@scottbb Thats BS. The question you suggested doesn't address monochrome issues at all. The issues with B&W are totally different than for color processing.
Unfortunately, I can't go back and refer to it or discuss it, since the question has been deleted. Is your new question a repost of the contents of the deleted question?
From the suggest question: "As I understand it, the main reason for them originally was for effects with black and white film, but now even black and white is a post-processing effect." That's an assumption on the part of the questioner, but the issue was mentioned/opened.
The last 2 paragraphs of the accepted answer address B&W, starting with, "The usual color filters for BW film are not very useful in digital world as these can easily result overexposure in one channel and leave the other channels underexposed and noisy."
Roland Shaw's answer addresses B&W.
I argue that your answer to your question is an excellent answer to the suggested dupe question. And I argue that the questions are substantially similar enough to warrant a dupe close.
I missed the reference in ROland's answer. I still think a separate question that deals only with B&W is warranted.
I means seriously, it's the seventh answer down. How many are going to read that far? With nine existing answers would a tenth answer to that question ever be read by anyone?
@MichaelClark (with regards to a correct answer not having a lot of rep love): But you know that's not how SE works. Your answer is 100% applicable, indeed, needed, at that question. At worst, the other question needs only a tiny bit of editing to remove the implicit assumption about B&W. Hell, the question should be left as is, and your answer could directly address the implicit assumption to correct it. I still don't see why a separate question is necessary.
The B&W use is the primary reason to use color filters, so yours is (or, should be) the definitive answer to the suggested dupe.
"But you know that's not how SE works". Understood. But I think this is probably SE's greatest weakness. If a large group agree on an incorrect answer out of ignorance (meant purely in the sense that they are unaware of many of the considerations involved in a particular question) and someone comes along later and presents those considerations the information is never seen and the answers that actually get eyes on them don't change.
@MichaelClark okay, but consider that your answer, just posted to the old question, will still show up at the top of active questions, and will probably get plenty of upvotes to bump it up to 3rd or 4th in very little time.
look at it this way. A similar question gets asked next year, and the following year. Which question gets referred to as the dupe? And it seems entirely reasonable that your question would get flagged to be merged to the other (or possibly, the other question merged into yours, although the age/history of the old dupe probably gives it the home court advantage).
@scottbb LOL. Yeah right. The default view when you go to a question is "votes', not "active". Adding a new answer puts the question at the top of active questions, but doesn't put the new answer at the top of anything.
When's the last time any answer, even to a new question, has gotten more than four or five votes unless the question involves nudity or some such other sensationalistic topic?
@MichaelClark I understand the point of your last question, but I'll answer it straight: bafflingly, the answer to the 4k question got 99 and counting votes. photo.stackexchange.com/a/80293/11924
