Digital BW, The Print

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 11:21:00PM -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 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.
> 

Who said they were? Certainly not me. Austin my comments were not aimed
at you but were a response to hogarth1's post. He said "an inkjet print can
easily print 12 stops" and I queried what he meant. Such a comment uses very
loose terminology which does nothing to clarify whatever point he is trying
to make. You will see that I asked him whether he meant the print can have a
density of 12 stops or whether he was referring to the original scene
brightess range of 12 stops which can be mapped onto a print somehow. Two
entirely different things which both you and I know very well.

> > 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.

I'm not arguing with you on that. In fact I'm not arguing with you at all
Austin - I'm in agreement with you!!! 12 stops is probably pushing it on
digital and I assume that the (near) linear response of the CCD will mean
very poor separation in the darker portions of the image. Correct? Film
doesn't have as much difficulty getting tonal information from the shadows
with correct exposure and development and can indeed capture more than 12
stops.

> 
> > 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...

Austin, I don't know why you think I have a problem understanding the 
difference between subject luminance range (or subject density range, or
original scene brightnesss - take your pick), negative density range, and
print density range. The differences are as clear as day to me. I've done
enough tone-reproduction diagrams in my time to know the differences.

My comment above was referring to how you get a subject luminance range of
12 stops onto a print which has a range of only 7 stops. There will have to
tonal compression for that to happen somewhere. If it is done evenly across
the range then the image will look very low contrast and muddy. Usually one
resorts to quite strong compression in the shadows and highlights and then
dodges and burns in any detail from these areas which is deemed important.

 
> > 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.
>

Yes that but is not an unmanipulated 12 stops is it?
 
I know Austin that you are are an exponent of producing a more literal print
with accurate tonal reproduction than when compared to many others. Tell
me then how do you produce on a print, with a print density which can only
reach about a 2.0 dmax, an image which was taken on film which has a scene
luminosity range of 12 stops? 

If you are to do this in the literal manner where all tones must fall in
line correctly on the print, where no tone in the print is darker than the 
corresponding tone in the original scene (in relation to other similar tones
in the original scene), you are going to end up with an image where all tones
in the final print are compressed. For each stop measured in the original
scene you will have about a half-stop of density in the final print. That
doesn't strike me as if it is going to be a compelling image. Are you
therefore going to limit yourself to scenes that only contain 7 stops of
information? Or are you only going to use 7 stops worth of this information
from the negative when making your print, discarding the rest? I suppose you
could. Given that you prefer the more literal style of photography I
suppose this is what you may do.

Most others however prefer an alternative way of working. The midtones are
reproduced accurately, sometimes with some expansion, and the highlights
and shadows are compressed, with detail/contrast from these areas being
brought back by dodging and burning, often with multi-grade filtration,
and perhaps further enhanced with alternative processes. In fact those with
a very firm idea of what they want break most of the rules because their
pre-visualisation of the original scene demands it. Sexton gets 12 stops of
original scene brightness in his prints exactly because of this
manipulation, exactly because he drastically alters the tonal relationships
which existed in the original scene and which exist on the negative. It is
only when a literal interpretation of the original scene is ignored that one
can produce such an image successfully with such a vast original scene
brightness.


There's all this hot air blowing about on whether digital capture or film
capture is better. When it comes down to it both are easily capable of
capturing the information needed for a literal translaton of tones from
scene to print. You don't need much more than 7 stops of information to be
initially captured to do so. The fact that both can capture more gives the
photographer the opportunity to deviate from literal scene interpretation to
the more artistic interpretation based upon pre-visualisation (a term coined
by Adams I believe). Once you accept the notion of pre-visualisation, and
that manipulation of a negative or digital information captured from an
original scene is valid, then the world is your oyster and you can create in
whetever manner your artistic temperament guides.

-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...