>
> He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
> because he wants to _argue_.
>
> This is a guy who argued on USENET for days that you can get a better
> understanding of the optical performance of a particular lens by 
> reading the
> manufacturer's MTF curves over actually using the lens.
>
> He doesn't do B/W inkjet printing--he is here to fan the flames. Look 
> at the
> archives for the other capture spats-- you will see his posts, ad nauseum.
>
> Oh yeah, you might want to ask if he actually has any experience with
> digital capture...
>
> Jon
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service 
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


-- 

_________________________________________________
Jack M Kucy
JMK Gallery (www.jmk-gallery.com)
917-991-2096     jmk@...
Member of ASMP (www.asmp.org)
_________________________________________________
...a riveder le stelle




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> I think I'm just going to not open his posts anymore.
> 
> Tom Baker 

Hi Tom,

Sad that it has to come to that. You are by no means the first person to
make that statement. I'm just tired of having lists that are productive and
useful infected by this guy.

The arguments always follow this form:

Rational person: (looking at blue sky) Hmm, the sky appears blue.

Anthony Atkielski: The sky appears pink with purple polka dots.

Rational person: Ugh, no, the sky appears blue.

Anthony Atkielski: No it doesn't.

Rational person: Ugh, yes it does.

Anthony Atkielski: No it doesn't.

Rational person: Ugh, yes it does--do you have proof otherwise?

Anthony Atkielski: -silence- -obfuscation- -denial- -lack of experience-.

Rational person: Proof?

Anthony Atkielski: The sky appears pink with purple polka dots.

Rational person: Ugh, no, the sky appears blue.

Anthony Atkielski: No it doesn't.

Rational person: OK, whatever, this is futile.

Anthony Atkielski: Ah! Through my superior rationality, I have discerned
truth and have won the argument! The sky does in fact now appear pink with
purple polka dots.

Rational person: Oh geez! That isn't true, I just happen to have a life and
really want to get back to B/W digital printing...

Each time someone gives up because they grasp the futility of arguing with
this guy he gets a much-needed boost to his psyche--that is why he is here,
his raison d'etre--he has admitted he doesn't do B/W digital printing.
Lasting in a debate is not the same as being correct.

I've quit other lists because of his trolling--I'm not giving up this one.

Jon

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> 
>> From: Jon [mailto:vze249jf@...]
>> 
>> He isn't arguing in order to prove you _wrong_... he is arguing with you
>> because he wants to _argue_.
> 
> You may be right, but he's no stranger to me.

Ah, I see he needs no introduction.

>I'm not arguing with him to
> prove _him_ wrong...I'm arguing with him for the benefit of anyone else who
> might be swayed one way or another.

That I understand...

Jon

I'm not giving up.  I'll just ingnore him.  That's pretty easy to do in an email environment.
 
Tom Baker

Jon <vze249jf@...> wrote:
> I think I'm just going to not open his posts anymore.
> 
> Tom Baker 

Hi Tom,

Sad that it has to come to that. You are by no means the first person to
make that statement. I'm just tired of having lists that are productive and
useful infected by this guy.

The arguments always follow this form:

Rational person: (looking at blue sky) Hmm, the sky appears blue.

Anthony Atkielski: The sky appears pink with purple polka dots.

Rational person: Ugh, no, the sky appears blue.

Anthony Atkielski: No it doesn't.

Rational person: Ugh, yes it does.

Anthony Atkielski: No it doesn't.

Rational person: Ugh, yes it does--do you have proof otherwise?

Anthony Atkielski: -silence- -obfuscation- -denial- -lack of experience-.

Rational person: Proof?

Anthony Atkielski: The sky appears pink with purple polka dots.

Rational person: Ugh, no, the sky appears blue.

Anthony Atkielski: No it doesn't.

Rational person: OK, whatever, this is futile.

Anthony Atkielski: Ah! Through my superior rationality, I have discerned
truth and have won the argument! The sky does in fact now appear pink with
purple polka dots.

Rational person: Oh geez! That isn't true, I just happen to have a life and
really want to get back to B/W digital printing...

Each time someone gives up because they grasp the futility of arguing with
this guy he gets a much-needed boost to his psyche--that is why he is here,
his raison d'etre--he has admitted he doesn't do B/W digital printing.
Lasting in a debate is not the same as being correct.

I've quit other lists because of his trolling--I'm not giving up this one.

Jon






Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- Include your full name with your message.
- Include the address of your website, if you have one.
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames
- Complete your Yahoo profile.
- Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> From: Tom Baker <tbaker1328@...>
> Subject: Re: RE: Atkielski's Pathos (was: RE: Re: RGB Convert to Grayscale)

Yeah, I guess I'll have to give up the digest so I can filter. I wish you
could filter the digest--I'll have to look into that.

Jon

> I'm not giving up.  I'll just ingnore him.  That's pretty easy to do in an
> email environment.
> 
> Tom Baker
> 
> Jon <vze249jf@...> wrote:
>> I think I'm just going to not open his posts anymore.
>> 
>> Tom Baker