Digital BW, The Print

> > > 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.
>
> >
> > 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?

Because you weren't there, doesn't mean it wasn't discussed.

> If
> you have something different, then site me a reference.

I defer to Todd for that ;-)

> >  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?

Pedestrians don't care about MTF and a host of other very technical analysis
issues, that are VERY important (to some people) to the final image.

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

I did not chastise you at all.  I merely stated that we seem to forget the
role that the Internet has played on "information" (right and wrong
information) availability, as well as given us places to discuss this on a
daily/hourly basis.

> ...and now you
> tell me there could not have been a broad discussion until we had the
> Internet!

That is just not what I said at all.  Of course there were discussions, just
not as "accessible" as today.

> 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.

And that means it doesn't exist?  They didn't discuss film grain
molecularity, did they?

> > 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?

...they just didn't necessarily call "it" dynamic range.  They may have
called it number of tones or tonality or whatever.

> You seem to equate not agreeing with you to
> not understanding you.

Not at all.  Just because someone understood a concept and didn't give a
particular name to that concept/property doesn't have anything to do with
agreement.

> > 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 am curious why that matters at all, except as yet another off the real
subject ancillary argument.  If no one discussed it, does it mean that it
didn't exist?  Anyway, AA obviously used the term in "The Negative".  Again,
I defer to Todd on providing references.

> > 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.

If the description uses ambiguous terms, then they need to be
qualified...and any definition, pedestrian or technical can use ambiguous
terms.  It's just that pedestrian definitions of very technical issues tend
to be incomplete, and technical definitions aren't.  I prefer definitions
that are unambiguous and are complete.  I don't care whether they "seem"
pedestrian or not.

> Sounds like they were talking about the gamma of the two films.

tonal mapping is gamma, not density range, and not the "number" of tonal
gradations.

> 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.

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean that to some people, more/better
gradations as in less contrast don't look flat.

> By your
> definition it [Plus-X] had
> a better DyR since if you take granularity as noise then Plus-X would have
> the higher DyR than Tri-X.

Grain is a contributing factor to dynamic range ;-)

> > 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,

Claiming it is EXACTLY the same thing as DENSITY RANGE, IS fighting it.

> 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.

If it doesn't have a FIXED value, then it doesn't exist?  BTW, I HAVE
provided a VERY CLEAR description for the key term "smallest discernable
signal", which may or may not be noise.  You just don't like my answer!
And, because my description may or may not be inadequate, or you may or may
not like/understand it, doesn't mean dynamic range isn't a property of film
and prints.  It is, and it doesn't have to be measured to exist.

> A term that seems to have a high probability of being
> insignificant.

Perhaps to you!  I am sure for some people, it is insignificant, but for my
work it is VERY significant, and it shows in my images.  And it is NOT
DENSITY range, it is DYNAMIC range.

> It is just that what you have explained does not appear to be
> useful in this
> particular case.

To you.

> You have not demonstrated that
> DyR=10log{(Dmax-Dmin)/noise}
> of a print medium tells us anything helpful about making prints.

It is not necessary to "run" the equation and come up with an exact number
to understand the concept (and for it to exist), and have it apply to your
work, that is if your work warrants it.  Tonality IS important, very
important to some, and it is NOT described by density range.

Austin