As I said, I don't disagree with anything you've said... even though I
can't for the life of me hear the difference between a vinyl record and
a CD and never could even when my hearing was much better than it is
today. :-)
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> I don't disagree with anything you've said.
>
> I didn't expect you to. I worry, probably overmuch, about the effect of
> some shorthand comments we, specifically including myself, sometimes
> make in our posts. "It doesn't matter how good the scanner." suggests
> that which scanner used, how and with what software doesn't matter, and
> I don't think either of us believe that.
>
>> But my main point is that the image is shot on Velvia which has a dynamic
>> range of about 5. Given the best scanner in the world and the best
>> technique the dynamic range of the output is limited to 5 and the range of
>> the subject is immaterial if the film wasn't able to capture it. Finally,
>> there is no print material which has even the limited dynamic range of
>> Velvia.
>>
>
> True - and yet ... We aren't dealing with plumbing. Hook a 1/2" hose on
> the end of a 4" fire hose, and you get no more volume through the system
> at a given pressure than if it were 1/2" all the way. Right? (Well, no,
> there are friction issues if the system is very long and volume high.
> Still, pretty much true.)
>
> But photographic images are more closely analogous to electronic
> signals. It's well known, and folks like AG can probably do the math,
> that the response of an audio or video system is not so simple. The
> range of response is not equal to, but less than, that of the narrowest
> response segment. Moreover, the better the other pieces, the better the
> overall result. The weakest link has the largest effect, but not the
> only one.
>
> I know I've seen test examples of this with film and lenses, and I
> suspect you have also.
>
> AG just wrote about the use of mixing equipment transparent to 150khz to
> produce output limited probably to 20khz, to be listened to by folks
> lucky to hear clearly to 15khz. Yet, apparently it makes an audible
> difference.
>
> I think the same principle applies to photographic systems. Making sure
> each step is the best it can be does have an effect on the end result.
> The difference will likely not be obvious, but more a sense of
> transparency, openness, clarity, immediacy, or some such unquantified terms.
>
> I am personally convinced that one of the things than differentiates
> decent from excellent images is not just the range of tones captured,
> but how they are distributed. The "right" curve distributing the tones
> from the subject to the tones on paper makes a huge difference. I think
> it's one of the not immediately obvious factors that makes one large
> print of aspens in fall ordinary and another riveting.
>
> I believe it's part of what makes many prints by folks like Edward
> Weston, even of very simple appearing light and shadow on simple shapes,
> so engaging. Ansel Adams had a similar care for tonal distribution, and
> at least partially systematized it in the Zone System.
>
> Another of these factors is the behavior of the image at edges between
> different tones in the image. Scanning tends to vitiate this local
> contrast, as I have written elsewhere. LCE is a big help, but not
> entirely natural. Care in every step of the process can minimize loss,
> thus needing less artificial "recovery", and a subtly finer image.
>
> I remember listening to a sub-woofer at an audio shop. Frequency
> response was good, price and size were attractive, but it didn't sound
> right to me. After some careful listening, I found that two things were
> wrong. One, the dynamic "curve" was wrong. It didn't have the ability to
> respond linearly to crescendos, "compressing highlights". Two, to put it
> into photographic terms, local contrast was poor. It was "slow" in
> responding to sharp changes in volume, blurring the transitions.
>
> It took time and care to find out what the problem was. Knowing there
> was a problem, that it wasn't as good as others, came quickly upon
> listening.
>
>> All I was trying to say (and I think I'm in perfect agreement with you) is
>> the magic in the display print didn't come about as a result of some scanner
>> magic. It came about from very careful shooting, scanning and
>> printing. And I think the presentation of large prints under halogen lights
>> is at least half of the experience if not more.
>>
>
> Not just scanner magic; perhaps "eye", exposure, lens, film, chemical
> processing, scanning, computer processing and printer magics? :-)
>
> Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|