Digital BW, The Print

Hello Steve,

>Clayton who seems to abhor things technical...

I don't abhor things technical, I just keep them in a perspective that
is appropriate for the way I like to work.  


>...makes an effort to express densities in ratings that allow 
>him to express what he sees, 

That I agree with.


>...although it's a pity those ratings aren't of a scale that's
>more broadly meaningful.

What is a pity is that you miss the point.  The scale is appropriate
for the purpose of the review, which is clearly stated:

 "This is not a scientific study, but merely my own observations 
 and impressions, so please don't treat this as the final truth.  
 It is just a general guide to provide some idea of what these 
 papers are like."

The purpose of the review's dmax ratings is not to tell what the dmax
of a paper is.  It is to tell that it is more or less than some other
paper (with a particular ink and technique, Eboni BO in this case). 
And the same for the ink and paper color ratings.  

Because K3 gets better dmax on VFA than Eboni, the review is already
somewhat irrelevent to a K3 user.  The only way the review would be
truly scientifically accurate would be to test every ink on every
paper, in which case a spectro would be appropriate.  But that is not
the purpose here.  It is inherent in the nature of the review that it
deals in generalities.  It's only purpose is as stated: a general
guide to provide some idea of what these papers are like.



>I think we should all chip in and buy Clayton a spectrophotometer 

Completely unnecessary and unwanted - I hope nobody takes this
seriously.  


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm