Digital BW, The Print

>>> I believe it wasn't discussed by "pedestrians", and
>>> given communications as it was until the Internet, there really wasn't a
>>> "general" place TO discuss it.
>> 
>> What about books, magazines and journals?
> 
> Name them.
> 
>> BTW, this is the first time I've heard Ansel Adams and his ilk referred to
>> as pedestrian photo technicians...
> 
> I wasn't referring to AA at all, exactly the opposite.  We have, in the
> group here, what, hundreds of people, very few whom are professionals, and
> even fewer who are technologically savvy professionals.

But Mike quoted you Ansel's definition of dynamic range from "The Print" ,
which was:

There are three important scales within the total range of exposures that
can be printed. The full range from black to white is represented by Zones 0
to X. Within this range lies the dynamic range, representing the first
useful values above Zone 0 and below Zone X, or Zones I to IX. The range of
zones which convey definite qualities of texture and the recognition of
substance is the textural range from Zones II to VII. (1)

(1) Ansel Adams, The Negative, Little Brown, Nineteenth Printing, 1998.

Looks like he does NOT support your case.
 
> There certainly is a crossing over of non-professionals who are more
> technically savvy than most professionals...and I wouldn't call them
> pedestrians.  For the most part, most photographers are "pedestrian" in
> their understanding of technology, few are very technically inclined, most
> are somewhat technically inclined.

Well, I'm not really interested in the chat of the lists so much as
published documents found through web search engines. But I'm similarly not
interested in the discussions you may have had with some of your cronies of
the '70s - how do we know you guys weren't a bunch of renegade geeks on
acid? 

(just kidding....sort of)
 
>>> People didn't meet on a street corner, and
>>> televise their discussion. nor write the discussions up.
>> 
>> Baloney. One could fill your studio with taped and printed discussions of
>> dynamic range as it relates to prints.
> 
> What are these "taped and printed discussions of dynamic range as it relates
> to prints", aside from discussions posted on a web page, or in news groups
> on the Internet?

Well, you yourself said you had a dozen books on the topic but only the one
without an index might support your claim. BTW, lets just clarify, the
discussion is whether your interpretation of the dynamic range formula,
which you've taken from electrical engineering, is appropriately applied to
a photographic print, which is more physical and chemical in nature.

I have no doubt your interpretation is right on for scanners and audio eq.

here are a couple that appear non-pedestrian to me. Keep in mind if they get
any less pedestrian I probably can't decipher them. ;-)

http://www.image-acquire.com/articles/resscan.shtml

The photographic measures of dMin and dMax are logarithmic, which means that
small numerical differences can be significant. Nearly all scanners can
handle pure white or completely clear film, which means the dMin is 0, so
the dMax and the dynamic range will be the same. (Dynamic range = dMax -
dMin). However, once you get to a dynamic range of 3.2 or 3.4 you have
already exceeded the dynamic range of ink on paper, and it takes an
experienced user to actually get a better printed piece out of an image
scanned with a dynamic range of 3.7, not to mention the need for an
excellent printing facility and staff.

http://www.marginalsoftware.com/Scanner/dynamic_range.htm

Optical Density and Dynamic Range

Tonal values on film are measured in units of optical density.  This
normative scale ranges from zero density (0.0d) to 4.0d -- clear film to
black.  Density is measured on a base 10 log scale, the numbers represent
the tens exponent of the relative density.  A tonal value measured at 2d is
10 times more dense than one measuring 1d.  A one photographic stop
difference in density is about 0.3.  For example, 2.5d is about one stop
greater in density than 2.2d.  In reality, the sensitivity of film ranges
from .3d (fog and film base density) to about 3.7d.  The shorthand for the
minimum and maximum value that can register on a film or device is D-Min and
D-Max.  Of the two, D-Max is the more important because it is indicative of
the ultimate sensitivity of the film or device.

Dynamic range is simply the difference between the minimum and maximum tonal
values that the film can register. The theoretical dynamic range of film is
then 3.7-.3 = 3.4d, or a bit over 11 stops.  In practice, however, the
typical photographer is able to use a fraction of this range.
 
> BTW, I do understand that people have confused the term dynamic range when
> they mean density range, for what ever historical reason...probably because
> those doing it didn't really know what dynamic range was.  It is very
> similar to the misuse of the term resolution when talking about computer
> monitors (or digital cameras ;-).

Yes, but whatever your notion of monitor resolution I'm sure you'd have a
far easier time finding a source to support your interpretation. Is it that
there are less pedestrians who use computers? ;-)

The thing is, much of what you are saying suggests thsi all broke down in
recent years, due to the dilution of the brain pool by pedestrians via the
internet. But the only time I ever do see something that looks like your
interpretation it's with regard to pixels. IOW, I highly doubt that in the
"good old days" they spoke anymore like you about the DyR of a print.

Todd