Digital BW, The Print

Clayton,

> One of the problems in the debate aspect of this thread, as I see it,
> is that some of the participants have so far refused to acknowledge
> some of Anthony's important points.

You assume they are important.  I do not believe they are.  I would
acknowledge them if I thought they were.  They have also not been shown to
have any importance/substance, which is what I take issue with.

> What he IS saying is that we cannot exactly duplicate what the BW film
> can do.

What does "exactly" mean?  This is the problem I have with Anthony.  He uses
words that are amorphous, and when it is taken to task for his statements,
he believes he can then move the meaning around (to quote "It was a
simplified illustration" etc.).  I, for one, get tired of it.  Of course,
you can't "exactly" duplicate Tri-X with anything but Tri-X, that isn't in
dispute...but you CAN to a very very very high degree, replicate it.

> Whether
> the difference is discernable to the photographer is another matter.

No, that should be the ONLY matter.

> Both I and another photographer have reported that we have so far
> failed in our efforts to get a color->bw result that satisfies us, and
> I think that fact is an important part of the topic.  In fact, it's
> really what the topic is about.

Agreed.  I don't know what you have done, so I certainly can't comment on
it.

> Anthony's information is the first
> plausible explanation for a question I've asked on and off for months
> and gotten almost zero response to.

Er, what information?  He hasn't said anything of any substance that I've
seen.  Specifically, what is it you believe has some substance that he's
said?

> It has never really been about Tri-X, just that it has been the film
> used in the discussion as an example, partly because of my input and
> because it is such a distinctive and widely used film.

I'm fine with that, but it certainly helps to have a baseline to discuss, as
in my comparison of the Provia vs Tri-X spectral sensitivity.

> I have used
> Tri-X for so many years that all my intuitive artistic sensibilities
> are attuned to it...

Same here...it is my favorite film.

> ...to the point that I have, so far, not been able to
> emulate it to my satisaction.

Yes, but that's the problem.  Emulate what?  To what development?  To what
exposure?  What YOU do with Tri-X, I don't know, and it very may be
substantially different than what I do with it.  I only know what I do with
it.  It's a moving target.  Given that, Anthony can go on adnauseum saying
"see, I said you can't emulate it".

> I continue to hope that the technology
> and my own skills and knowledge will someday give me satisfactory
> results, as I'd love to get away from dependence on film.

Whoa, who said anything about not using film?  I am specifically discussing
scanning of color film vs scanning of Tri-X and being able to convert the
scanned color film into grayscale that can't be distinguished from Tri-X.
That is an entirely different problem than using a digital capture device
and trying to match Tri-X.

> I appreciate very much what Anthony has brought to this and I'm sorry
> he has become so frustrated at the obtuseness of some of the other
> participants.

Interesting.  I see it entirely differently.  It's that I have become
frustrated with HIS obtuseness and inability to understand basic concepts
that I believe he is missing.

> His explanations have been crystal clear.

It's not his explanations I've seen as clear.  So far, he hasn't answered my
question about frequency, and until he does, his "theory" is clearly
unsubstantiated, and that's clear to me.

I'm happy to listen to what you believe is clear, and in fact I'd appreciate
it...because if you do believe there is any substance there, and I've
overlooked it, I'd like to see it.

Austin