Digital BW, The Print

Tony,

> 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!!!

No, what I said is right on.  You are confusing scene latitude with film
density range.  The two are NOT the same.

> 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)

Current digital one shot cameras don't have the ability to record what film
can record in a single shot.  They may at some time, but that time is not
now.

> but you've again got to make sense of how to
> print such a
> wide range onto paper.

Why?  The printing density range is entirely different from the image
density range (as in the digital file) which, as said above, is entirely
different than the actual original image density range...

> Something's got to give otherwise you have a
> ridiculously low contrast image.

In some images, and/or in some areas of some images, yes...but take a look
at Sexton's 12 stop prints and come back and say that.

> > 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?

Since I didn't say that, I certainly won't answer that ;-)

> > 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!

Actually, that statement is correct...color transparency film does have a
"low" (relative) dynamic range, but that's a silly thing to compare it to.
Should be comparing to NEGATIVE film...then that statement is not always
true.

Regards,

Austin