Digital BW, The Print

Hi Tony,

> ...Austin my comments were not aimed
> at you but were a response to hogarth1's post.

Ah, my apologies!  But none the less, an inkjet CAN print 12 stops (of image
range), just compressed into it's limited gamut ;-)

> ...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.

Sorry, thought you were asking me that.

> > > 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!!!

Got it...  I'll be quiet for a moment now ;-)

...

> > 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?

OK, a moment has passed... ;-)  I believe it is a very manipulated, in such
that the curves are adjusted such that the pertinent detail is visible.

> 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?

I don't believe the print density has any relevance, as the tonality is all
relative unto it self.

> 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.

Of course.

> 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.

No, I'll bring out detail where I believe it looks right.  I'm not an
complete literalist as far as tonal manipulations go, but as far as adding
phone booths in the middle of a desert goes, that's not my style.  Adjusting
the tonal curve so you get detail in an area of the scene that you intend to
show detail in, I have no problem with, if it's done well.

> 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,

For the most part, that's fine with me, but I tend to uncompress important
parts of the shadows and highlights, depending on how it "enhances" the
image in my eye.

> 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.

I don't know that it's "drastic", but that's semantics, but yes, of course,
the tonal relationships are changed.  In fact, I don't know that we ever
really, even if we tried hard as possible, can maintain precise tonal
relationships with the original scene.  That's really a visual judgment call
for us.

> 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.

I don't believe that's entirely the picture (no pun intended).  The eye
scans a scene, and adjusts it's tonal response as the lighting changes.  The
scene, recorded on film, does not have this adjustable feature...so my point
is, when you view the original scene, your eye is adjusting to accommodate
"local contrast", and as such, what constitutes the "original scene"?  Your
static view of it staring at one spot (with your limited field of detailed
perception), or your overall scan of the scene, with the ability to adjust
your tonal response as you are looking at different parts of the original
scene?

> You don't need much more than 7 stops of information to be
> initially captured to do so.

For a "static" scene, I agree, but as I said above, I don't believe we see
things that way, and as such, more "stops" can be taken advantage of.

> The fact that both can capture more gives the
> photographer the opportunity to deviate from literal scene
> interpretation to
> the more artistic interpretation ...

I don't know that I believe what you are talking about IS an "artistic
interpretation", in a sense one could believe it's that, but is it really?
Or, as I said above, is it merely compensating for the compensation the eye
does naturally?

> ...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.

True, but as I said, I'm not convinced the type of tonal manipulations we
are discussing are in fact artistic interpretations...

Regards,

Austin