Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> wrote:
> Roy,
> 
> I'm sensing that some of us have locked horns when we are probably more in
> agreement than out of agreement. Perhaps if we all surrender a little ground
> we can turn this back into a useful discussion.
> 
> Is it possible that *some* people used the term dynamic range to describe
> something one step more complex than density range? I think behind Austin's
> absolutist rhetoric that is what he's saying.
> 
> Working with my sense of logic, which doesn't prove anything, let's look at
> the bigger picture. Lets consider a common situation we as photographers
> experience. Say through careful exposure and development we have a negative
> with a beautiful delicate distribution of tones throughout it's useful
> range. It would perfectly fit all it's tones on a given grade 2 paper. Let's
> say that print's density range would be 2 units. If we could measure the
> print on a pixel by pixel basis it would yield a perfect distribution of
> tones in a histogram, right to the ends with no clipping. We could then
> print that negative on a grade 3 paper, which may also yield a density range
> of 2 units, but we "clip" tones from the image on both ends due to increased
> contrast. It's histogram shows the clipping accordingly. We could even
> extend the scenario to where we keep the print on grade 3 paper, but dodge
> the shadows and burn the highlights, thus maintaining a higher internal
> contrast through the midtones, without clipping the ends. It's density range
> is still 2 units, and it's histogram looks more like the grade 2 print, at
> least at the ends.
> 
> Something *is* different in each of these prints, but it is not the density
> range. Is it possible that some people would say that the grade 2 print had
> a greater dynamic range than the straight grade 3 print, and that the
> manipulated grade 3 print might have had the greatest dynamic range of the
> three? If not dynamic range, what would be that term?
> 
> Todd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@i...>
> > wrote:
> >> Roy,
> >> 
> >>> So, how can we here is our niche, talk about coming up with a new idea,
> >>> new concept of what "dynamic range" means?
> >> 
> >> No one is coming up with any new concepts...  "We" are merely pointing out
> >> that the term has been "misapplied" in this "field", and that it attributes
> >> a different property than, though is loosely related to, density range.
> > 
> > Austin,
> > 
> > I think Todd's "lost in the trees at points and loose sight of the woods"
> > quote is right on.
> > 
> >> 
> >>> 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.
> >> 
> >> Can you show evidence of this?
> > 
> > I think the Ansel Adams book and the Real World Scanning references were
> > pretty relevant.  I'm glad to see you have read the scanning book.  You
> > quoted one sentence that contained "dynamic range describes the actual
> > limits of how many tones the scanner can really differentiate from light to
> > dark".  You seem to be associating:  dynamic range <--> how many tones,
> > when I think the real association is:  dynamic range <--> actual limits.
> > Reading just this one sentence might be a little ambiguous, but read the whole
> > paragraph.  Immediate following this sentence is the staircase example:
> > dynamic range <--> height of staircase,  bit depth <--> number of steps.
> > Later on he compares a scanner with "enormous dynamic range but only
> > 256 steps" and a scanner with "lots of tiny steps and tiny dynamic range".
> > There's no way to interpret these two examples to mean dynamic range
> > is a measure of number of tones or steps!
> > Do you wish to claim that this book and the three guys who wrote
> > it are wrong and misuse and misdefine the term??
> > http://www.badgergraphic.com/
> > If you look at the Adam's book there's a diagram that explicitly shows
> > "dynamic range".  He's talking about exposure and shows very clearly
> > dynamic range going from about Zone I to Zone IX saying its the "useful"
> > range of light values in the scene.  He even mentions how this dynamic
> > range of light values maps directly into the range of "useful" densities on
> > the negative.  Would you like to claim he's all wrong, too?
> > 
> > Please consider your position as it relates to these references.  These
> > are both very explicit references to dynamic range as it relates to imaging.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Roy
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> > ... monitor stuff snipped
> > 
> >> 
> >> Austin