Digital BW, The Print

Roy,

> Austin,
>
> I'm very disappointed that this has degenerated to this name calling.

I don't see where it has.  Why are you claiming this has "degenerated to
[this?] name calling"???  It wouldn't be the first time one of us
misunderstood/misread something.

> This forum is made for everyone to contribute information and learn
> information -- its a two-way street.

Absolutely!

> The attitude that "I know
> everything"
> has become "There is nothing that I need to learn".  How unfortunate!

That is not what I said (and especially not what I meant).  I have a LOT to
learn, and I learn new things most every day, but I also know what I
know...especially if I have a solid foundation on not only the meaning, but
experience with application and use.

> > Sigh.  I know exactly what linear means.  If you really believe I don't,
> > then you obviously have a very low belief of my mathematical
> skills, and why
> > are you even bothering discussing this?
>
> I would have preferred to avoid personal attacks,
> but yes I do believe
> your mathematical skills are a little rusty.

It IS obvious that you believe I'm not "up to par" mathematically, since you
question whether I understand some basic principles, such as linear...,
yet...you have not shown me to be at all mathematically wrong!

As far as what is necessary to understand dynamic range, everything, related
to mathematics that we've discussed/you've brought up, is very basic, at
least for me (and I do believe for you too).....but when I say something
that I figure you would "get", because it is simply just too "simple" to
explain, you don't...

> Why am I bothering?  Well,
> two-fold, first I thought with a few nudges in the right
> direction, we collectively
> could come up with useful model that might help some people communicate
> better and help each other get "better" images.

Well, I believe I HAVE given some very useful "models".  I also believe the
models you've used don't demonstrate an understanding of what dynamic range
is...but demonstrate the "understanding" you keep "petitioning" for.

> Second, I saw what I
> considered a lot of mathematical misinformation that was leading us all
> down the wrong path.

You haven't pointed out any mathematical misinformation that I have written.
I find your statement kind of odd, since I believe you're the one who threw
in things that just weren't relevant, and were "leading [us all] down the
wrong path"!

> There are those on the list who don't care a bit about the math,
> and frankly
> I applaud them the most.

Er, right...but they aren't discussing the dynamic range
**equation**...which IS what you challenged, and IS math...though the
concept can be understood from examples, it is still the equation that must
be translated into those examples...and without understand the equation (and
the concept behind it), one would really have no foundation for deriving a
correct example.

> The most important thing about making pictures
> IS actually making pictures, not measuring anything about them.  In the
> final test the picture is "what you see", no more, no less.

Though true, if you are trying to understand what a characteristic of a
scanner is, or film is, or an image is...that's where something like this
can very well come into play.  Of course, some people can make exceptional
images without ever understanding dynamic range at all...but that doesn't
mean it doesn't exist, or that it isn't "important" to how this stuff
"works", and/or can't improve your images!

> Rethink some of this: every physical parameter you can measure in a lens
> goes up/down exponentially as you go up or down f-stops.

I don't need to rethink it, I understand what you said...you obviously
missed my point.

> In the last post you made some deal about AREA versus diameter, you seemed
> to be saying that the diameter (f-number) went up linearly but the area
> was the important number and that went up exponentially.

I don't see how you could have misunderstood this.  I even included the
formula for area of a circle, as well as cited some examples.  I obviously
know how that works.  One of the point you missed...that it is stop based,
no matter what number symbol system you assign to it.  You also, apparently,
missed the point of why I brought up area into the discussion.

> > And, again, this is ALL a red herring on your part, and merely
> confuses the
> > issue...since none of this has anything to do with dynamic range.
>
> Well, you could probably spec and calculate DyR values to your
> heart's content
> without understanding or caring anything about linear vs.
> exponential scales.

Exactly.  We have agreement ;-)

> But if you then go and try to describe "what is all means" you darn
> better know what the underlying stuff "means" before you try to explain
> what the outside result "means".

I still don't believe that matters much, in two senses.  Cameras are marked
in shutter speeds because one can relate shutter speed to a real live
event...like you can't take a picture of a speeding car perpendicularly at
1/30th of a second.  It brings the numbers into "reality".

As far as aperture, it's merely a relative scale, and really doesn't matter
what it's marked, as far as relating to reality.  Whether the photographer
understand that it's linear or exponential, it's not going to effect their
ability to take a great picture...  People use EV scales quite a lot, in
fact, I really like using EV...but none of my current use cameras use EV,
though one uses Zones, which is very nice (and it IS related to dynamic
range ;-).

Second, You seem to want to make some pertinent distinction between linear
and exponential, but linear or exponential will not effect one's ability to
understand what dynamic range is, and how it applies.  Even if we agreed on
a "core" concept of what dynamic range was, it's application is the same.
Which, is why I believe it's a red herring.

> I guess you're right about that.  I agree.  Let's drop it.

OK...probably no one but you, me and Todd are reading our posts now anyway
;-)

Austin