Digital BW, The Print

Roy,

How frustrated any of us are with this thread depends on what we are trying
to get out of it. I sense most people who participated in it go hot and cold
on it, and ultimately feel guilty for letting it go on so long. I know I've
found myself at all points on that spectrum.

However, even though we never found unanimity it doesn't mean we all didn't
learn from it. The reason I'd stay with it even longer (Ya, I hear the
groans) is because underlying the contentious aspect of it is a search to
describe much of what we are looking for in a print; working towards or
against in our work; and a means to communicate about it.

So yes, we got into an issue of definition, formula, and semantics, but
underlying it all was a search for a means to describe something as simple
as the difference between one frame of Tri-x which is properly exposed and
developed, vs one overexposed, overdeveloped, with blown highlights, and
seeing if there isn't (or hasn't been all along) a shorthand yet meaningful
way to describe the tonal difference between the two.

If that conversation is too tedious for some, or irrelevant, or unworthy, or
we don't like the style of some of the participants, so be it, but I
respectfully disagree, and sometimes I'm just willing to walk over coals to
have such a conversation. Guess I'm just one of them renegade geeks on acid.
;-)

Todd 

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:
>> Roy,
>> 
>> Just to be clear, I'm not advocating that we change the definition of
>> dynamic range as it relates to photography.
> 
> Todd,
> 
> I figure nobody really, intentionally advocates that.   But we are all talking
> here
> like its a concept that is yet to be decided.
> 
> On the contrary, Austin has
>> maintained that his interpretation of it has been in common use up until the
>> internet became popular (which is what, 8-12 years?)
> 
> It sure would be nice if he would provide SOME external information that
> wasn't audio related.  He's indicated that his background is audio, and the
> one
> reference book is audio.  The audio/imaging transformation is non-trivial,
> you
> do have to think about it.   If "Austin maintained that his interpretation of
> it has 
> been in common use",  means audio use is that sufficient?  I'd sure like to
> see some reference that even hinted at his interpretation.
> 
> 
> So, I've been
>> explaining why I don't think it was ever used that way WRT prints (for
>> reasons of non-linearity, minimal noise, and other logical reasons as I see
>> them.) However, while some of us can sense something is amiss we don't have
>> the confidence of conviction to say "I KNOW this to be true", or "I KNOW
>> that to be false".
> 
> Certainly, the  "I KNOW vs YOU KNOW" is a problem -- it doesn't get anywhere.
> I've made an effort to get external info.  I've been glancing thru a lot of
> books
> lately just to see how they use "dynamic range" -- many use it without
> defining it.
> With these the best you can do is see if your concept is consistent.
> However, I've cited two books that explicitly define it.  First, "The
> Negative" by
> Ansel Adams talks quite definitely about dynamic range.  He even has a nice
> diagram showing what he means.   This was written at least two decades ago.
> (He's been dead nearly that long).  Second, "Real World Scanning and
> Halftones"
> by Blatner, etc.  has the very clear staircase analogy I cited before.
> Obviously,
> the common scanner hasn't been around all that long so its not old.  BTW,
> this book is the best technical book I have seen in a very long time -- very
> worthwhile -- at least to me.
> 
>> 
>> Furthermore, I happen to like and respect Austin, and whenever I've
>> discounted him in the past he's proven me wrong, so I give him room to do so
>> again. I simply laid out some conditions, which if met, might begin to
>> rattle my convictions. Some people have accused Austin of being intractable
>> on the issue and I'm trying not to be that too.
> 
> Certainly, everyone ought to have their chance.  I think it behooves anyone
> making a stance to also understand the other side.  I made an effort to study
> his reference, study what he derived from it, and see where we disagreed.
> I found external references that supported my contention.  He ought to
> do the same.
> 
> I, also, am getting tired of this.  Over the years, I've seen too many of
> these
> unending discussions.  I thought MAYBE I could jump in, make a contribution
> that would help defuse this particular one.  Maybe I was wrong.  As you
> might guess I'm quite sure of my stance, but that in itself doesn't make
> anyone else sure of it.  I have a feeling we just have to ban the
> term (dare I say it?) "dynamic range" :-(
> 
> Dynamic regards,
> Roy
> 
>> 
>> Todd
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Todd,
>>> 
>>> I don't mean to single you out, in fact I think this flavor of response is
>>> felt by several people.
>>> 
>>> I got myself into the middle of this mess more from a philosophical
>>> point of view than a technical one.  It seemed at the beginning most of
>>> the discussion was at the technical level so I joined at that level.
>>> Unfortunately, the technical level of different people just varies too much
>>> to get a feeling of consensis.
>>> 
>>> To me it boils down to this.  Imaging has been around in many forms for a
>>> long, long time.  I'm talking decades to a century.  Our group here is a
>>> small
>>> niche of  the whole Imaging world history.  We may be significant to inkjet
>>> quadtone printing but we all use significant other parts of Imaging.
>>> The notion, the term, the usage of "dynamic range" has been a part of
>>> imaging way beyond just our group's influence.  It's had a very consistent
>>> meaning describing the "useful range of light values" in whatever terms that
>>> are appropriate for a particular imaging technology.  (I guess you could
>>> dispute my claim, but at least come up with at least one example).
>>> 
>>> So, how can we here is our niche, talk about coming up with a new idea,
>>> new concept of what "dynamic range" means?   We a just a part of a large
>>> community of imaging that long time ago has defined and has commonly used
>>> this term to mean sometime very specific.  Even contemplating having our
>>> very own "dynamic range" concept that differs from the rest of the world
>>> just seems totally crazy to me.  It doesn't matter how good the idea is,
>>> I just can't imagine how it makes sense to use an existing term.  We have
>>> to talk to other people, use other technologies, read specs, you name it.
>>> Let's make it easy to communicate with the outside world!
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Roy