Digital BW, The Print

Anthony,

> > No, actually, you haven't...  I know you believe
> > you have, but you're missing the point.
>
> Explain to me why this statement would be true when you utter it, but not
> true when I utter it.

Since you've conveniently clipped what this statement is related to, and I'm
not going to waste my time looking it up.

> > Name them, please ...
>
> I already have.  Spectral yellow is rendered identically to a certain
> combination of spectral red and green.
>
> > ... and then after you do, show that this is significant.
>
> If it were not significant, no color display or printing system
> that exists
> today would work.

Again, you have failed to show the significance of this as it relates to
B&W.  I don't care about color printing systems, we are not talking about
color printing systems.

> > You are aware that B&W film gives the same tonality
> > for many different colors?
>
> Yes.  And it also gives different tones for many different color as well.

Er, right...but so what?  It's intensity based, not tonal based.

> And often the response of the film is essentially random across the
> spectrum.

So if I take the same picture 10 times, with the same film, exposure, camera
etc. I get random tonality?

> > Again, show that that is significant.
>
> I have, probably at least a dozen times by now.  If you didn't
> understand it
> the first eleven times, why would you understand it now?

Well, it's because claiming something is significant doesn't SHOW it is, it
merely SAYS it is, and fact is, you have not shown the significance.  You
can't, that's why you don't.  You continue to bring in filters, which have
absolutely no bearing what so ever on the topic.  And the only reason I can
guess is because you know your challenge to my original premise is now
incorrect, so you are trying to find a way to misdirect that.

Austin