With this in mind, lets walk through the various ramblings.

[Troll]

[I simply asked for an objective demonstration...] Of differential perception. Nice straw-man. If you want this, you a/b test. no unicorns will be forthcoming.

[made the color space of nature] Note: color space is a sub-set of EMR by definition.

[The limitation was precisely the latitude of the plates] The plates have two limitations you fail to appreciate: they are positive images and they are monochrome.

[Here's some samples of fluorescent paint] - WTF, no need thanks.

[What you're basically arguing is that the film couldn't have possibly captured the colors we see here] - film wasn't used, this is a straw-man, and irrelevant.

[So, I'll ask again for quantification. ] As a general concept, you quantify data with numbers. If I tell you [x,y] pixel N of 12.1 million went from [221,112,216] to [221,112,217] what then?. The impact on perception is non-linear and context deponent, to adjacent values (color in particular). This has as much relevance as reading Binary computer code.

[It would be interesting to see ... the pixels that are impossible] -- non-sensical formulation. That said, in a literal sense, each pixel that is tonal mapped was not visible in the original. because of the scanning process, there are no original tones. but even assuming that away, the www jpegs are tonally altered independent of color. You can difference these in photoshop. Heres how: take the scan 3-layer monochrome>flatten, align, crop and resize to match the online web jpeg. put both layers in a new file. confirm alignment. add BW layer the color Jpeg image. and difference. the "scan" from the "www". and there you go. a BW difference layer. all color is PS of course. But this yields no information, because of the non-linear impact of tonal variation deltas on image perception.

[I hope you notice that the photographs of the paint on the website are not themselves fluorescent.] I think this shows output gamut is a sub-set of visible light. see above.

[So, I'll ask again for quantification. This is the digital realm we're discussing. What I'm not asking for is the quantification of taste or feeling, or even of perception, in spite of this discussion. ] Again, this dishonest. You areasking for a quantification on the impact of perception. Or you're just fishing for something, so then you can say "this data you gave me is worthless"! All other meanings of the data are worthless. We've established this above, [x,y,z] deltas are like [0.1] binary information. But, that's so obvious I only mention it here for humor. =D

[I think you've successfully moved the goalposts past what we are capable of knowing directly. By alleging that these 16-bit TIFF grayscale images created in the scanning process are themselves heavily manipulated] Nobody moved the goal-post. You just don't know what game you are playing. All digital scans alter the image, nothing you can do. the scanner has a gamut. and the digital data and the perceptual data are non-linear. so there needs to be math added. That math has control parameters, set by the artist using PS.

[There's no way I can get my hands on the originals in order to ascertain whether you are correct.] You can get your hands on the plates. But, then you cannot make even the most basic adjustments, because the tones are fixed on glass. So the output image quality is limited like slide film. The blown out sky highlights are a classic example of non-recoverable detail for the viewer using a one-step process.

[Aside from your clever dismissal of the "original" as far as we are able to obtain it, the 16-bit color-separated TIFFs] No. you can obtain the plates. But you can never make any adjustments to this data, because there is no secondary image development. So, the limits of the emulsion are the limits of perception. The sky detail is nearly invisible on the glass (all 3 layers) plate and prominent in the www image. This single counter-example is definitive.

[Is it possible at all to bring these images into a computer and respect their original "limited" nature and bring that presentation to a computer screen?] The world press photo winner is editorial, so it meets your test of respecting its subject. But again -- it is very, powerfully modified -- another counter example to your basic premise. Dichotomy between trivial originality or unfaithful distortion is false.

[Your assertion that we are in love with Photoshop, not the work itself is basically moot.] Nice straw-man. you are looking at photoshops, not glass plates. The other straw man is the notion of [work itself]. There is as much art in the secondary process as the capture, in particular with these images.

[You are offering up ... an explanation ...to encompass all of digital media.] All the omitted words were yours. Its nothing special, digital media. It is powerful in the right hands. But then again, so was oil based paint for Da Vinci. It is a medium. And you need to appreciate and understand it. Dichotomy between trivial originality or unfaithful distortion is false in painting too.

[The powers granted Photoshop ... are in fact so pervasive that to draw them out in this discussion is merely an excuse to talk about your pet theories about digital media] You continue to think there is a level playing field. You may like It or not, my expertise in these matters need not be questioned. See opp cit Michael Fried for Academic background, if you must rely on the others too.