Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
Note Stephen had his own reasons for the thread so I'm not putting words in his mouth. These are just my views.
I'm guessing that he just wants to discuss the issues since there didn't seem to be any questions asked.
[update: Stephen seems to have already answered this whilst I was still typing]

IMO it would have been better to preface the post with a purpose, probably a lot of members aren't interested (or at least think they're not) in such things.

I think, for the most part, prints are generally seen with a (somewhat) "average surround," where these effects don't matter a great deal. But if one wants to "tailor" their prints for a specific non-average location, an understanding of the preferred tonal curves might save some time. (Assuming they already had a collection of film and paper curves, and a means to translate to tonal repro curves.)

One can get to the same place through pure trial and error, so there's more than one way to get there. When someone tries different developers and papers to find what they like best (with different scenes and display conditions), I think this is what they're doing.


Quote Originally Posted by MaximusM3 View Post
Ha yes, Michael, and since much of it is indeed "subjective" that's when a lot of theory goes right out the window
Actually, being subjective doesn't mean that it's unpredictable. There are, in fact, a number of so-called "color appearance models" that take things to such an extreme that, dare I say it, even Stephen might think is excessive.