Digital BW, The Print

> If you'll read the brief article at this webpage carefully, you'll
> see that it's in agreement with what Austin has been saying.
>
> http://www.library.cornell.edu/preservation/tutorial/intro/intro-
> 05.html
>
>
> The two pictures of the buildings are a perfect illustration of
> images with identical "density range" (i.e., they both go from full
> white to full black), but with different "dynamic ranges".
>
> Also, don't be fooled (as I was, at first) by the phrase, "the
> dynamic range does not automatically correlate to the number of tones
> reproduced".  That phrase isn't saying that Austin's understanding
> of "dynamic range" is wrong.  It's saying that Austin' understanding
> is right, but that an image system's dynamic range is merely
> potential, and that it may still produce images that don't make full
> use of its dynamic range.  -- Herb


Thanks, Herb...I believe that article can actually go both ways!  This is
the root of the confusion about what dynamic range really is...it's just so
easy to have it explained to you, and think you get it, but don't.

Only one sentence on that page "bothers" me:

"For instance, high-contrast microfilm exhibits a broad dynamic range, but
renders few tones"

If they said "broad DENSITY range" it would have better matched my
understanding...because I believe high contrast microfilm exhibits a low
dynamic range, but does in fact have a high density range.

I can find dozens of web sites that the understanding can go either
way...which means Roy (and others who believe as he does) can cite a lot of
"supporting" information, and I can do the same from dozens of other web
sites... Sigh.  The web is clearly not the answer...

Regards,

Austin