Digital BW, The Print

On Thursday, January 9, 2003, at 10:46 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> Hi Kevin,
>
>> when you make the exposure the image is
>> on the film.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> There is no other opportunity to capture more
>> information.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> The only thing that you can affect now is how dense the
>> highlights are made.
>
> Hum.  I'm not clear on that.  The discernability is what is at issue.  
> If
> they aren't discernable, they don't do anyone any good...and once you
> develop the film, it's permanent...you can't get them back.

If I understand you correctly then I agree.  I am saying that there is 
a much larger range of what is discernible/printable/not-lost when 
using a scanner than when using traditional wet printing.  Once the 
film is exposed the only thing you can do with development is change 
the slope of the exposure/density curve.

By using N-2 development on a scene you are, primarily, reducing the 
slope of the curve ( I know you know that).  Without the development 
adjustment traditional printing could be a problem because the range of 
brightnesses produced by shining the enlarger's light through the 
density range of the film is outside the exposure latitude of the paper 
and either the shadows, the highlights or both get all crammed together.

With a scanner the exposure latitude is much greater.  You can shine 
the scanner's illumination through a much greater range of negative 
densities.

>
> To me, development is like setting setpoints...on the film.
>
>> The highlight detail _is_ there.  If you use N-4
>> development you bring the highlight density down to a range where it
>> can be printed traditionally.
>
> Or...is it that is makes them "discernable", not just "within the 
> range"???
>
>> Vuescan tells me (and I don't know how accurate it is)
>> that the density range is from (~.6 to ~3.2).
>
> You're right...you CAN'T tell how accurate it is, as your 
> scanner/Viewscan
> is not calibrated.  It can be off by a HUGE amount.

In absolute terms that is true, but in relative terms it is less likely 
an issue.  A TMAX negative I usually make, measured the same way, is in 
the range of ~.5 to ~1.8.  Its anecdotal evidence but there are a lot 
of zones between shrubbery shadows and sunlight on snow.

>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
> and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
> header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
> various resources on the homepage.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>