From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Prosper" <japrosper@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> There is a fourth reason why transparencies are preferred to color
> negatives: contrast. In a properly executed print, the contrast ratio
> between the brightest and darkest areas of the image are supposedly at
most
> 100:1. With transparencies, this contrast ratio soars to 400:1! I have
> long heard transparency enthusiasts brag about the "bottomless" blacks
> achievable with their medium of choice but virtually impossible with
prints.
> The latitude with transparencies is much tighter, but the derived
contrast
> is supposedly what makes it all worthwhile.
>
> John
>
Are you talking about transparency itself? I think the contrast ratio is
4000:1 not 400:1.
Yes, I am talking about the contrast of the transparency image itself. I am
reiterating results discussed in the now defunct Modern Photography mag,
Popular Photography and several photo books. These sources indicated that
contrast in printed images, because it was a reflected medium, was limited
to at most about 100:1. Contrast in transparencies, because it is a
translucent medium, could range as high as 400:1. In fact, because computer
monitors can be made to have contrast ratios of 300:1 or even 400:1, digital
photography itself is said to be more faithful to transparencies over
prints.
John
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8 is here: Try it free* for 2 months
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/dialup
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|