Digital BW, The Print

I've been following (at least trying to follow) the lengthy 
discussion over dynamic range vs. density range.  

For my part, Austin has me convinced that proper meaning of 'dynamic 
range' of a print has to do with the number of steps available 
between its maximum density and a minimum density.  Still, it seems 
striking to me that the understanding of most non-experts mistakenly 
equates dynamic range (whether of a print, an audio recording, etc.) 
with what Austin tells us is properly known as the 'density range', 
i.e., the difference (ratio, whatever) between the maximum and 
minimum densities.

And whatever we call them, I feel enlightened by now having these two 
concepts to deal with.  For many years, I had thought dynamic range 
was simply related to the maximum density and minimum density, and 
hadn't given a thought to the number of levels available in between.  
Having the two concepts distinguished helps me to see things I hadn't 
seen before.

Once having recognized that these two concepts exist, it really 
doesn't seem to me to matter what we label them, other than to make 
sure that in conversation we can all be confident that we're talking 
about the same thing.  I mean, who really cares which one gets 
labeled 'dynamic range' and which gets called 'density range'?  As 
long as we know what the terms refer to we could just as easily call 
them 'ipso range' and 'flipso range', which terms would serve us 
equally well but for being slighly diminished in descriptive value.

Anyway, my question is, regardless of what we call these two 
concepts, is one more important than the other?  That is, (using 
Austin's terms) is dynamic range more important than density range?

My own intuition is that it all depends.  

An artist who did abstract compositions using only full black and 
full white might be interested solely in density range, so as to get 
the fullest possible contrast in his work.  By definition, he or she 
would not care at all about dynamic range, being satisfied with the 
minimum possible range of having two points in the dynamic range, one 
the point of maximum density and one the point of minimum density.

On the other hand I can imagine a photographer who does lots of "high 
key" work (which my photo book tells me are photos restricted to 
lighter tones) not caring much about having a dark maximum density at 
all.  For this person, a wide density range would be unimportant so 
long as the density range covered the "high key" area.  But this 
person could be very interested in having a wide dynamic range (lots 
of subtle steps) within the narrow density range within which the 
high key work is done.

It seems to me like, for some reason, the importance of density range 
has gotten short shrift in the discussion so far.  I felt like the 
people who were equating 'dynamic range' with what Austin 
calls 'density range' were fighting against the relabeling of their 
concept, to some extent, because the label 'dynamic range' is somehow 
more imporant than that of 'density range'.  I don't see any reason 
why that should be so, though.

I think the whole dynamic range thread got started when a question 
arose or some statement was made regarding the dynamic range of 
digital prints as compared with silver prints.  That's an interesting 
question.

But now that I have these two concepts, isn't a comparison of the two 
medium's density range interesting, too?  I don't know, not having 
seen many silver prints myself.  Is it obvious that one or the other 
has better density range, so that the question naturally turns to 
resolving the question of dynamic range?  Is the question of which 
has better dynamic range more interesting just because it's a more 
theoretical question, not as easy to discern with the naked eye?

Guess I'm rambling a bit here, but these were just some thoughts that 
came to mind as I've been reading over the long thread on 'dynamic 
range'.

-- Herb Sitz