Digital BW, The Print

Hi Steve

Two comments:

1.  Looking at the second part of your question, this is why we introduce
gamma into the RAW conversion process.

2. There is plenty of tonal range in today's 12 bit digital cameras.

Take a wander through Normen' site here:

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

It is not hard stuff and I think all your questions will be answered.  The
only digital camera I have used (other than a pocket one) is the PhaseOne
back.  It has plenty of dynamic range believe me.  My 1Ds MK II has arrived
in Washington DC and I will pick it up in 2 weeks.  It won't be as good as
the latest P25 but it sure as hell costs a lot less!

Steve


> From: Stephen Kobrin <kobrins@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 13:36:30 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Digital camera again
> 
> 
> 
>>  We must try to achieve the desired results with software after the
>> fact.  I was a dedicated Tri-X user, and found I could not get the
>> Tri-X "look" no matter how hard I tried.  I could emulate the
> spectral
>> sensitivity, but could not imitate what the Tri-X grain gives an
>> image.  BUT, I also found I could "get over it" and learn to like
> what
>> I do get.  So basically you have to let go of the past.
> 
> 
> Hi Clayton,
> 
> Resolution aside, I worry about two problems with digital capture for
> B&W.  First, as I understand it, a digital sensor reacts much like
> slide flim: a range limited to about five stops and a need to expose
> for the highlights.  Second, again as I understand it (and I may not!)
> the chip's sensitivity is linear while the progression of f stops is
> not. Thus, close to half of the chip's "range" (not a technical term)
> is taken up by the widest opening and by the time you get to the
> fifth and smallest stop, not much is left.  The net effect of both of
> these issue should be a constraint on tonal range and a loss of
> detail in the shadows, vis-a-vis film.
> 
> Am I wrong?  Have you found this to be a problem?
> 
> Steve