Digital BW, The Print

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:39:59PM -0000, hogarth1x wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin"
> <darkroom@i...> wrote:
> > Hi Jerry,
> > 
> > > I am looking at
> > > VERY good images.
> > 
> > Whether an image looks "VERY good" or not, has nothing to do with
> the image
> > containing "better highlights and shadow detail".
> > 
> > > If
> > > you can't get better highlight and shadow
> > > detail out of photoshop and digitial than you can a darkroom
> print, you
> > > simply don't know your craft very well.
> > 
> > I don't understand what Photoshop as to do with it.  Either the
> information
> > is there in the image file, or on the film, or not.  I am
> specifically
> > talking about the number of stops the medium is able to record, I
> don't care
> > about printing, as that is comparing apples to adverbs.  You can
> print
> > scanned film digitally the same way you print digital camera
> images.  I
> > believe printing is an entirely different issue, and I separate that
> > out...though I know you seem to believe film should only be printed
> > chemically, and always choose that workflow for comparison, for what
> ever
> > reason.
> > 
> > B&W film can record up to 15 stops of image information.  Digital
> imaging
> > sensors can't use compensation development, obviously, and are
> subject to
> > simply the sensitivity of the sensor, and they are limited to 11/12
> stops at
> > this point in time.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Austin
> 
> And, IIRC, silver prints are limited to about 7 or 8 stops, while an
> inkjet print can easily print 12 stops.
> 

12 stops - let's see that is a relative dmax of about 3.6. Seeing as most
people go to all sorts of lengths to even reach a 2.0 relative dmax on an
inkjet print I'd say you are way off!!! 

Or are you referring to the luminosity range in the original scene? If so 
then both methods are capable of capturing that information (pushing it on 
digital I think) but you've again got to make sense of how to print such a 
wide range onto paper. Something's got to give otherwise you have a 
ridiculously low contrast image.

> One of the reasons I think inkjet images are superior to silver prints
> is this larger dynamic range. I like contrasty images, what can I say?
> 

What do contrasty images have to do with dynamic range and why would your 
liking of such images be better served by an inkjet print? 

> Also, if you like color, the digital image sensors have considerably
> more dynamic range than either color transparancy (5-6 stops) or color
> negative (6-7 stops) films. But, this isn't a color group. 
> 

Not sure I agree there but I'll let Austin fight my cause on the dynamic
range front - I'm off to bed!

-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...