Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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 ;-).
> 
> Austin

Austin,

You've pushed you idea on dynamic range for imaging, time and time again.  Many
people have argued with you.  I personally have gone to the library to look at
your reference book by "Higgins".  First of all I'd like to point out that the
formula and the diagrams you have spoken about are under a paragraph
heading:   1.4.1  DYNAMIC RANGE EXAMPLE: ANALOG VS. DIGITAL AUDIO.
The last word AUDIO is key.  You've claim to have 25 years of experience in
AUDIO, fine.   You've claimed to have taken this formula, plugged in density,
and defined dynamic range for imaging.  I tried several times to point out that
it was at least possible to plug in density to the formula in different ways.
You declined to admit that, saying there wasn't any interpretation, mapping,
or logic, involved in going from the audio formula to imaging.  

Well, bottom line is you're mistaken, incorrect, misinformed or whatever you want
to call it.  I don't expect or even recommend that you believe me.  You've got
to investigate, research, and learn more about the Imaging World and figure it
out for yourself.  I'd be glad to help point you in the right direction but you've
got to do it yourself.  

Here's a couple of hints:
The formula in Higgins book is about audio, explicitly showing the waveform
nature of sound.   The signal diagram shows what to measure with a wave.
Imaging is very different, when we talk about light intensity, or film density
there are no waves.  They are direct measured values that can be perceived
as constant values.  Your interpretation has made density into a waveform
property which it is not.

Get away from the audio books, jettison the audio baggage.  Read some imaging
books.  Here's a nice one:
Read World Scanning and Halftones by Blatner, Fleishman and Roth.
 -- page 13  direct quote
  "Dynamic Range" expresses how broad a range of tonal values a scanner can
  capture; this is similar to the photographic measure of "density".
 -- page 14  direct quote
   ... compare bit depth and dynamic range to a staircase: the dynamic range
   describes the height of the staircase and the bit depth describes the
   number of steps from the bottom to the top.
Read Ansel Adams: The Negative
Read the kodak website -- search for dynamic range.

Whether you like it or not dynamic range is well used in imaging and your 
interpretation doesn't agree with the anyone else.   If you really like your function
call it Austin's Cool Range Formula, and I'm sure we'd all be happy to let you
own it.

I am sorry to be harsh about it, but I really think the aruments have
become a disservice to the group.

Regards,
Roy