<< There is no such thing as true "continuous tone" - every image, regardless
of process, is made up of particles of opaque material in a clear or
translucent matrix.
Yes, silh, but isn't it true that because there is some thickness in
photographic emulsion and because light gets scattered when travelling through
such material, it actually acts like continuous-tone image in terms of
blocking the light instead of like dithered image although physically the
image is made up of opaque particles?
If this is not true and that every image is truly just dithered dots, then how
can we even explain the relief of carbon prints?
Even in gum images where the relief is not as pronounced as carbon prints, the
darkest area is still thicker compared to the light area. It is not just a
matter of more or less random dots.
>> To the argument that "a dot is a dot" - modern printers
dither, and provide a pseudo-random pattern, much like the semi-random
pattern of silver and other opaque particles obtained in chemical methods.
Yes, but these modern printers print the dots in one layer only.
>> What Luis says about the nature of modern color prints made with
computer printers is that the eye finds it difficult to differentiate.
I believe what Luis said was that it was difficult to differentiate the
printed image from a photographic print as far as tone is concerned; but if
you show him a dithered image (it can be extremely fine and look continous but
if it doesn't give relief) and a carbon image (esp. one with high relief), I
believe he can differentiate the two standing 10 feet away (exeggerating but
you know what I mean).
But I don't want to interprete what Luis meant. Could you comment, Luis?