Digital BW, The Print

----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 7:58 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Thoughts about Imaging


>
> > The idea of distinguishing between tones and the number of tones are
> > concepts that I do not ever recall hearing in discussions of traditional
> > photography. If not new concepts, they seem to be new to the discussion
of
> > photography. I believe that they were not discussed in traditional
> > photography because they simply were of no interest.
>
> Martin,
>
> There WAS life before mailing lists and Internet web sites you know!

Austin,

Yeah. So what is your point?
>
> That's just so untrue.

I don't recall that you were in any of the discussions I was in or know what
books I read, so how would you know? If I could find or recall a reference
in a book or a magazine article or a workshop discussion, I would say so. If
you have something different, then site me a reference.

>  I believe it wasn't discussed by "pedestrians",

Yes we are all pedestrians here plodding along trying to make the best
prints we can from our images. If it is so important, then why did in not
find its way into pedestrian discussions and magazine articles?

> and
> given communications as it was until the Internet, there really wasn't a
> "general" place TO discuss it.

First you chastise me that there was life before the Internet and now you
tell me there could not have been a broad discussion until we had the
Internet! Books, magazines, periodicals, newspapers, etc. gave enough
opportunity to get the concept spread. The Internet just makes it quicker.
Lots of books have been written on the subject and I have looked over the
few I have, and can find no reference to DyR.

>  People didn't meet on a street corner, and
> televise their discussion. nor write the discussions up.  But, my point
is,
> I know personally that I've had this conversation as far back as the mid
> 70's...

Oh I am sure you did.

> with other photography teachers (yes, I taught photography in the mid
> 70's), students and professionals.  Now that doesn't mean they actually
> understood it as dynamic range...

Or did they simply not agree? You seem to equate not agreeing with you to
not understanding you. It also seems that the 70's was rather far along in
the history of photography and seems pretty recent to me. (An occupational
hazard of getting older)

> but whether you assign a technical name to
> a concept or not, the concept still exists, as well as has been discussed
> for a LONG time.

Fine. Now site me some photographic references to support that DyR, as you
use it, was a concept in wide or even narrow use in the making of
photographs.
>
> I hear photographers talking about the difference between the tonal
> gradations of Plus-X and Tri-X somewhat frequently...and how Plus-X looks
> "flat" compared to Tri-X...  It isn't density range (as that is defined by
> the printing "system), and it isn't tonal "mapping" that causes this (as
> that can be re-mapped any way you want)...

Those seem like pretty pedestrian descriptions to me. I guess pedestrian
descriptions are okay when they support your argument and inadmissible when
they don't. Give me a break.

Sounds like they were talking about the gamma of the two films. Besides if
their Plus-X negs looked flat perhaps they didn't develop them properly. I
took a lot of wonder 35mm Plus-X negs and I personally found that the tonal
renditions in prints to be much nicer than Tri-X. By your definition if had
a better DyR since if you take granularity as noise then Plus-X would have
the higher DyR than Tri-X.
>
> I am amazed at how much energy is being put into "fighting" the concept of
> dynamic range.  It reminds me of "bokeh" discussions...

Absolutely no one is fighting the concept of dynamic range, Austin. Some of
us are resisting your attempts to apply an equation to photographic prints
for which you cannot provide a value or a clear description for the key term
noise. A term that seems to have a high probability of being insignificant.
It is just that what you have explained does not appear to be useful in this
particular case. You have not demonstrated that DyR=10log{(Dmax-Dmin)/noise}
of a print medium tells us anything helpful about making prints.

Roy and I have made attempts to look at the situation from some different
angles and to find some fresh perspectives. How about doing the same?

Best,
Martin