Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 17:38:39 -0700
I have the feeling that someone out there has an ax to grind, and
is trolling for an argument. Nevertheless ...
I think the problem is too many people think they know much more than they
do. I occasionally use a variable ND Wedge that is true continuous tone -
it has to be, and they are made with a carbon suspension. Ultra close-up
will reveal a bunch of particles as well. It is as continuous tone as
possible.
Secondly, why the arguments about what is and is not continuous tone in the
first place? Every negative I have ever taken is continuous tone. In this
discussion of contone whatever the heck that is as it applies to this
argument, is not continuous tone, for going to the atomic level would
reveal particles with space around them. Yes, this is so ridiculous I hate
typing it.
Digital Output is measured in DPI (Dots Per Inch). It can't be looked at
the same way as film, because it is different. Even those high resolution
printers like those offered by IRIS do not produce output at a True
Resolution, but less than stated, because there are some technical reasons
why stated output is often less than actual output. It is complicated and I
really do not understand.
The point is, the discussions of this type is complicated, and in my view
pointless. Photomechanical reproduction, regardless of how high quality it
might be, is still an image made up of black and white dots with absolutely
no gray in between It is the variable spaces between the dots that allow
for shades of gray.
Now, we have some people telling us that there is no such thing as
continuous tone. I guess every film manufacturer, tens of thousands of
photographers, lab workers, writers, photo editors, film developers and
scientists, the whole of the entire body of all optical associations -
worldwide, ..... all of them have it wrong? Try telling them that there is
no such thing as continuous tone. Do not forget music, no continuous tone
there, as the instrument, atmosphere, frequency vary. We hear continuous
Tone, so it exists, even though it does not exist?
We will not even go into how the human eyes see things, this would
complicate a pointless discussion further. all we see is points of light,
various frequency that change. I think a look into the biology and science
would...well, that's for another list.
Incidentally, if you mix several colors of paint together and look at them
under a microscope, there nothing more than particles side by side. No
continuous tone there. In fact, by the replies from several, continuous
tone can't possibly exist anyway. False. Can we find another topic?
Good Day
RM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41