Thanks, CH. I've decided I should stop arguing since I clearly mixed up
Dmax and dynamic range. Furthermore, I've been unable to find anything
to back up my memory's opinion that maximum dynamic range for a print
was about 4. The only authoritative reference I could find in a short
search was from Norman Koren who says in
<http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html#Dynamic_range>
"a print can only reproduce a tonal range of about 100:1-- 6.6 f-stops."
I don't think I can make those kind of prints but I wouldn't dispute
that Peter Lik can. I think Wayne H. had the best idea which was:
"Next time you visit his gallery, take your OM-4Ti and spot meter the
darkest and brightest areas of one of the prints and see what the range
really is.
Some images just appear technically brilliant, another of the
photographer's skills."
Chuck Norcutt
C.H.Ling wrote:
> I belive there are some mix up between Dmax and D-range in no. of stops.
>
> As far as I understand, the latitude of slide film is around 5 stops, that
> is the liner range, including the head and shoulder that should be 7 stops
> or more.
>
> For the D-max of 4 that is 10000:1, it is more than the slide capability.
> Consider we need to divide each stop by 50 (actually much less is required)
> to provide a smooth graduation, 6400:1 is good for 7 stops.
>
> Regards,
> C.H.Ling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chuck Norcutt"
>
>> I think we're talking around each other. I have never once mentioned
>> the "scene range"... only that the film dynamic range is 5 and that the
>> final print will be even less than that. I was somewhat surprised to
>> see the apparent differences in scanner output on your link but scanning
>> is an art in itself and the results will depend as much upon the
>> software and the operator as the scanner itself. While there are
>> certainly differences in scanner quality (those listed range from low
>> cost flatbed scanners to high end drum scanners) even the highest
>> quality drum scanners only have a Dmax of about 4. So even the best
>> isn't capable of capturing even Velvia's limited dynamic range in a
>> single exposure pass.
>>
>> No doubt Peter Lik has the best scanners and processes available but I
>> still strongly suggest the effect is as much from the presentation as
>> the quality of the print.
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> ws wrote:
>>> I think you miss the main point, that the film range and the scanner
>>> and the scene range and capture are different aspects. If the scene
>>> range fits within the film range, it is another matter to then get the
>>> film
>>> range into display, so the dynamic range of the output has nothing
>>> to do with the film capture range, but everything to do with the film
>>> D-range. So I thing your argument is fundamentally flawed
>>> when it comes to display relative to film capture range. The display
>>> range has to do with the film D-range, not the film scene capture range.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the site I pointed to:
>>> http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
>>> and just see what the difference the scanner can make on the output.
>>>
>>> Wayne
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|