Digital BW, The Print

Hello Della,

I found your observations of the shadow detail using Piezo versus silver
prints very interesting.

I think what happens is a natural "bias" to the medium which one has
"learned" and lived with for a long time.  The esthetics of a silver printer
are probably indelibly (to use an ink term) marked by a need to have "deep
blacks" and not so much a revel in the revealing shadows.

I agree that the Piezo shadow detail can be spectacular...drawing one into a
print in a new way.

Thanks for posting your views...I enjoyed reading them.

Steadman


----- Original Message -----
From: "della ellingson" <dellaellingson@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <dilcher@...>
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 8:45 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Piezo vs MIS question


> > dilcher [mailto:dilcher@...] wrote:
> >
> >> ... having trouble  deciding between Piezo and MIS
> methods.
> >> ...Piezography is supposed to have a driver which
> makes a substantial
> >> difference in printing.  Is this so?
> >
> > You will get a variety of opinions on this, I'm
> sure.  Mine is that the
> > Piezo driver does, in fact, make smoother prints on
> older quad printers, but
> > not on newer hextone printers.  Nonetheless, while I
> have the Piezo driver
> > and the older quad printers, I still prefer the
> Epson driver.  The
> > differences in smoothness are not enough to be
> relevant to my decision.
>
>
> I have used both the Piezography driver and the
> various MIS workflows. For me, the greatest difference
> is the superior tonal separation of Piezography in the
> shadows regions. Not yet have any of the alternative
> methods been able to equal the separation of tone in
> the shadows regions.
>
> However this may not be of importance according to
> your level of quality expectation. I have found
> several Piezographers who prefer to have the shadows
> regions appear all black. My preference is to go
> beyond that of the silver print in tonal fidelity of
> shadows. Piezography does this and it is a quality
> that I prefer. Also - there is a better highlights
> definition.
>
> Like I have mentioned some photographers do not have
> the same corresponding judgment of quality criteria. I
> argue that Piezography is able to produce a level
> above the silver print. They argue that getting close
> to a silver print is all that is necessary of inkjet.
> I am certain that my printing is of a higher concept
> than theirs. For me it matters.
>
> -della
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards\ufffd
> http://movies.yahoo.com/
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Steadman,

Is this bias being pleased by the medium or restricted
by the medium? Photo could not give us shadows which
we wished for. It gave us black where nature did not.
We exaggerated it then, did we not? We exaggerated it
to have some control over it. I was once a very
black&white printer. Then I found PiezographyBW and
now I would characterize myself has a wide tone
printer. When I shoot I see that black and white
seldom exist in nature. Film is able to produce this.
Darkroom paper can not.

Many will argue these points and explain with
misconception that the zone system permits control
over the shadow and highlight. But the zone system
only allows manipulation of that which is just not
quite black and just not quite white. PiezographyBW
software allows much greater control within these
confines. The black and the white are pushed much
further apart. But how many printers actually have
sensitivity to this? How many desire this? Most are
still desiring a deeper black and a whiter white!

-della


> Hello Della,
> 
> I found your observations of the shadow detail using
Piezo versus silver
> prints very interesting.
> 
> I think what happens is a natural "bias" to the
medium which one has
> "learned" and lived with for a long time.  The
esthetics of a silver printer
> are probably indelibly (to use an ink term) marked
by a need to have "deep
> blacks" and not so much a revel in the revealing
shadows.
> 
> I agree that the Piezo shadow detail can be
spectacular...drawing one into a
> print in a new way.
> 
> Thanks for posting your views...I enjoyed reading
them.
> 
> Steadman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards\ufffd
http://movies.yahoo.com/

At 9:07 AM -0800 3/23/02, della ellingson wrote:
>Steadman,
>
>Is this bias being pleased by the medium or restricted
>by the medium? Photo could not give us shadows which
>we wished for. It gave us black where nature did not.
>We exaggerated it then, did we not? We exaggerated it
>to have some control over it. I was once a very
>black&white printer. Then I found PiezographyBW and
>now I would characterize myself has a wide tone
>printer. When I shoot I see that black and white
>seldom exist in nature. Film is able to produce this.
>Darkroom paper can not.
>
>Many will argue these points and explain with
>misconception that the zone system permits control
>over the shadow and highlight. But the zone system
>only allows manipulation of that which is just not
>quite black and just not quite white. PiezographyBW
>software allows much greater control within these
>confines. The black and the white are pushed much
>further apart. But how many printers actually have
>sensitivity to this? How many desire this? Most are
>still desiring a deeper black and a whiter white!
>
>-della


I think we are talking about the style and vision thing here.  There 
is no right or wrong way to do it.

Bill
-- 

b i l l  a g e e  s t u d i o
c a p i s t r a n o  b e a c h  c a l i f o r n i a

billagee@...
http://www.redsilver.com
http://www.billageestudio.com

Della,

In regard to your comments to Steadman you are entirely correct. Most
printers feel that they must have a pure blacka nd a pure white to have a
fine or successful print. This just is not the case. A full range of tones
will look richer and render more detail in the image.

My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and there are
other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All that Cone is
doing is providing canned curves and profiles. The same can be accomplished
using RIPs, curves, and I would assume other methods.  I alos think that the
Piezography driver compresses the shadows to give the appearance of better
blacks.

Personally I also agree with Paul Roark when he says that the black
advantage of silver disappears once the print is under glass.

BTW, Paul you are also correct in that platinum blacks do not reach the
density of silver blacks. The big difference is that the platinum print
gives the viewer the feeling of depth. This is because the matallic
particles are not only found on the surface of the print, but are also
imbedded into the paper fibers.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "della ellingson" <dellaellingson@...>
To: "bw" <digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:07 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows


> Steadman,
>
> Is this bias being pleased by the medium or restricted
> by the medium? Photo could not give us shadows which
> we wished for. It gave us black where nature did not.
> We exaggerated it then, did we not? We exaggerated it
> to have some control over it. I was once a very
> black&white printer. Then I found PiezographyBW and
> now I would characterize myself has a wide tone
> printer. When I shoot I see that black and white
> seldom exist in nature. Film is able to produce this.
> Darkroom paper can not.
>
> Many will argue these points and explain with
> misconception that the zone system permits control
> over the shadow and highlight. But the zone system
> only allows manipulation of that which is just not
> quite black and just not quite white. PiezographyBW
> software allows much greater control within these
> confines. The black and the white are pushed much
> further apart. But how many printers actually have
> sensitivity to this? How many desire this? Most are
> still desiring a deeper black and a whiter white!
>
> -della
>
>
> > Hello Della,
> >
> > I found your observations of the shadow detail using
> Piezo versus silver
> > prints very interesting.
> >
> > I think what happens is a natural "bias" to the
> medium which one has
> > "learned" and lived with for a long time.  The
> esthetics of a silver printer
> > are probably indelibly (to use an ink term) marked
> by a need to have "deep
> > blacks" and not so much a revel in the revealing
> shadows.
> >
> > I agree that the Piezo shadow detail can be
> spectacular...drawing one into a
> > print in a new way.
> >
> > Thanks for posting your views...I enjoyed reading
> them.
> >
> > Steadman
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards\ufffd
> http://movies.yahoo.com/
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>

Mike, this is also why I prefer (for now) the more textured papers.  I am
interested in the interaction between the paper surface and the ink (image)
information, and the resultant lessening of dmax and sharpness be damned!

Bill

PS (for now)

on 3/23/02 2:50 PM, Michael Kravit wrote:

BTW, Paul you are also correct in that platinum blacks do not reach the
density of silver blacks. The big difference is that the platinum print
gives the viewer the feeling of depth. This is because the matallic
particles are not only found on the surface of the print, but are also
imbedded into the paper fibers.

Mike



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bill,

The best blacks I have been able to obtain are with the Hahnemule papers,
specifically Torchon first and then Photo Rag and William Turner. I love the
William Turner rag texture, Torchon is a bit severe for small prints but is
wonderful for large images of 16x20 and larger. Photo Rag gives a different
look, but I find it to have perhaps the smoothest tones of all.

Also I find that teh blacks generated by my IP4 RIP are a bit more more
dense ( .1-.2 DU) then the PiezographyBW24Pro RIp. I have measured them on
Torchon with an XRite 811.

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows


> Mike, this is also why I prefer (for now) the more textured papers.  I am
> interested in the interaction between the paper surface and the ink
(image)
> information, and the resultant lessening of dmax and sharpness be damned!
>
> Bill
>
> PS (for now)
>
> on 3/23/02 2:50 PM, Michael Kravit wrote:
>
> BTW, Paul you are also correct in that platinum blacks do not reach the
> density of silver blacks. The big difference is that the platinum print
> gives the viewer the feeling of depth. This is because the matallic
> particles are not only found on the surface of the print, but are also
> imbedded into the paper fibers.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Hi Michael,

> Most
> printers feel that they must have a pure blacka nd a pure white to have a
> fine or successful print. This just is not the case.

I agree with that!

> My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and there are
> other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All
> that Cone is
> doing is providing canned curves and profiles.

No, that's not true.  It is an entirely different dithering algorithm, and
your only other choice IS the Epson dithering algorithms (if you have an
Epson printer that is).  The dithering algorithm is entirely separate from
curves and profiles.

Regards,

Austin

I started following this list a few months ago because I was considering a
digital darkroom.

After a 20+ year hiatus from darkroom room, I had a company request to buy
some prints I had printed in college.  I was then "forced" to build a
darkroom in my house to produce these prints.

Regarding the luminescence of a print and Della's shadows, I found that my
tastes in printing have changed in the 20 years and the prints that I have
produced recently are far better than anything I had done and exhibited
while in college.  Back then I aspired for the deep blacks and the white
whites and didn't pay much attention to what was in between.  Now I have
discovered and am printing the silvery midtones which lend to the overall
luminescence of the print, which is difficult to describe.  It's like jazz,
you get it or you don't.  I also have the blacks and the whites.

I know I am talking about wet chemical process, and I am delaying my foray
into digital black and white printing until I think I can get the same
degree of satisfaction from it.  There seem to be too many complexities at
the moment; like there aren't complexities in a wet darkroom ;).  Meanwhile,
I will continue following this list and learn from the innovative people who
are active here.

Jesse

In a message dated 3/23/2002 7:44:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
darkroom@... writes:


> My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and there are
> > other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All
> > that Cone is
> > doing is providing canned curves and profiles.
> 
> No, that's not true.  It is an entirely different dithering algorithm, and
> your only other choice IS the Epson dithering algorithms (if you have an
> Epson printer that is).  

I'm still learning what I can, so please pardon my ignorance, but isn't the 
Imageprint 4 RIP another choice?
And if it is, has anyone seen the results with piezo or FS inks?
Thank you,
George J Kunze


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

re: For Della On Shadows

Mike,

If you really believe that canned shadows cause
compression then it is an indication of your scan
quality. I once had shadow compression. Then I
switched to professional scans from a Screen drum
scanner and now a Hell drum scanner. Mike, you owe
your work this favor of using a drum scan made by a
scanner operator.

How do I know this? Because what you call "canned
profiles" is an indication of your input failure. The
Cone profiles print lighter at 99% than they do at
100% which is full black. 98% is still lighter than
99% and so forth. Each % tone is separate and distinct
so that there can be no compression. It can not be any
other way. Please try a drum scan made by a
professional. It makes it so much difference. If you
do not believe this, you owe it to yourself to make a
test pattern of 100 grays to verify it. You will love
the difference that a scan can make.

But if you have professional scans than something may
be wrong with the way you treat your shadows in your
imagework. Did you follow the calibration instructions
from the manual?

your friend,

-della



> Della,
> 
> In regard to your comments to Steadman you are
entirely correct. Most
> printers feel that they must have a pure blacka nd a
pure white to have a
> fine or successful print. This just is not the case.
A full range of tones
> will look richer and render more detail in the
image.
> 
> My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a
driver and there are
> other alternatives that one can use obtain similar
results. All that Cone is
> doing is providing canned curves and profiles. The
same can be accomplished
> using RIPs, curves, and I would assume other
methods.  I alos think that the
> Piezography driver compresses the shadows to give
the appearance of better
> blacks.
> 
> Personally I also agree with Paul Roark when he says
that the black
> advantage of silver disappears once the print is
under glass.
> 
> BTW, Paul you are also correct in that platinum
blacks do not reach the
> density of silver blacks. The big difference is that
the platinum print
> gives the viewer the feeling of depth. This is
because the matallic
> particles are not only found on the surface of the
print, but are also
> imbedded into the paper fibers.
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "della ellingson" <dellaellingson@...>
> To: "bw"
<digitalblackandwhitetheprint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 12:07 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows
> 
> 
>> Steadman,
>> 
>> Is this bias being pleased by the medium or
restricted
>> by the medium? Photo could not give us shadows
which
>> we wished for. It gave us black where nature did
not.
>> We exaggerated it then, did we not? We exaggerated
it
>> to have some control over it. I was once a very
>> black&white printer. Then I found PiezographyBW and
>> now I would characterize myself has a wide tone
>> printer. When I shoot I see that black and white
>> seldom exist in nature. Film is able to produce
this.
>> Darkroom paper can not.
>> 
>> Many will argue these points and explain with
>> misconception that the zone system permits control
>> over the shadow and highlight. But the zone system
>> only allows manipulation of that which is just not
>> quite black and just not quite white. PiezographyBW
>> software allows much greater control within these
>> confines. The black and the white are pushed much
>> further apart. But how many printers actually have
>> sensitivity to this? How many desire this? Most are
>> still desiring a deeper black and a whiter white!
>> 
>> -della
>> 
>> 
>>> Hello Della,
>>> 
>>> I found your observations of the shadow detail
using
>> Piezo versus silver
>>> prints very interesting.
>>> 
>>> I think what happens is a natural "bias" to the
>> medium which one has
>>> "learned" and lived with for a long time.  The
>> esthetics of a silver printer
>>> are probably indelibly (to use an ink term) marked
>> by a need to have "deep
>>> blacks" and not so much a revel in the revealing
>> shadows.
>>> 
>>> I agree that the Piezo shadow detail can be
>> spectacular...drawing one into a
>>> print in a new way.
>>> 
>>> Thanks for posting your views...I enjoyed reading
>> them.
>>> 
>>> Steadman

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards\ufffd
http://movies.yahoo.com/

> > My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and there are
> > > other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All
> > > that Cone is
> > > doing is providing canned curves and profiles.
> >
> > No, that's not true.  It is an entirely different dithering
> algorithm, and
> > your only other choice IS the Epson dithering algorithms (if you have an
> > Epson printer that is).
>
> I'm still learning what I can, so please pardon my ignorance, but
> isn't the
> Imageprint 4 RIP another choice?

That's a good question, and more a question of definition, as I am not
familiar with the Imageprint 4 RIP.  Technically, a RIP (Raster Image
Processor) specifically converts a vector image to a bit mapped image...and
as we know, the images we have in PS are already bit mapped images, but I
guess one could extend the function/definition of a RIP to include the
processing of a bit mapped image (which is also called a raster image) into
the processing of said image with a dither/halftone pattern.

Anything that converts the PS bit mapped image to be able to be printed
(what ever the printing technology is) is "another" choice as far as I am
concerned.  That processing is not limited to halftone/dither processing
BTW, as that is printer technology dependant.

Austin

Austin,

Not entirely correct, there are two other RIPS that will print in Grayscale
and have their own dithering algorithm. Colorbyte ImagePrint 4 and Wasatch
RIP. Wasatch has prfiled their system for MIS Inks, but has not publicly
advertised it. They provide it as an add on to their existining customers.

I was not referring to the dithering, but as usual you managed to pull my
statement out of context. My concern with Piezography for my own use is that
it has canned profiles and curves to obtain a certain look that the user
basically has little or no control over. BTW, have you used the Piezo RIP?
Not the Photoshop plugin, but the Pro RIP for the 7000 & 9000 machines?

The results with a full featured RIP allow for a much greater degree of
control of the inks.

MIke


----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:42 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows


>
> Hi Michael,
>
> > Most
> > printers feel that they must have a pure blacka nd a pure white to have
a
> > fine or successful print. This just is not the case.
>
> I agree with that!
>
> > My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and there are
> > other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All
> > that Cone is
> > doing is providing canned curves and profiles.
>
> No, that's not true.  It is an entirely different dithering algorithm, and
> your only other choice IS the Epson dithering algorithms (if you have an
> Epson printer that is).  The dithering algorithm is entirely separate from
> curves and profiles.
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>

George,

Yes it is, sometimes I think Austin likes to be argumentative and egg us on
for the sake of spirited debate. :-)

Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: <toomagenta@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows


> In a message dated 3/23/2002 7:44:25 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> darkroom@... writes:
>
>
> > My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and there are
> > > other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All
> > > that Cone is
> > > doing is providing canned curves and profiles.
> >
> > No, that's not true.  It is an entirely different dithering algorithm,
and
> > your only other choice IS the Epson dithering algorithms (if you have an
> > Epson printer that is).
>
> I'm still learning what I can, so please pardon my ignorance, but isn't
the
> Imageprint 4 RIP another choice?
> And if it is, has anyone seen the results with piezo or FS inks?
> Thank you,
> George J Kunze
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Della,

> If you really believe that canned shadows cause
> compression then it is an indication of your scan
> quality. I once had shadow compression. Then I
> switched to professional scans from a Screen drum
> scanner and now a Hell drum scanner. Mike, you owe
> your work this favor of using a drum scan made by a
> scanner operator.

Della, have you ever seen my work?
You really don't know what you are talking about. I never said that canned
shadows cause shadow compression. I said that if you look at what the Piezo
driver does you will see that it IMO compresses the shadows. Print out a 21
step wedge and read the densities on a densitometer. Next compare them to
the densities on a Stoffer Step tablet. I think you will find out that the
shadows are compressed.

I am not using the Piezo driver so I have no problem with compressed
shadows. I use a professional level RIP. I also own a Howtek D4000 drum
scanner. I scan in RAW mode with white and black points pushed out to 0 and
256. I capture all detail there is to capture as far as the scanner is
capable. I have has "professional" drum scans made. My scans are superior as
they do not clip data.

> How do I know this? Because what you call "canned
> profiles" is an indication of your input failure. The
> Cone profiles print lighter at 99% than they do at
> 100% which is full black. 98% is still lighter than
> 99% and so forth. Each % tone is separate and distinct
> so that there can be no compression. It can not be any
> other way. Please try a drum scan made by a
> professional. It makes it so much difference. If you
> do not believe this, you owe it to yourself to make a
> test pattern of 100 grays to verify it. You will love
> the difference that a scan can make.

Of course the 99% patch is lighter than the 100% patch, so on a so forth.
But until you measure them against a known standard in densitometric
readings you have no clue as to what they are supposed to be.

> But if you have professional scans than something may
> be wrong with the way you treat your shadows in your
> imagework. Did you follow the calibration instructions
> from the manual?

Once again, I have no problem with shadows using a professional RIP.
Please do not take my statements out of context. Read them carefully and try
to understand what I an saying before you respond.

Mike

on 3/23/2002 9:54 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
Frank wrote:
> Message: 9
> Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:49:01 -0000
> From: "culturalvisions" <frank@...>
> Subject: Re: For Della On Shadows
> 
> In response to this antiquated argument, I have yet to see a
> silver print with the tonal range of a platinum print.  And I have
> seen lots of beautiful silver prints and lots of beautiful platinum
> prints.  The goal for me is not to make a digital print that imitates
> these.  In fact, an inkjet print looks more like a photogravure.
> 
> I have yet to see an apple that looks like an orange.  These are
> not valid arguments.  What is important to digital printers is
> making the most beautiful print we can with our chosen medium.
> This is also most important to platinum and silver printmakers.

Mike Wrote:
> I fully agree that Piezo technology is quitre good, in fact it has
> progressed to the point of being very good. However, as a member director of
> a Photography Center and Museum I must tell you that I have yet to see a
> Piezo print that can match the quality of a fine silver or platinum print.
> They are getting quite close, but there are some pretty good silver printers
> out there. I would venture to say that it will still be a while for the
> paper coatings and inks to be able to replicate the "glow" and lunminescence
> of a Michael Kenna or John Sexton print.
> 
> Just my thoughts my firnd.
> 
> Mike

Just my 2 cents:

My Piezo prints look better than any silver prints I've made, but only
because I have much more control over the image through photoshop than I had
with the enlarger.  I also have more skill with photoshop than with dodging
and burning under the safelight.

On the other hand, the Piezo prints just do not have the dynamic range of
silver prints.  I think that the biggest issue here is that the pigment
black is not black enough.  I suspect that if we could have a black ink as
dark as the Epson OEM black dye ink, ink jet B&W prints would rival
traditional silver prints and perhaps, surpass them.

Our "chosen medium" need not be limited to the subdued inkjet look.  We
should be able to dial in any look possible though skill, and choice of
paper and ink--in the ideal world.
 
-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

Bruce,

> On the other hand, the Piezo prints just do not have the dynamic range of
> silver prints.

Actually, Piezo prints have a higher dynamic range than silver prints.  You
may be confusing dynamic range with density ratio values.  They are two
different things.  You can have a high density ratio value, but a very low
dynamic range, example is graphics art film...where you get deep blacks, but
no intermediate tones.  Dynamic range is the ability to discriminate between
tones, density range is simply the ratio of the darkest you can represent vs
the lightest.

I can explain this further if anyone wants.

Regards,

Austin

Hi Mike,

I believe you misunderstood what I was responding to...partly because I left
a sentence in there that would have been better removed for clarity.  I was
specifically responding to the comment that the Piezo driver is nothing but
canned curves and profiles, and it is not.  That certainly doesn't preclude
any other methodology!

Regards,

Austin

> Austin,
>
> Not entirely correct, there are two other RIPS that will print in
> Grayscale
> and have their own dithering algorithm. Colorbyte ImagePrint 4 and Wasatch
> RIP. Wasatch has prfiled their system for MIS Inks, but has not publicly
> advertised it. They provide it as an add on to their existining customers.
>
> I was not referring to the dithering, but as usual you managed to pull my
> statement out of context. My concern with Piezography for my own
> use is that
> it has canned profiles and curves to obtain a certain look that the user
> basically has little or no control over. BTW, have you used the Piezo RIP?
> Not the Photoshop plugin, but the Pro RIP for the 7000 & 9000 machines?
>
> The results with a full featured RIP allow for a much greater degree of
> control of the inks.
>
> MIke
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 7:42 PM
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows
>
>
> >
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > > Most
> > > printers feel that they must have a pure blacka nd a pure
> white to have
> a
> > > fine or successful print. This just is not the case.
> >
> > I agree with that!
> >
> > > My biggest concern is that "Piezography" is only a driver and
> there are
> > > other alternatives that one can use obtain similar results. All
> > > that Cone is
> > > doing is providing canned curves and profiles.
> >
> > No, that's not true.  It is an entirely different dithering
> algorithm, and
> > your only other choice IS the Epson dithering algorithms (if you have an
> > Epson printer that is).  The dithering algorithm is entirely
> separate from
> > curves and profiles.
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/
>
>



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

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/

Austin

My old fibre based prints are very similar in density ratio to 
inkjet on cotten. They were never as "snappy". Do you think the 
dynamic range of inkjet would be akin to fibre based?

Garry Sarre


> Actually, Piezo prints have a higher dynamic range than silver 
prints.  You
> may be confusing dynamic range with density ratio values.  They 
are two
> different things.  You can have a high density ratio value, but a 
very low
> dynamic range, example is graphics art film...where you get deep 
blacks, but
> no intermediate tones.  Dynamic range is the ability to 
discriminate between
> tones, density range is simply the ratio of the darkest you can 
represent vs

> the lightest.
> 
> I can explain this further if anyone wants.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

> Austin,
>
> Not entirely correct,

Michael,

We obviously misunderstood each other.  My first "part" was specifically
replying to the claim that the Piezo driver was only a set of canned curves
and profiles, and it is not.

My second "part" was referring to dithers that are inherent in "drivers"
(since you mentioned "driver", I believed that is what we were talking
about), of which there is, as far as I know, only the Epson driver as well
as the Cone/Piezo driver available.  I was not including RIPs in that
comment.  I know dithers are built-in to some printers, as well as RIPs have
dithers too, and RIPs can be on-board as well as off-board.

> I was not referring to the dithering, but as usual you managed to pull my
> statement out of context.

Well, I took your statement at face value...  "All that Cone is doing is
providing canned curves and profiles.".

FYI, since you asked, I have used many RIPs, as I still have two RIP boxes,
that are now retired, but that I used for many years.  One of them was one I
wrote while doing some work for Xerox Imaging Systems in the early 90's.  It
actually worked ;-)

Regards,

Austin

Bruce, try Generations inks (All enhanced) on a paper like Royal Riviera or Wells River, and you will get super blacks. (Wipe down the wells
river, it flakes badly).

Jerry

Bruce wrote:

> on 3/23/2002 9:54 AM, DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com at
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> Frank wrote:
> > Message: 9
> > Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 14:49:01 -0000
> > From: "culturalvisions" <frank@...>
> > Subject: Re: For Della On Shadows
> >
> > In response to this antiquated argument, I have yet to see a
> > silver print with the tonal range of a platinum print.  And I have
> > seen lots of beautiful silver prints and lots of beautiful platinum
> > prints.  The goal for me is not to make a digital print that imitates
> > these.  In fact, an inkjet print looks more like a photogravure.
> >
> > I have yet to see an apple that looks like an orange.  These are
> > not valid arguments.  What is important to digital printers is
> > making the most beautiful print we can with our chosen medium.
> > This is also most important to platinum and silver printmakers.
>
> Mike Wrote:
> > I fully agree that Piezo technology is quitre good, in fact it has
> > progressed to the point of being very good. However, as a member director of
> > a Photography Center and Museum I must tell you that I have yet to see a
> > Piezo print that can match the quality of a fine silver or platinum print.
> > They are getting quite close, but there are some pretty good silver printers
> > out there. I would venture to say that it will still be a while for the
> > paper coatings and inks to be able to replicate the "glow" and lunminescence
> > of a Michael Kenna or John Sexton print.
> >
> > Just my thoughts my firnd.
> >
> > Mike
>
> Just my 2 cents:
>
> My Piezo prints look better than any silver prints I've made, but only
> because I have much more control over the image through photoshop than I had
> with the enlarger.  I also have more skill with photoshop than with dodging
> and burning under the safelight.
>
> On the other hand, the Piezo prints just do not have the dynamic range of
> silver prints.  I think that the biggest issue here is that the pigment
> black is not black enough.  I suspect that if we could have a black ink as
> dark as the Epson OEM black dye ink, ink jet B&W prints would rival
> traditional silver prints and perhaps, surpass them.
>
> Our "chosen medium" need not be limited to the subdued inkjet look.  We
> should be able to dial in any look possible though skill, and choice of
> paper and ink--in the ideal world.
>
> -Bruce
>
> Visit my website at:
> http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/

> Austin
>
> My old fibre based prints are very similar in density ratio to
> inkjet on cotten. They were never as "snappy". Do you think the
> dynamic range of inkjet would be akin to fibre based?
>
> Garry Sarre

Hi Garry,

I believe, though I have not proven it with any tests of my own, merely
personal observations of images printed using both, that inkjet prints can
produce more tonal variations than wet darkroom, and therefore have a higher
dynamic range.  It's probably an easy thing to "prove" using a step wedge.

Regards,

Austin

Della wrote:

> No need to get angry Mike!

I'm not angry.

> You are the one who speaks from a confusing context.
> If I made a mistake it is only because of what you
> have written.

Ok, if you say so.

> So before you get upset with me and my
> not choosing my words carefully - look at your words.
> I can only understand what you write. If you want me
> to understand you then try consistency in your words
> which you write! It is only common courtesy to
> practice what it is you expect from others before you
> correct them.

Ok, I agree.

> You called the Piezo profiles "canned profiles" and
> explained that they compress the blacks.

Yes, they are closed "ICQ" profiles provided for a certain limited selection
of papers. They are canned, meaning that they come with the program and
that's all you get. A truely open system would allow you to use standard ICC
profiles, thereby no longer being canned.

> Now you say
> of course they get lighter from one tone to another.
> The profiles can not evenly distribute tone from one
> point to another and then compress at the same time.

Yes they can Della, think about it. The change is density from one to the
next can be almost infinite. The example I cited is a Stoffer step wedge
where the standrad separation is .15 density units. It is certainly possible
to have a variable change in density or in simpler terms increase the
density separation in the highlights and contract or compress it in the
shadows yest still maintain the overall Density Range or (DR).

> It is linear. Yes black appears only at 100% and then
> graduates in a lighter fashion from 99, 98, 97, 96, 95
> and so forth until 0. How can you have compression and
> even distribution at the same time?

My point exactly. You can't. and Cones profiles are not linear. They are
expanded in the highlights and contracted in the shadows effectively adding
contrast to the image printed.

> Compression
> implies a curve in the shadows. The Piezo is linear.
> So your suggestion implied a curve in "your" shadows
> and I was only trying to help you.

Go ahead and measure your 21 step Piezo strip that came with the software.
Then graph it in Excel or some other program. I believe that you will indeed
see that the result is a curve. I have, and it is a curve.

> You must understand that I read a few messages ago
> that you announced to this list that you were having
> profiles created at your expense for the ImagePrint.
> So I read this and think that you believe somehow that
> the Piezography profiles are poor or "canned" as you
> wrote which implies negative associations.

No, not at all. The Piezography profiles do an excellent job. They give the
end user lovely images. My point is that I want to print what I see on the
screen monitor. I do not want the driver adding anything to my image. I
prefer to previsualize, develop based upon my testing, scan my film with a
calibrated scanner workflow, and print what I have captured and manipulated
on the screen.


>You were
> very excited to get profiles created for the
> ImagePrint and receive recognition for it. This to me
> sounded as positive association. So it is only natural
> to infer that you are having problems with your Piezo
> system which you believe another system would correct.

Once again not true. I don't have a Piezo system, I only use ImagePrint 4
for printing. And further I announced that I was having curves profiled for
use with the MIS/Piezo inks so that others who use this system could benefit
from the action.

> Now you write you do not even use the Piezography
> anymore. So now what do your observations mean? I am
> only an observer but it seems to me that this list is
> controlled by a few men who are trying either to out
> best each other or to be negative against other user's
> systems in favor of their own preferred system if it
> differs.

Dominated by who?
OK so in your estimation those with years of Digital printing  experience
should back off and let those seeking advice spend years making mistakes and
working out the issues for themselves? That is narrow, self centered and
outrageous. There is no ego here, we are only trying to advance the art and
help other save money and make great prints. This is a Digital BW list, not
geared to one product or another. We ask all who use varying products to
share their experiences and information. In fact, I have been working with
an Epson 10000 developing curves to print palladium, platinum, neutral and
selenium tone look images without the use of any third part product. As soon
as I am ready, I will share that infor FREE of charge.

>If you read the list back which I have done
> this morning it is very plain that it is dominated by
> men who either subtly or with much robust attacking
> other men users with opinions which differ from their
> own.

You are mis-judging those here. Yes there is heated debate from time to time
(witness the Foveon), but the wealth of information shared is advancing the
state of the art.

> I subscribed under the condition that it
> discusses all systems. You have even written that you
> have a mandate of some sort to protect others from
> making the same mistakes that you have with the Piezo
> system. Others using the same system have not made
> your mistakes. I am one who tried and returned to
> Piezo for the control. Your mistakes are your
> mistakes.

Della, that is so far from the truth that I am amazed you have written it.
There are hundreds of people on and off ths lists that have problems with
all sorts of products. Piezo inks are problematic that many and I mean many
people have clogs, sludge, green prints, and density loss/shift. These are
real people with real problems. After I had to replace the heads on my 7000
which BTW is no inexpensive proposition I switched to MIS inks. Guess what,
no problems!, no sludge, no green prints, no density loss. BUT, also
remember that I use Epson inks in my 10000, and now Generations in my 1280.
I am not operating with a hidden agenda against anyone. In fact I received
an email offllist from one of out list members with an email from JHon Cone
attached that stated Cone would be releasing a new improved Piezo ink very
shortly to fix the problems that people have been having. Sounds like a real
concern on his part to me!

> Yes Mike, I do not know your work only your words. I
> am not angry with you Mike. But you do not need to
> attack people when they try to help you. No one is the
> best expert. Everyone has something to learn from
> everyone. Look at the world around us - how can we
> expect peace if strangers on a list can not help each
> other?

I attacked you? Sorry, you were the one that called my outlook and position
antiquated I believe.  I have no ax to gring with Cone, but if he continues
to sell a product that clogs printers, then we will all discuss the
situation and provide informative information based upon our experiences to
help others make informed decisions.

I am glad you like the Piezo product., The plugin driver is excellent.
Continue to have great success and enjoy the process.

Best Reagrds
Mike

Della wrote:

it seems to me that this list is
controlled by a few men who are trying either to out
best each other or to be negative against other user's
systems in favor of their own preferred system if it
differs. If you read the list back which I have done
this morning it is very plain that it is dominated by
men who either subtly or with much robust attacking
other men users with opinions which differ from their
own. I subscribed under the condition that it

Della, as a self-acknowledged newcomer to this list, you seem to know an
awfully lot about it and the active participants! If you REALLY are sincere
in wanting to understand this list and the participants, I think you'd be
wise to do considerably more research than you've obviously done to date.

I'm not an active party in the current discussion, but I am monitoring it
and am extremely offended by your attitude. I appreciate everyone's
participation and point of view on this list as long as it's not derogatory,
vindictive, or outright slanderous. Please think about it before responding.

Tom Keesling

Austin,

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
"Main Entry: dynamic range
Function: noun
Date: 1949
: the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be
transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system"

In visual terms the ratio of black to white which we think of in terms of
Density (Dmax and Dmin), which is a base 10 logarithmic expression of the
inverse of the amount of light reflected from the surface of the print.
(While this was once convent for mathematical calculation it is not
intuitive way to look at the data.)

Density = log(1/reflectance) Reflectance being the amount of light reflected
by the ink and/or paper

Typical inkjet print has Dmax of 1.4 to 1.7 (4.0 to 2.0% reflectance)

Typical silver print has Dmax of 2.2 to 2.6 (0.6 to 0.3% reflectance)

Similar Dmin values in the 0.02 to 0.06 range. (95.5 to 87.1% reflectance)

Calculated using Dmax and Dmin:
Inkjet dynamic range:  23 to 85
Silver dynamic range: 36 to 130

Calculated using Reflectance %:
Inkjet dynamic range: 22 to 48
Silver dynamic range: 145 to 318

Of greater interest:

Calculated using the difference in Dmax and Dmin:
Inkjet range:  1.34 to 1.68
Silver range: 2.14 to 2.54

Calculated using the difference in Reflectance %:
Inkjet range: 83.1 to 93.5
Silver range: 86.5 to 95.2

One of the things we often neglect is the importance of Dmin. Most of the
inkjet papers have a better (lower) Dmin than silver papers and this has a
strong impact on the dynamic range and range. I think that the range of the
reflectance is most informative and indicates that the difference between
silver and inkjet is not as great as log values suggest.

For instance here are some comparisons of Density values to Reflectance
values:

      Density Reflectance
      0.01 97.7%
      0.02 95.5%
      0.06 87.1%
      1.4 4.0%
      1.7 2.0%
      2.2 0.6%
      2.3 0.5%
      2.4 0.4%
      2.6 0.3%


Small changes in the Dmin make very large changes in the maximum reflectance
of the paper while big changes in the Dmax have little impact on the
reflectance of the blacks. The difference between a density of 0.02 and 0.03
are easily seen by the human eye but we have a difficult time distinguishing
between densities of 2.4 and 2.6. The reflectance values show why this is
the case.

The big step we see in comparing ink and silver is that 1.7 to 2.2 step, a
change of only 1.4% in reflectance but quite noticeable. I believe this is
largely due to the matte vs. smooth surfaces. The difference between inkjet
and silver matte paper at this point is probably very small.

Several people have pointed out the differences between inkjet and silver
Dmax are largely lost when the images are framed and placed under glass or
plastic. I have also found this to be true.

I don't think you can prove an inkjet print has more tones than a silver
print because it doesn't. Since a silver print and an inkjet print are both
analog, there is an infinite number of tones between the minimum and
maximum. This is true independent of our ability to measure or visually
resolve adjacent tones past a certain degree of similarity. It is based upon
the fact that any line segment regardless of its length has an infinite
number of points. This means that both are infinitely capable of expressing
whatever we want within the outer limits of the range.

You suggest that inkjet offers a larger palette of tones and there is no
empirical evidence to support that.

But this is where I came in a year ago and you and I beat it to death then
without agreeing so I vote to agree to continue to disagree.

Martin




----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:29 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


> > Austin
> >
> > My old fibre based prints are very similar in density ratio to
> > inkjet on cotten. They were never as "snappy". Do you think the
> > dynamic range of inkjet would be akin to fibre based?
> >
> > Garry Sarre
>
> Hi Garry,
>
> I believe, though I have not proven it with any tests of my own, merely
> personal observations of images printed using both, that inkjet prints can
> produce more tonal variations than wet darkroom, and therefore have a
higher
> dynamic range.  It's probably an easy thing to "prove" using a step wedge.
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

> Austin,
>
> Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
> "Main Entry: dynamic range
> Function: noun
> Date: 1949
> : the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be
> transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system"

Hi Martin,

Yes, that's pretty much correct.  It is the largest measurable signal over
the noise, which is the minimum measurable signal.  This is so, basically,
as you can not measure smaller than the noise in the system, so the noise
becomes the "step" within that system.

> In visual terms the ratio of black to white which we think of in terms of
> Density (Dmax and Dmin), which is a base 10 logarithmic expression of the
> inverse of the amount of light reflected from the surface of the print.
> (While this was once convent for mathematical calculation it is not
> intuitive way to look at the data.)

Correct.

> Density = log(1/reflectance) Reflectance being the amount of
> light reflected
> by the ink and/or paper
>
> Typical inkjet print has Dmax of 1.4 to 1.7 (4.0 to 2.0% reflectance)
>
> Typical silver print has Dmax of 2.2 to 2.6 (0.6 to 0.3% reflectance)
>
> Similar Dmin values in the 0.02 to 0.06 range. (95.5 to 87.1% reflectance)
>
> Calculated using Dmax and Dmin:
> Inkjet dynamic range:  23 to 85

No...that's the point.  Density ratio values are NOT the same as dynamic
range.  The value of 1 is the step size of density ration values, but NOT of
dynamic range.  "1" is nothing but a ratio value, as in, 2:1 is twice as
dark...  Technically, something can be 1.223456:1 times as dark, but the
density ratio value system is based on :1, and does not accommodate this...

Dynamic range requires you know the noise in the system, density ratio
values do not, they are only relative to themselves in intensity, where
dynamic range is not.  As the example I gave in my other post, you can have
a really high density value of, say 4, but no tones in between...and that
has poor dynamic range, but you can have a dMax of 1.8 and a dMin if .1, but
have a whole lot of tones in between...that has a high dynamic range.

> One of the things we often neglect is the importance of Dmin.

I don't ;-)  Most people assume when a dMax value is stated, dMin is 0.
That isn't always true, obviously.

> Several people have pointed out the differences between inkjet and silver
> Dmax are largely lost when the images are framed and placed under glass or
> plastic. I have also found this to be true.

I'll go back to my original statement.  Density ratio values have nothing to
do with dynamic range.  They are entirely different.  Therefore, because
silver has a higher dMax (which I do not dispute), does not mean it has a
larger dynamic range.

> I don't think you can prove an inkjet print has more tones than a silver
> print because it doesn't.

Absolutely can.  Technically, inkjet can reproduce an infinite number of
tones, since it is using a dither pattern, and all you have to do is make
the image large enough (or dots small enough), and the dither pattern
accordingly, and you can make infinite tones.  We are specifically talking
about printing now, not the film or scanner etc.

> Since a silver print and an inkjet
> print are both
> analog, there is an infinite number of tones between the minimum and
> maximum.

Well, no.  The silver print is finite, since noise will overcome your
ability to discern tones.  That's what limits silver prints dynamic range.
The number of steps that can be discerned (in a range) is dynamic range.

> But this is where I came in a year ago and you and I beat it to death then
> without agreeing so I vote to agree to continue to disagree.

Don't give up on me, I know my "position" can be understood if I explain it
well enough.  I believe this IS a very very important point for discussion,
and I am very happy to continue it.  It is probably the most
misunderstood/discussed issue, and the terms Dynamic Range and Density Range
are used interchangeably, and they are not interchangeable, as I believe I
have shown...or at least attempted to show.

Regards,

Austin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 11:28 AM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


>
> > Austin,
> >
> > Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary:
> > "Main Entry: dynamic range
> > Function: noun
> > Date: 1949
> > : the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity that can be
> > transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system"
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Yes, that's pretty much correct.  It is the largest measurable signal over
> the noise, which is the minimum measurable signal.  This is so, basically,
> as you can not measure smaller than the noise in the system, so the noise
> becomes the "step" within that system.

Austin,

The Merriam definition takes this into account as the "weakest sound
intensity" would be the sound just greater than the noise floor.
>
> > In visual terms the ratio of black to white which we think of in terms
of
> > Density (Dmax and Dmin), which is a base 10 logarithmic expression of
the
> > inverse of the amount of light reflected from the surface of the print.
> > (While this was once convent for mathematical calculation it is not
> > intuitive way to look at the data.)
>
> Correct.
>
> > Density = log(1/reflectance) Reflectance being the amount of
> > light reflected
> > by the ink and/or paper
> >
> > Typical inkjet print has Dmax of 1.4 to 1.7 (4.0 to 2.0% reflectance)
> >
> > Typical silver print has Dmax of 2.2 to 2.6 (0.6 to 0.3% reflectance)
> >
> > Similar Dmin values in the 0.02 to 0.06 range. (95.5 to 87.1%
reflectance)
> >
> > Calculated using Dmax and Dmin:
> > Inkjet dynamic range:  23 to 85
>
> No...that's the point.  Density ratio values are NOT the same as dynamic
> range.

That's not what the definition says.

 The value of 1 is the step size of density ration values, but NOT of
> dynamic range.

Density variation is step-less in an analog system. A silver print is a
continuous tone image.

 "1" is nothing but a ratio value, as in, 2:1 is twice as
> dark...  Technically, something can be 1.223456:1 times as dark, but the
> density ratio value system is based on :1, and does not accommodate
this...
>
> Dynamic range requires you know the noise in the system,

This is true in audio and electronics but seems to have little to do with a
step wedge of tones on a piece of paper.

>  density ratio
> values do not, they are only relative to themselves in intensity, where
> dynamic range is not.  As the example I gave in my other post, you can
have
> a really high density value of, say 4, but no tones in between...and that
> has poor dynamic range, but you can have a dMax of 1.8 and a dMin if .1,
but
> have a whole lot of tones in between...that has a high dynamic range.

Dynamic range does not tell you anything about what is in between the end of
the scale it simply defines its scope. If it is analog you can stop anywhere
within the range an find a point and those are infinite in number. Silver
printing is stepless.
>
> > One of the things we often neglect is the importance of Dmin.
>
> I don't ;-)  Most people assume when a dMax value is stated, dMin is 0.
> That isn't always true, obviously.
>
> > Several people have pointed out the differences between inkjet and
silver
> > Dmax are largely lost when the images are framed and placed under glass
or
> > plastic. I have also found this to be true.
>
> I'll go back to my original statement.  Density ratio values have nothing
to
> do with dynamic range.  They are entirely different.  Therefore, because
> silver has a higher dMax (which I do not dispute), does not mean it has a
> larger dynamic range.

No max:min density ratios are dynamic range. I will stick to the dictionary
definition. You are arguing less is more.
>
> > I don't think you can prove an inkjet print has more tones than a silver
> > print because it doesn't.
>
> Absolutely can.  Technically, inkjet can reproduce an infinite number of
> tones, since it is using a dither pattern, and all you have to do is make
> the image large enough (or dots small enough), and the dither pattern
> accordingly, and you can make infinite tones.  We are specifically talking
> about printing now, not the film or scanner etc.

Yep infinite tones.

>
> > Since a silver print and an inkjet
> > print are both
> > analog, there is an infinite number of tones between the minimum and
> > maximum.
>
> Well, no.  The silver print is finite, since noise will overcome your
> ability to discern tones.  That's what limits silver prints dynamic range.
> The number of steps that can be discerned (in a range) is dynamic range.

Okay, if it is finite how many tones can be produced in a silver gelatin
print?

Silver is not finite. Silver emulsion exposure and development produce
reactions that can proceed to any point and provide an infinite number of
tones.

Since you are looking a print, either inkjet or silver, the "noise" if any
will be the same. The ability to discern steps is a limit of your measuring
methods or your eye not of the system, and the same situation exists for
both.
>
> > But this is where I came in a year ago and you and I beat it to death
then
> > without agreeing so I vote to agree to continue to disagree.
>
> Don't give up on me, I know my "position" can be understood if I explain
it
> well enough.  I believe this IS a very very important point for
discussion,
> and I am very happy to continue it.  It is probably the most
> misunderstood/discussed issue, and the terms Dynamic Range and Density
Range
> are used interchangeably, and they are not interchangeable, as I believe I
> have shown...or at least attempted to show.

I understand, I just don't agree. I think that you are redefining dynamic
range in light of your electronics and digital background that are not
completely applicable to a paper print.

I agree that Density Range and Density Dynamic Range are not
interchangeable. Range is the max minus min difference and Dynamic Range is
the max:min ratio.

In any case, neither value places a limit on the ability to make a fine
print with the materials chosen, either ink or silver.

Best
Martin

Della wrote:

> Now you write you do not even use the Piezography
> anymore. So now what do your observations mean? I am
> only an observer but it seems to me that this list is
> controlled by a few men who are trying either to out
> best each other or to be negative against other user's
> systems in favor of their own preferred system if it
> differs. If you read the list back which I have done
> this morning it is very plain that it is dominated by
> men who either subtly or with much robust attacking
> other men users with opinions which differ from their
> own. I subscribed under the condition that it
> discusses all systems. You have even written that you
> have a mandate of some sort to protect others from
> making the same mistakes that you have with the Piezo
> system. Others using the same system have not made
> your mistakes. I am one who tried and returned to
> Piezo for the control. Your mistakes are your
> mistakes.

 

This has been a very fun discussion.  Lets not try to out do "Celebrity
Boxing" on the Fox network.  Does Tonya Harding print in B&W?

About the Piezo system:
1.  The inks often fail when used in a CIS.
2.  It would be cool to have some ability to edit curves in the Piezo
profiles.  Lets face it, the limitations of the Piezo system were designed
to lock it's users into using only Piezo brand ink. But they had the right
to design their business this way.
3. Let's hope that competition enters the RIP market for desktop epson
printers so that we can have a choice.  The colorbyte software sounds very
promising as reported by Mike.  I think most piezo users should be happy
that MIS is selling a Piezo compatible ink at a reasonable price as well.

-Bruce

Visit my website at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~smthopr

> Austin,
>
> The Merriam definition takes this into account as the "weakest sound
> intensity" would be the sound just greater than the noise floor.

Hi Martin,

Weakest is not the same as noise.

> > > Calculated using Dmax and Dmin:
> > > Inkjet dynamic range:  23 to 85
> >
> > No...that's the point.  Density ratio values are NOT the same as dynamic
> > range.
>
> That's not what the definition says.

What definition says what?  Seriously, it's not debatable that density ratio
values are not the same as dynamic range, it simply is a fact...  All
density ratio values are, are ratios of, well, density, there is nothing in
the density ratio value scale that has anything to do with noise (minimum
measurABLE signal).

>  The value of 1 is the step size of density ration values, but NOT of
> > dynamic range.
>
> Density variation is step-less in an analog system. A silver print is a
> continuous tone image.

Not true.  Analog systems are not stepless, there is noise in any system!
If they WERE stepless, the dynamic range would be infinite, by definition.

>  "1" is nothing but a ratio value, as in, 2:1 is twice as
> > dark...  Technically, something can be 1.223456:1 times as dark, but the
> > density ratio value system is based on :1, and does not accommodate
> this...
> >
> > Dynamic range requires you know the noise in the system,
>
> This is true in audio and electronics but seems to have little to
> do with a
> step wedge of tones on a piece of paper.

Noise (minimum measurable signal is the same as noise for the purposes of
this discussion) is required by the definition of dynamic range!  Dynamic
range is the ratio of the largest measurable signal to noise!  Without
noise/smallest measurable signal, you can not determine dynamic range.

> >  density ratio
> > values do not, they are only relative to themselves in intensity, where
> > dynamic range is not.  As the example I gave in my other post, you can
> have
> > a really high density value of, say 4, but no tones in
> between...and that
> > has poor dynamic range, but you can have a dMax of 1.8 and a dMin if .1,
> but
> > have a whole lot of tones in between...that has a high dynamic range.
>
> Dynamic range does not tell you anything about what is in between
> the end of
> the scale it simply defines its scope.

No, the endpoints define it's "scope" (range).  Dynamic range IS the number
of steps between the minimum measurable signal and the largest signal, since
you can only measure in increments of noise.

> If it is analog you can
> stop anywhere
> within the range an find a point and those are infinite in number. Silver
> printing is stepless.

Not true.  In an analog system, you can only measure to noise, so your
measurement will have a +- range, and that range is noise.  You can not
measure .0000001 volts in a system that has .1V noise!

> No max:min density ratios are dynamic range.

Absolutely not.  Because you measured a minimum value of X does not mean
that value is the noise floor!

> I will stick to the
> dictionary
> definition. You are arguing less is more.

I don't understand what you mean "I am arguing less is more"...please
explain.  BTW, I have been designing signal processing systems for a long
time.  The definition of dynamic range I know very very well.  You are
missing the concept of noise not being the same as the minimum measurED
signal, as opposed to the minimum measurABLE signal.  This is a very
important distinguishing point.

> > > Since a silver print and an inkjet
> > > print are both
> > > analog, there is an infinite number of tones between the minimum and
> > > maximum.
> >
> > Well, no.  The silver print is finite, since noise will overcome your
> > ability to discern tones.  That's what limits silver prints
> dynamic range.
> > The number of steps that can be discerned (in a range) is dynamic range.
>
> Okay, if it is finite how many tones can be produced in a silver gelatin
> print?
>
> Silver is not finite. Silver emulsion exposure and development produce
> reactions that can proceed to any point and provide an infinite number of
> tones.

I take it you don't understand the concept of noise in an analog system, or
you would understand why the tones are limited.

> I understand, I just don't agree.

Then you don't understand some things...and that is what I am trying to
explain to you.  Please put down your beliefs, and listen to me.  I've been
doing this stuff for a long time, and I know what I am saying is absolutely,
unmistakably correct.

> I think that you are redefining dynamic
> range in light of your electronics and digital background that are not
> completely applicable to a paper print.

Dynamic range IS dynamic range, period, what ever the application!  It is
completely applicable.  As I've said, this is a point of confusion that has
been around for some time, understanding the difference between density
ratio values and dynamic range, and that they are not interchangeable terms.
The term dynamic range is typically misused.  It is similar to the
misunderstanding that because positive film has a wider density range, that
it has a higher dynamic range, and it does not.  Negative film has more
discernable tones than positive film, and yet it has a shorter density
range.

> I agree that Density Range and Density Dynamic Range are not
> interchangeable. Range is the max minus min difference and
> Dynamic Range is
> the max:min ratio.

As I've said, you are confusing what min means in each case, and in each
case, they are different.  Min in the sense of dynamic range is the noise in
the system, min in the sense of density ratio values is the minimum you
measured in THAT image...and is NOT the same as the noise in the system.

Again, the minimum measurED signal is entirely different than a minimum
measurABLE signal.  Density ratio values are based on measureED signal, and
dynamic range is based on measurABLE signal.

> In any case, neither value places a limit on the ability to make a fine
> print with the materials chosen, either ink or silver.

True, but misunderstanding only confuses the ability to understand how this
stuff really works ;-)

Austin

on 3/24/02 4:04 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
on 3/24/02 3:15 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

Martin, Austin, you guys are giving me a serious headache!  Without
rehashing yours or the other's arguments, can you explain to us right-brain
types what significance this argument has to our printing.  I know you see
the connection, but I've lost it.

Regards

Bill 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On 24-Mar-2002 Bill Morse wrote:

> Martin, Austin, you guys are giving me a serious headache!  Without

It is after midnight in Paris but I can't sleep...
Where can I found documentation about dynamic range and density for the
dummies?
Density is the diff between the min and the max and the range the
number of discrete values fron Dmin to Dmax? 

Please help me to understand!


-- 
<regisr> http://regisr.regix.com/   portail photo http://www.regix.net
         magazine http://www.regix.com/

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


(snip)
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> Weakest is not the same as noise.

Okay
>
> > > > Calculated using Dmax and Dmin:
> > > > Inkjet dynamic range:  23 to 85
> > >
> > > No...that's the point.  Density ratio values are NOT the same as
dynamic
> > > range.
> >
> > That's not what the definition says.
>
> What definition says what?

Dynamic range: the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity
that can be transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system.

>  Seriously, it's not debatable that density ratio
> values are not the same as dynamic range, it simply is a fact...

No the dictionary says quite clearly that dynamic range is the ratio of the
strongest sound intensity to the weakest sound intensity which in a
photographic print I am taking the equivalent of sound intensity to be
reflectance or reflective density. I don't see how this does not conform to
the definition.

>All
> density ratio values are, are ratios of, well, density, there is nothing
in
> the density ratio value scale that has anything to do with noise (minimum
> measurABLE signal).

Maybe there isn't any noise in this system. The system exists and behaves
independent of our ability or inability to measure it.
>
> >  The value of 1 is the step size of density ration values, but NOT of
> > > dynamic range.
> >
> > Density variation is step-less in an analog system. A silver print is a
> > continuous tone image.
>
> Not true.  Analog systems are not stepless, there is noise in any system!
> If they WERE stepless, the dynamic range would be infinite, by definition.

Digital systems have steps, analog systems don't.

"Digital: 4 : of or relating to data in the form of numerical digits"

Discrete values. Steps.

"Analog: 2 a : of, relating to, or being a mechanism in which data is
represented by continuously variable physical quantities"

Continuously variable. No steps.

Talk to the guys who wrote the dictionary. I am going to stick with these
basic definitions.
>
> >  "1" is nothing but a ratio value, as in, 2:1 is twice as
> > > dark...  Technically, something can be 1.223456:1 times as dark, but
the
> > > density ratio value system is based on :1, and does not accommodate
> > this...
> > >
> > > Dynamic range requires you know the noise in the system,
> >
> > This is true in audio and electronics but seems to have little to
> > do with a
> > step wedge of tones on a piece of paper.
>
> Noise (minimum measurable signal is the same as noise for the purposes of
> this discussion) is required by the definition of dynamic range!  Dynamic
> range is the ratio of the largest measurable signal to noise!  Without
> noise/smallest measurable signal, you can not determine dynamic range.

It would seem to me that the minimum measurable density would be the paper
base which is Dmin and the largest measurable signal would be Dmax. So how
is this different from Dmax:Dmin?

>
> > >  density ratio
> > > values do not, they are only relative to themselves in intensity,
where
> > > dynamic range is not.  As the example I gave in my other post, you can
> > have
> > > a really high density value of, say 4, but no tones in
> > between...and that
> > > has poor dynamic range, but you can have a dMax of 1.8 and a dMin if
.1,
> > but
> > > have a whole lot of tones in between...that has a high dynamic range.
> >
> > Dynamic range does not tell you anything about what is in between
> > the end of
> > the scale it simply defines its scope.
>
> No, the endpoints define it's "scope" (range).  Dynamic range IS the
number
> of steps between the minimum measurable signal and the largest signal,
since
> you can only measure in increments of noise.

The noise is in the measurement and not in the system. Then by your
definition a stepless system has no dynamic range.
>
> > If it is analog you can
> > stop anywhere
> > within the range an find a point and those are infinite in number.
Silver
> > printing is stepless.
>
> Not true.  In an analog system, you can only measure to noise, so your
> measurement will have a +- range, and that range is noise.  You can not
> measure .0000001 volts in a system that has .1V noise!

Austin, the noise is in the measurement not in what is measured.

Think of a rubber band. Let's say it is 2" long in it's relaxed state and it
can be stretched to a length of 4" before it breaks. This is an analog
system and it can be any of an infinite number of lengths between 2" and 4",
the dynamic range of the length is 4:2 or 2. Just because your ruler only
has divisions of 0.1mm does not mean the length of the rubber band can only
be in 0.1mm steps.

>
> > No max:min density ratios are dynamic range.
>
> Absolutely not.  Because you measured a minimum value of X does not mean
> that value is the noise floor!

Not all systems have noise. Where is the noise in my rubber band system?
Where is the noise in a silver print or an inkjet print?
>
> > I will stick to the
> > dictionary
> > definition. You are arguing less is more.
>
> I don't understand what you mean "I am arguing less is more"...please
> explain.

Your original statement that there are more tones available within the
smaller range of an inkjet print then there are with the larger range of a
silver print.

> BTW, I have been designing signal processing systems for a long
> time.  The definition of dynamic range I know very very well.  You are
> missing the concept of noise not being the same as the minimum measurED
> signal, as opposed to the minimum measurABLE signal.  This is a very
> important distinguishing point.

I respect your knowledge in that field and I realize the significance noise
plays in signal processing. I have been fortunate to have some good
electrical engineers help over come these problems when designing control
systems for chemical plants.I just do not think that you can apply this
analysis to a chemical system such as photography.
>
> > > > Since a silver print and an inkjet
> > > > print are both
> > > > analog, there is an infinite number of tones between the minimum and
> > > > maximum.
> > >
> > > Well, no.  The silver print is finite, since noise will overcome your
> > > ability to discern tones.  That's what limits silver prints
> > dynamic range.
> > > The number of steps that can be discerned (in a range) is dynamic
range.
> >
> > Okay, if it is finite how many tones can be produced in a silver gelatin
> > print?
> >
> > Silver is not finite. Silver emulsion exposure and development produce
> > reactions that can proceed to any point and provide an infinite number
of
> > tones.
>
> I take it you don't understand the concept of noise in an analog system,
or
> you would understand why the tones are limited.

I understand the concept of uncertainty as it relates to measuring the
system but I do not see the noise in a print.

>
> > I understand, I just don't agree.
>
> Then you don't understand some things...and that is what I am trying to
> explain to you.  Please put down your beliefs, and listen to me.  I've
been
> doing this stuff for a long time, and I know what I am saying is
absolutely,
> unmistakably correct.

I am not saying that you are mistaken when you look at the system and the
measuring device together, but think of it without the measuring device
present.
>
> > I think that you are redefining dynamic
> > range in light of your electronics and digital background that are not
> > completely applicable to a paper print.
>
> Dynamic range IS dynamic range, period, what ever the application!  It is
> completely applicable.  As I've said, this is a point of confusion that
has
> been around for some time, understanding the difference between density
> ratio values and dynamic range, and that they are not interchangeable
terms.
> The term dynamic range is typically misused.  It is similar to the
> misunderstanding that because positive film has a wider density range,
that
> it has a higher dynamic range, and it does not.  Negative film has more
> discernable tones than positive film, and yet it has a shorter density
> range.

So you do not agree with the dictionary definition of dynamic range and so
we go around in circles. Think about the meaning of dynamic range in a
system that has no noise.

And I do agree the term has been much abused, especially in scanner specs.
>
> > I agree that Density Range and Density Dynamic Range are not
> > interchangeable. Range is the max minus min difference and
> > Dynamic Range is
> > the max:min ratio.
>
> As I've said, you are confusing what min means in each case, and in each
> case, they are different.  Min in the sense of dynamic range is the noise
in
> the system, min in the sense of density ratio values is the minimum you
> measured in THAT image...and is NOT the same as the noise in the system.

What is the noise in my rubber band system? In measuring the length of the
rubber band I have uncertainly for each measurement I take and measurement
resolution limitations based upon the quality of my ruler but this in no way
effects what the rubber band is doing or can do.
>
> Again, the minimum measurED signal is entirely different than a minimum
> measurABLE signal.  Density ratio values are based on measureED signal,
and
> dynamic range is based on measurABLE signal.

I am not concerned about the measurements of the system but about the system
itself. You keep seeing the measurements and the measuring devices as part
of the system and they are not. The measurements are essential in
investigating, understanding and using the system but they are outside the
system.

There are exceptions where the taking of measurements effects the system but
I do not see this as the case with paper prints.

If I measure a print with a photospectrometer that has a resolution of 0.01
then I can ideally measure 100 levels but there will be some uncertainty in
the measurement (noise?) of say +/- 0.01 so that I may reliably measure only
50 levels. If I buy a better instrument then I might get a resolution of
0.001 +/-0.001 and reliably measure 500 levels. This does not change the
nature of the print or tell me know may shades are present, it only defines
some points on the curve.
>
> > In any case, neither value places a limit on the ability to make a fine
> > print with the materials chosen, either ink or silver.
>
> True, but misunderstanding only confuses the ability to understand how
this
> stuff really works ;-)
>
What we need to do is sit down face to face with a blackboard or paper and
pencil. I feel like we are standing on opposite sides of an elephant
describing the mirror image of the same thing.

I am afraid that we are probably the only ones wading through this and
should go off list or hope for a chance to actually discuss in real time.

Martin

Bill,

I my opinion none at all which is my point.

Sorry to bog down like this. Austin and I are old friends to this argument.

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


> on 3/24/02 4:04 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> on 3/24/02 3:15 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> Martin, Austin, you guys are giving me a serious headache!  Without
> rehashing yours or the other's arguments, can you explain to us
right-brain
> types what significance this argument has to our printing.  I know you see
> the connection, but I've lost it.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Hi,

Bill, I think what they are discussing is the definition of the ratio 
of density of a print/negative/slide from its highlight detail to its 
shadow detail.

If say, you buy a scanner which advertising states has a d-max of 4.8 
(equivalent of scanning tinfoil) the buyer assumes (a) This is true 
and (b) the scanner is able to detect detail from 0 - 4.7 density 
(highlight and shadow detail). The analogy with 'noise' I supect is 
the ability of the scanner to determine detail at film base + fog 
(noise) at the shadow end and say barely perceptable shadow detail at 
the bulletproof end (of my negs;?).

The truth may in fact be 1.0 - 4.9 or 2.0 - 5.0. D-max would still be 
4.8 but detail below the 'noise' level (1.0 or 2.0) would be lost. I 
think it must be stated (and is by some manufacturers) 0 - 4.7 or 1 - 
4.9 or whatever.

If all this sounds like rubbish it's merely because I have no idea 
about that which I am speaking.

Now I have to take painkillers for MY headache..:?)

DH

In all fairness....

If people new to digital B&W printing were to read this forum they may get a rather "one sided" look at the options and perceive a "slant." 

I often get stunning prints from my  Piezo system (with CIS).  I have never had an ink "fail" me...on the other hand, I have had printers (hardware) fail me. 

Perhaps if I were using MIS inks I could say the same.  But for me, Piezo works and I have not had a need to use other inks in its place.   I use a "system" that works...for me.  

My perspective on this may differ from most...

By the way, this statement that Piezo works for me is not a slam on any other inks, indelible or not, MIS or Epson or whatever. 

I am sure that a competent printer with some luck, some capable equipment (printers do vary), and some technique can get good prints from MIS, Piezo, or Epson.  Each has benefits, qualities and characteristics.  

I also think too many people expect too much for too little (work/effort) and that the "ink" is not the only thing that needs to be considered when looking at the options or needs when considering digital BW printing.

Steadman



Bruce wrote (SNIP): 
  About the Piezo system:
  1.  The inks often fail when used in a CIS.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----

From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 3:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] re: For Della On Shadows


(snip)
>
> I am sure that a competent printer with some luck, some capable equipment
(printers do vary), and some technique can get good prints from MIS, Piezo,
or Epson.  Each has benefits, qualities and characteristics.
>
> I also think too many people expect too much for too little (work/effort)
and that the "ink" is not the only thing that needs to be considered when
looking at the options or needs when considering digital BW printing.

Steadman,

Well put. The more inkjet prints I see, the more it is apparent that success
is primarily the result of artistic vision combined with good craftsmanship.
I have seen excellent prints from just about every combination of ink and
software.

Martin

(snip)

> But for
> me, Piezo works and I have not had a need to use other inks in
> its place.   I use a "system" that works...for me.
>
> My perspective on this may differ from most...

Doesn't differ from my perspective.  I completely agree, and feel exactly
the same way.  Piezo works perfectly for me (now) and I have absolutely no
interest in trying other things, at this point in time.

Austin

P.S.  Sorry, Steadman, I know I've been a boor this weekend (except for the
dynamic range discussion), but I'll be sure to find something to
nitpick/disagree with you about, so as to not disappoint you...

On 3/24/02 mwesley250@... wrote:

>Think of a rubber band. Let's say it is 2" long in it's relaxed state and it
>can be stretched to a length of 4" before it breaks. This is an analog
>system and it can be any of an infinite number of lengths between 2" and 4",
>the dynamic range of the length is 4:2 or 2. Just because your ruler only
>has divisions of 0.1mm does not mean the length of the rubber band can only
>be in 0.1mm steps.

your rubber band is not a signalling system

s/n ratios only make sense in the context of representational systems

if your rubber band was somehow being stretched to represent a signal
then it would indeed have a noise floor and s/n ratio

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

On 3/24/02 darkroom@... wrote:

>No...that's the point.  Density ratio values are NOT the same as dynamic
>range.  The value of 1 is the step size of density ration values, but NOT of
>dynamic range.  "1" is nothing but a ratio value, as in, 2:1 is twice as
>dark...  Technically, something can be 1.223456:1 times as dark, but the
>density ratio value system is based on :1, and does not accommodate this...

Austin, you are quite correct in making the distinction between density
ratios and dynamic range but your statement that density ratios must be
integers is just plain wrong. I don't know where you get that from,
unless perhaps you are somehow thinking of binary representations. I know
you are fond of asking people to source their statements so I am calling
you on this. Source, please.

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

In a message dated 3/24/2002 10:45:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
mwesley250@... writes:


> Steadman,
> 
> Well put. The more inkjet prints I see, the more it is apparent that 
> success
> is primarily the result of artistic vision combined with good 
> craftsmanship.
> I have seen excellent prints from just about every combination of ink and
> software.
> 
> Martin
> 

At the risk of being redundant, isn't it exactly the same situation with 
silver prints?
"Everything is always changing, but everything is always the same."
George J Kunze


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

on 3/24/02 6:27 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> I am afraid that we are probably the only ones wading through this and
> should go off list or hope for a chance to actually discuss in real time.
 
Please don't. This discussion will continue to rear it's head here until
it's finally put to bed. I agree it might not be everybody's taste, but you
are, in an oblique way, still discussing what is dynamic range and how it
may relate to BW prints.

If you guys do take it off list could you at least CC me your posts - I'm
interested.

Martin wrote:
>> I think that you are redefining dynamic
>> range in light of your electronics and digital background that are not
>> completely applicable to a paper print.

Austin Wrote: 
> Dynamic range IS dynamic range, period, what ever the application!  It is
> completely applicable.  As I've said, this is a point of confusion that has
> been around for some time, understanding the difference between density
> ratio values and dynamic range, and that they are not interchangeable terms.
> The term dynamic range is typically misused.  It is similar to the
> misunderstanding that because positive film has a wider density range, that
> it has a higher dynamic range, and it does not.  Negative film has more
> discernable tones than positive film, and yet it has a shorter density
> range.

After the last time this discussion occurred on list Austin and I continued
it off-list, and what I came to realize is that Austin does know this stuff
inside out but he does use the terminology differently than most Photoshop
authors. I don't know which is right, or if it just boils down to what is
common usage.

Austin's background is scanners and digital capture, and in that world,
where the data is written linearly, dynamic range is defined by the number
of discreet points of data. That's why I always thought he was confusing bit
depth with DR, because he speak of the number of tones, but he's not -
That's just how DR is considered in that world.

Austin, there was one point in our last conversation that you promised you'd
clear up for me but did not, perhaps you could do so now? You said two
things that seemed to contradict each other:

A) any DR can be defined by two bits of data. First off, why two bits and
not one. I'm assuming you were speaking to what you consider "range" when
you said that; If so, why not one bit of data: dmin-dmax? B) DR is defined
by the number of discreet steps of data. That seems in direct contradiction
to A.

Could you explain the relationship of A to B?

Thanks,
Todd

Hi Todd,

> Austin, there was one point in our last conversation that you
> promised you'd
> clear up for me but did not, perhaps you could do so now? You said two
> things that seemed to contradict each other:

I'll do my best, as I have a somewhat clear head right now...could last only
about 15 minutes though ;-)

> A) any DR can be defined by two bits of data. First off, why two bits and
> not one.
> I'm assuming you were speaking to what you consider "range" when
> you said that; If so, why not one bit of data: dmin-dmax?

A very good question.  One bit only gives you ONE threshold.  If 0, the
value is either greater than or equal to the "threshold", and if 1, the
value is less than the "threshold".  You need two bits to have the three
states you need.  Where 00 is value is greater than the HIGH threshold
(dMax), where 11 is the value is less than the LOW threshold (dMin), and 01
or 10 is any value in between...and that gives you a dMin and a dMax
representation.

Just for those that are wondering...this discussion has to do with the
representing dMax and dMin (density ratio values).  It started out as a
typical question, what do N bits from the scanner's A/D have to do with
density ratio values...and what this example shows, is you can represent ANY
density ratio RANGE with three states.  That is separate from any discussion
of dynamic range.

> B) DR is defined
> by the number of discreet steps of data. That seems in direct
> contradiction
> to A.
>
> Could you explain the relationship of A to B?

A is a representation of "a" set of density ratio value, and B is dynamic
range, as B has steps.  This is at the root of the entire discussion Martin
and I are having.  Showing the difference between density ratio values and
dynamic range, and that they are not the same.

We need to stop using DR, because it could be Density Range (or Ratio) OR
Dynamic Range ;-)

Did that answer your question?

Austin

Then maybe you should take it off list ;-)

on 3/24/02 6:29 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

Bill,

I my opinion none at all which is my point.

Sorry to bog down like this. Austin and I are old friends to this argument.

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Morse" <willym@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


> on 3/24/02 4:04 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> on 3/24/02 3:15 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:
>
> Martin, Austin, you guys are giving me a serious headache!  Without
> rehashing yours or the other's arguments, can you explain to us
right-brain
> types what significance this argument has to our printing.  I know you see
> the connection, but I've lost it.
>
> Regards
>
> Bill
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

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

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've got it- start a new list- we'll call it:
TheNoiseOfNeverEndingDynamicRangeOrIsItDensityRangeButItHasShitToDoWithB&WDi
gitalPrinting@... list!  Just start, *everybody will go there, in 2
months you'll have 10,000 posts, and everybody'll feel great.  Am I a genius
or what!???

LOL

Bill

on 3/24/02 11:18 PM, Todd Flashner wrote:

on 3/24/02 6:27 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

> I am afraid that we are probably the only ones wading through this and
> should go off list or hope for a chance to actually discuss in real time.

Please don't. This discussion will continue to rear it's head here until
it's finally put to bed. I agree it might not be everybody's taste, but you
are, in an oblique way, still discussing what is dynamic range and how it
may relate to BW prints.

If you guys do take it off list could you at least CC me your posts - I'm
interested.

Martin wrote:
>> I think that you are redefining dynamic
>> range in light of your electronics and digital background that are not
>> completely applicable to a paper print.

Austin Wrote: 
> Dynamic range IS dynamic range, period, what ever the application!  It is
> completely applicable.  As I've said, this is a point of confusion that has
> been around for some time, understanding the difference between density
> ratio values and dynamic range, and that they are not interchangeable terms.
> The term dynamic range is typically misused.  It is similar to the
> misunderstanding that because positive film has a wider density range, that
> it has a higher dynamic range, and it does not.  Negative film has more
> discernable tones than positive film, and yet it has a shorter density
> range.

After the last time this discussion occurred on list Austin and I continued
it off-list, and what I came to realize is that Austin does know this stuff
inside out but he does use the terminology differently than most Photoshop
authors. I don't know which is right, or if it just boils down to what is
common usage.

Austin's background is scanners and digital capture, and in that world,
where the data is written linearly, dynamic range is defined by the number
of discreet points of data. That's why I always thought he was confusing bit
depth with DR, because he speak of the number of tones, but he's not -
That's just how DR is considered in that world.

Austin, there was one point in our last conversation that you promised you'd
clear up for me but did not, perhaps you could do so now? You said two
things that seemed to contradict each other:

A) any DR can be defined by two bits of data. First off, why two bits and
not one. I'm assuming you were speaking to what you consider "range" when
you said that; If so, why not one bit of data: dmin-dmax? B) DR is defined
by the number of discreet steps of data. That seems in direct contradiction
to A.

Could you explain the relationship of A to B?

Thanks,
Todd



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT

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

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

----- Original Message -----

From: "John Brownlow" <lists@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


> On 3/24/02 mwesley250@... wrote:
>
> >Think of a rubber band. Let's say it is 2" long in it's relaxed state and
it
> >can be stretched to a length of 4" before it breaks. This is an analog
> >system and it can be any of an infinite number of lengths between 2" and
4",
> >the dynamic range of the length is 4:2 or 2. Just because your ruler only
> >has divisions of 0.1mm does not mean the length of the rubber band can
only
> >be in 0.1mm steps.
>
> your rubber band is not a signalling system

John,

True and a simplistic mechanical system.
>
> s/n ratios only make sense in the context of representational systems
>
In control systems and measuring devices too. In fact until digital
electronics came along, most of the control loops in a chemical plant
depended upon spring like actions identical to my rubber band.
>
> if your rubber band was somehow being stretched to represent a signal
> then it would indeed have a noise floor and s/n ratio

True.

This is where things have wandered off. The original statement I objected to
did not, in my opinion, have anything to do with dynamic range. Austin said
that an inkjet print contained more tones than a silver print. This is aside
from representing anything or looking at the entire loop of scene, camera,
scanner, computer, printer or any workflow you choose.

My argument is that you can achieve any tonal value you want between the
minimum and maximum value of the print medium with either process. Since the
prints themselves are analog, there are an infinite number of tones that can
be achieved with either. Like a slide on a guitar string. You can get an
infinite number of frequencies between any two points along that string.

As you say noise and s/n only apply to the conversion of information from
one form to another. They provide a measure of the likely accuracy of the
transfer. It does not tell you anything about the number of tones in the end
result. When you open the shutter you are exposing the film to a scene with
a minimum value, a maximum value and an infinite number of shades in
between. The negative then has its min, max and an infinite number of tones
in between and so on to the print. The noise and s/n of the system influence
how well the tones on the end result match the tones of the original scene
but they do not predict a finite number of tones in the print.

In the end I don't think the question makes any practical difference to the
printing process. However, the claims of more tones in inkjet prints keeps
surfacing every and I do not see any data to support this. Hence my
objection.

Martin

> your statement that density ratios must be
> integers is just plain wrong.
> I don't know where you get that from,

Well, I don't believe I said they "must be", but they are in every case I've
seen (and I don't believe it's important to the discussion if they are
integers or not, the fact that they represent ratios are what is
important)...I don't know any place that density ratio values are used that
aren't relative to 1.  Do you?

> unless perhaps you are somehow thinking of binary representations.

Correct.  A digital data file (which is the only place I see density ratio
values used) does not represent density by density value (for example, as in
a density value of 1.86, "DV"), it represents them as an integer value
[int(10**DV)], say "72".  I believe the distinction is "density ratio
value", which specifies a ratio, and, as I said, I have never seen this
ratio specified other than "to 1" (:1), vs "density value" (no ratio), which
is log10(1/R), where R is the reflectance measured.

The important issue is that density is measured relatively.  A density ratio
value of 2 is twice as dark as a density ratio value of 1, 3 is three times
as dark as 1, etc.  It has nothing to do with the ability to measure between
values (dynamic range).

You can technically have any dynamic range (number of discernable steps)
between the density values of 1 and 2, but still only have a density range
of 1...no matter what your dynamic range.

This next part is really esoteric...very much more so than the rest of the
discussion...just thought I'd warn you ;-)

You, technically, can design a digital system such that it uses fractional
values.  I've done exactly that, it's just representation.  If you have 16
bits, they could represent 12 bits to the left of the decimal point, and
four to the right...but the problem is, A/D systems aren't typically
designed that way, and in fact, it doesn't matter...since the values are all
relative anyway, and it wouldn't increase your dynamic range anyway, since
the A/D value of 1 (or greater) is going to represent the noise level of the
analog part of the system.  Now, it doesn't have to be, you could use a 24
bit A/D and really only get 16 valid bits out if it, where the lowest 8 bits
are nothing but noise...but that's typically not how it's done...as there is
no need to waste good bits doing that.  Noise does tend to creep up into the
least one or two bits anyway though...and that's a good thin in my
book...I'd rather have too many bits, then too few ;-)

Austin

Hi Martin,

> > What definition says what?
>
> Dynamic range: the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity
> that can be transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting system.

Well, it's not really a good definition, as it leaves the definition of
"weakest" and "strongest" ambiguous.  Which is at the heart of the
difference we have!

I am only trying to tell you where your misunderstanding here is, so please
bear with me.  The problem you are having here is you are confused by the
ambiguous definitions of "weakest" and "strongest".  Here is a better worded
definition of dynamic range:

Dynamic Range(dB) = log10(largest amplitude / smallest DISCERNABLE signal).

Note the term "discernable".  Not lowest, not weakest...but discernable.
Discernable means perceptible.  One can only perceive a signal that is
greater than noise.

"Discernable" is the exact same as noise...it is the +/- with which the
signal can be discerned...lowest, weakest and smallest are ambiguous terms.

Also, you are taking strongest to be the top number of the range.  That is
not what is meant by strongest.  A better term is largest amplitude.  Here
is an example:

You have a signal that can range from 1 to 10.  The largest amplitude of the
signal is 9, NOT 10.  Now, let's say your noise is .1 units.  That makes
your smallest discernable signal .1.  The dynamic range of this is
log10(9/.1) or ~1.9.

Now, say you have the same range from 1 to 10, but your noise is .5...  Note
you have the same range, 1 to 10, but only have the ability to measure to
within .5 units.  That gives you a smaller dynamic range, or log10(9/.5) or
~1.6.

Did that make any headway?  My 15 minutes of lucidity is over, it's been two
hours ;-)

Austin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2002 9:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


> Hi Martin,
>
> > > What definition says what?
> >
> > Dynamic range: the ratio of the strongest to the weakest sound intensity
> > that can be transmitted or reproduced by an audio or broadcasting
system.
>
> Well, it's not really a good definition, as it leaves the definition of
> "weakest" and "strongest" ambiguous.  Which is at the heart of the
> difference we have!
>
> I am only trying to tell you where your misunderstanding here is, so
please
> bear with me.  The problem you are having here is you are confused by the
> ambiguous definitions of "weakest" and "strongest".  Here is a better
worded
> definition of dynamic range:
>
> Dynamic Range(dB) = log10(largest amplitude / smallest DISCERNABLE
signal).

Okay but taking the log does not change the fundamental ratio.
>
> Note the term "discernable".  Not lowest, not weakest...but discernable.
> Discernable means perceptible.  One can only perceive a signal that is
> greater than noise.

Granted, but the difference between "discernable" and "weakest" doesn't seem
to be discernable in this context. <G>
>
> "Discernable" is the exact same as noise...it is the +/- with which the
> signal can be discerned...lowest, weakest and smallest are ambiguous
terms.

That was what I was trying to say earlier but did not state it well.
>
> Also, you are taking strongest to be the top number of the range.  That is
> not what is meant by strongest.  A better term is largest amplitude.

That's fine but I don't see the distinction between "strongest" and "largest
amplitude" except that amplitude places us in the realm of wave forms which
may not be appropriate to discussing print density.

>  Here
> is an example:
>
> You have a signal that can range from 1 to 10.  The largest amplitude of
the
> signal is 9, NOT 10.

Yes the largest possible step change and the range, 10 minus 1.

>  Now, let's say your noise is .1 units.  That makes
> your smallest discernable signal .1.  The dynamic range of this is
> log10(9/.1) or ~1.9.
>
> Now, say you have the same range from 1 to 10, but your noise is .5...
Note
> you have the same range, 1 to 10, but only have the ability to measure to
> within .5 units.  That gives you a smaller dynamic range, or log10(9/.5)
or
> ~1.6.

I understand this in the sense of electronics, sound, digital/analog systems
where there is input and output that change with time but I do not see how
to apply it to a static print. In a print the largest step change is from
paper white to maximum black which also happens to be the range. What are
you going to use as a value for the noise?

>
> Did that make any headway?  My 15 minutes of lucidity is over, it's been
two
> hours ;-)

Yes except as noted above. I do want to point out that we started with
differing opinions on whether inkjet prints had more tones than a silver or
traditional print. Which then lead to a difference over the definition of
analog and the existence of infinite tones between any two tones on a
continuous tone curve.

I am not sure that the dynamic range is a part of this issue although we
seem close to clarifying our differences on that subject.

Martin

(I hope Bill does see this, he'll feel bad we didn't post it on his new
list.)

At 11:55 PM 3/24/2002 -0500, Bill Morse wrote:
>I've got it- start a new list- we'll call it:
>TheNoiseOfNeverEndingDynamicRangeOrIsItDensityRangeButItHasShitToDoWithB&WDi
>gitalPrinting@... list!  Just start, *everybody will go there, in 2
>months you'll have 10,000 posts, and everybody'll feel great.  Am I a genius
>or what!???

What.



****************
James E. Martz
Milan, OH
jemartz@...
*****************

Hi,

Here is, what I consider, a very succinct picture that shows what largest
and smallest mean with respect to the definition of dynamic range:

http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg

It shows "largest" being the overall largest amplitude that the signal can
attain, and that "smallest" refers to the noise level within the signal.

Hopefully this will clarify some terminology misunderstanding.

Austin

Austin

Bringing this conversation back to the print, let's take a hypothetical. One
prints identical complex step wedges (lets assume one with enough steps that
it really challenges the capabilities of the processes) via both inkjet and
silver print methods, and both processes delineate all tones within them
equally well, but the silver print does so with a a brighter white and a
deeper black. You would say their dynamic range is equal (or performed
equally) but the silver prints "tonal range" was greater?

Just trying to get in sync with your terminology because I think your usage
may be more precise and correct than common usage. Commonly "dynamic range"
is used to describe the "range" of tones , but I do believe that would be an
imperfect use of the term, because then what term *would* be use to describe
the ability to discern the discreet in-between tones? Martin, what term
would you use for that ability?

Todd

Hi Todd,

> Bringing this conversation back to the print, let's take a
> hypothetical. One
> prints identical complex step wedges (lets assume one with enough
> steps that
> it really challenges the capabilities of the processes) via both
> inkjet and
> silver print methods, and both processes delineate all tones within them
> equally well, but the silver print does so with a a brighter white and a
> deeper black. You would say their dynamic range is equal (or performed
> equally) but the silver prints "tonal range" was greater?

Their "apparent" dynamic range is equal...since you haven't hit a wall with
either.  Correct that if the dMax - dMin of the silver print is a higher
number, the density range is greater.

> Just trying to get in sync with your terminology because I think
> your usage
> may be more precise and correct than common usage. Commonly
> "dynamic range"
> is used to describe the "range" of tones

Right, but the proper term is density range, NOT dynamic range.

> ...but I do believe that
> would be an
> imperfect use of the term,

Exactly.

> because then what term *would* be use
> to describe
> the ability to discern the discreet in-between tones? Martin, what term
> would you use for that ability?

Why, Dynamic Range, of course ;-)  That's why the word "dynamic" is
used...which basically means "of or relating to variation of intensity" in
this use.

BTW, this stuff is just so important to a deeper understanding of quite a
lot of stuff in photography, much less other things in life.  At least in my
opinion.

BTW2, did my explanation of your A vs B question answer the question?
And...your "Z's" are done ;-)

Austin

It strikes me that some of the confusion in this discussion 
regarding "dynamic range" and "density range" might stem from the 
fact that, "density range", as used by Austin, is analogous to 
what "dynamic range" measures in audio technology.  

At least in my understanding, the "dynamic range" of an audio 
amplifier has to do with the ratio of maximum signal strength to 
minimum signal strength.  It has nothing to do with the size of steps 
between them.  Or am I missing something here and is "dynamic range" 
of an amplifier also somehow analogous to the "dynamic range" of a 
print, and not to a print's density range? 

 -- Herb Sitz


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Right, but the proper term is density range, NOT dynamic range.
> 
> Why, Dynamic Range, of course ;-)  That's why the word "dynamic" is
> used...which basically means "of or relating to variation of 
intensity" in
> this use.
> 
> BTW, this stuff is just so important to a deeper understanding of 
quite a
> lot of stuff in photography, much less other things in life.  At 
least in my
> opinion.
>

Hi Herb,

> It strikes me that some of the confusion in this discussion
> regarding "dynamic range" and "density range" might stem from the
> fact that, "density range", as used by Austin, is analogous to
> what "dynamic range" measures in audio technology.
>
> At least in my understanding, the "dynamic range" of an audio
> amplifier has to do with the ratio of maximum signal strength to
> minimum signal strength.  It has nothing to do with the size of steps
> between them.  Or am I missing something here...

Your definition of dynamic range is the same as Martin's (was), it's
misinterpreting what "maximum" and "minimum" mean.  Dynamic range has
EVERYTHING to do with the steps, as they relate to the over all range.  I
believe if you read or re-read the posts, and take a look at the picture I
posted showing what "maximum" and "minimum" mean with respect to dynamic
range, you will see how they differ from your current understanding.

> and is "dynamic range"
> of an amplifier also somehow analogous to the "dynamic range" of a
> print, and not to a print's density range?

Dynamic range is dynamic range, whether it's a print or an audio amplifier.
The dynamic range is different than the (density) range, and that is the
point/distinction/understanding I am trying to explain.

I also cited some examples showing the difference between simple "range" and
"dynamic range" that you might want to read that might help your
understanding.  I can give more examples if you like, or you can give some
examples of your understanding if you like.

Regards,

Austin

Austin,
 
>> Just trying to get in sync with your terminology because I think
>> your usage
>> may be more precise and correct than common usage. Commonly
>> "dynamic range"
>> is used to describe the "range" of tones
> 
> Right, but the proper term is density range, NOT dynamic range.

I Getcha.
 
>> because then what term *would* be use
>> to describe
>> the ability to discern the discreet in-between tones? Martin, what term
>> would you use for that ability?
> 
> Why, Dynamic Range, of course ;-)  That's why the word "dynamic" is
> used...which basically means "of or relating to variation of intensity" in
> this use.

I follow.

So back to the step wedges... At each end of the scale either process
(inkjet vs silver) will give you it's paper white for dmin, and max black
for dmax, and the range between those two will define their "density range".

Then, once the ends are taken into account, what may mitigate either
processes ability to discern intermediate tones (dynamic range - which
includes the endpoints as well) will be noise, which in the case of inkjet
might be poor profiles/separation curves, toothiness of paper, nozzle
alignment, etc, and in the case of silver prints might be lens aberration,
flare, dust on the negative, improper development, etc?

Thus you can have a situation where one process has a greater density range
but a lower dynamic range, and vice versa?
 
> BTW, this stuff is just so important to a deeper understanding of quite a
> lot of stuff in photography, much less other things in life.  At least in my
> opinion.

For example?
 
> BTW2, did my explanation of your A vs B question answer the question?

Yes!

> And...your "Z's" are done ;-)

Thanks! :-)

Todd

Hi Todd,

> So back to the step wedges... At each end of the scale either process
> (inkjet vs silver) will give you it's paper white for dmin, and max black
> for dmax, and the range between those two will define their
> "density range".
>
> Then, once the ends are taken into account, what may mitigate either
> processes ability to discern intermediate tones (dynamic range - which
> includes the endpoints as well) will be noise, which in the case of inkjet
> might be poor profiles/separation curves, toothiness of paper, nozzle
> alignment, etc,

Sounds good to me...but I've never explored specifically what is the source
of "noise" in the digital printing system.  It may be other than noise BTW
that limits dynamic range.  It may be the dithering algorithm...it may be
the accuracy with which ink can be laid down, or the accuracy of the print
heads...the tonal variations of the inks with in the same color, the
temperature, humidity....

> and in the case of silver prints might be lens aberration,
> flare, dust on the negative, improper development, etc?

Well, I believe it's mostly limited by the paper, as well as exposure and
development.  Again, I have personally not explored the reasons for this.
I'd suggest seeing if AA's book "The Print" has some information on this.

> Thus you can have a situation where one process has a greater
> density range
> but a lower dynamic range, and vice versa?

Yes.

> > BTW, this stuff is just so important to a deeper understanding
> of quite a
> > lot of stuff in photography, much less other things in life.
> At least in my
> > opinion.
>
> For example?

...most any sensory information or things having to do with perception.
Video, audio...hell, even taste, thought (how's your thinking when you have
a head cold...low signal to noise ratio ;-) if you want to get really
esoteric about it.

Austin

Austin,

Okay, full circle now, why do you believe that Piezo prints have a greater
dynamic range than silver prints? Is this a just a sense, a hunch based on
theory, or something you've observed through controlled tests?

IOW, lets say you were comparing each process using a 200 step wedge, which
I imagine would challenge our eyes ability to discriminate between the
steps, are you of the mind a piezo print can handle it better than a
properly exposed and developed contact print on a good silver paper? If so,
why?

Todd

> 
> Hi Todd,
> 
>> So back to the step wedges... At each end of the scale either process
>> (inkjet vs silver) will give you it's paper white for dmin, and max black
>> for dmax, and the range between those two will define their
>> "density range".
>> 
>> Then, once the ends are taken into account, what may mitigate either
>> processes ability to discern intermediate tones (dynamic range - which
>> includes the endpoints as well) will be noise, which in the case of inkjet
>> might be poor profiles/separation curves, toothiness of paper, nozzle
>> alignment, etc,
> 
> Sounds good to me...but I've never explored specifically what is the source
> of "noise" in the digital printing system.  It may be other than noise BTW
> that limits dynamic range.  It may be the dithering algorithm...it may be
> the accuracy with which ink can be laid down, or the accuracy of the print
> heads...the tonal variations of the inks with in the same color, the
> temperature, humidity....
> 
>> and in the case of silver prints might be lens aberration,
>> flare, dust on the negative, improper development, etc?
> 
> Well, I believe it's mostly limited by the paper, as well as exposure and
> development.  Again, I have personally not explored the reasons for this.
> I'd suggest seeing if AA's book "The Print" has some information on this.
> 
>> Thus you can have a situation where one process has a greater
>> density range
>> but a lower dynamic range, and vice versa?
> 
> Yes.
> 
>>> BTW, this stuff is just so important to a deeper understanding
>> of quite a
>>> lot of stuff in photography, much less other things in life.
>> At least in my
>>> opinion.
>> 
>> For example?
> 
> ...most any sensory information or things having to do with perception.
> Video, audio...hell, even taste, thought (how's your thinking when you have
> a head cold...low signal to noise ratio ;-) if you want to get really
> esoteric about it.
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

Ho Tidd ;-)

> Okay, full circle now, why do you believe that Piezo prints have a greater
> dynamic range than silver prints? Is this a just a sense, a hunch based on
> theory, or something you've observed through controlled tests?

I have printed the identical prints using chemical and then scanned the
negative and printed using Piezo.  I see more tones in the Piezo prints than
I do the chemical prints.

Also, because of the ability to basically create a dither to replicate a
huge range of tones, as well as add number of inks within that set, you have
the capability to create a huge number of tones.

> IOW, lets say you were comparing each process using a 200 step
> wedge, which
> I imagine would challenge our eyes ability to discriminate between the
> steps,

That is correct, and why there really is a limit to the number of tones that
are "usable", but like audio, because you may not discreetly discern
something, doesn't mean there isn't an overall "effect" that it creates.
That's getting into the esoteric.

> are you of the mind a piezo print can handle it better than a
> properly exposed and developed contact print on a good silver
> paper? If so,
> why?

Handle it better, yes I believe it can, for reasons I stated above, as well
as the ability to use tonal curves and setpoints to be able to control the
discernment of these tones.

Regards,

Austin

Austin,

I have no idea whether you are right about inkjet prints actually being ABLE
to discern the tones better, but I can imagine it being a whole lot EASIER
to maximize the mediums ability, at least once one is starting with a good
workflow.

Matching a negative to the built-in contrast curves of silver papers can be
a mighty feat. I think the advantage, in terms of linearity, would have to
go to inkjet, but one wonders IF one really worked to calibrate the wet
process, to match the paper and development to the negative, if it's analog
con-tone advantage wouldn't win the day...

Just thinking out loud. I know I'll never have the energy to test it for
myself. ;-)

Ultimately, it's the whole gestalt of the process that has one prefer one
over another anyway, I suppose.

Todd 

> Ho Tidd ;-)
> 
>> Okay, full circle now, why do you believe that Piezo prints have a greater
>> dynamic range than silver prints? Is this a just a sense, a hunch based on
>> theory, or something you've observed through controlled tests?
> 
> I have printed the identical prints using chemical and then scanned the
> negative and printed using Piezo.  I see more tones in the Piezo prints than
> I do the chemical prints.
> 
> Also, because of the ability to basically create a dither to replicate a
> huge range of tones, as well as add number of inks within that set, you have
> the capability to create a huge number of tones.
> 
>> IOW, lets say you were comparing each process using a 200 step
>> wedge, which
>> I imagine would challenge our eyes ability to discriminate between the
>> steps,
> 
> That is correct, and why there really is a limit to the number of tones that
> are "usable", but like audio, because you may not discreetly discern
> something, doesn't mean there isn't an overall "effect" that it creates.
> That's getting into the esoteric.
> 
>> are you of the mind a piezo print can handle it better than a
>> properly exposed and developed contact print on a good silver
>> paper? If so,
>> why?
> 
> Handle it better, yes I believe it can, for reasons I stated above, as well
> as the ability to use tonal curves and setpoints to be able to control the
> discernment of these tones.
> 
> 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
> 
> 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/
> 
>

> but one wonders IF one really worked to calibrate the wet
> process, to match the paper and development to the negative, if
> it's analog
> con-tone advantage wouldn't win the day...

Well, I did have a VERY highly calibrated workflow, from meter to lense to
camera shutter/aperture to film to film development to
enlarging/lense/paper/development...etc, and you still can't do curves like
you can with digital.  You can move some things around in analog (and I
still do with film, so that part of the equation is still the same, such as
development compensation to expand my tonal range)...but nothing in the wet
darkroom beats tonal curves.

> Ultimately, it's the whole gestalt of the process that has one prefer one
> over another anyway, I suppose.

IMO, with digital printing...I get better tonality, and I get the prints
done a lot faster...so for me, and I thought I was pretty good in the
darkroom, I believe I get better images with digital printing than I ever
did in the darkroom.  Tough negatives are a LOT easier...and some that would
have been near impossible in a wet darkroom, are easy in digital land.

Regards,

Austin

The entire discussion on Dynamic Range has been very interesting and
enjoyable. I though that I would add the following onto the table;

In the Ansel Adams book "The Negative", Page 52, the author states "There
are three important scales within the total range of exposures that can be
printed.  The full range from black to white is represented by Zones 0 to X.
Within this lies the dynamic range, representing the first useful values
above Zone 0 and Below Zone X, or Zones I to IX. The range of zones whuch
convey definite qualities of texture and the recognition of substance is the
textural range, from Zones II to VIII."

Mike

Martin-

You are not the only ones following this. You are both making me wish 
I majored in engineering instead of English lit <g>.

I am fascinated and absorbed... Don't DARE take this offline !!!

Tom O'Connell

TomOC@...
www.thomasoconnell.com

Austin-

In your diagram, I think we see the essence of the difference in 
expression between you and Martin.

The key element being the smallest unit.

It sounds to me as though you stand for the proposition that the 
smallest measurement is range comes from the existence of a "small 
unit of change" whereas it sounds as though Martin believes that the 
unit of change derives from ones ability to MEASURE change...with the 
implication that the regress of change are really infinite.

Certainly with the quality of printers most of us are using, the size 
of the unit of steps must be measurable in some fashion (which tends 
to favor Austin's case) yet the measurements mentioned here, at 
least, seem to tend to show something approaching infinite (or more 
than can be measured?).

Have I missed something?

Tom O'Connell





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Austin Franklin" 
<darkroom@i...> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Here is, what I consider, a very succinct picture that shows what 
largest
> and smallest mean with respect to the definition of dynamic range:
> 
> http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg
> 
> It shows "largest" being the overall largest amplitude that the 
signal can
> attain, and that "smallest" refers to the noise level within the 
signal.

> 
> Hopefully this will clarify some terminology misunderstanding.
> 
> Austin

> Austin-
>
> In your diagram, I think we see the essence of the difference in
> expression between you and Martin.
>
> The key element being the smallest unit.
>
> It sounds to me as though you stand for the proposition that the
> smallest measurement is range comes from the existence of a "small
> unit of change" whereas it sounds as though Martin believes that the
> unit of change derives from ones ability to MEASURE change...with the
> implication that the regress of change are really infinite.
>
> Certainly with the quality of printers most of us are using, the size
> of the unit of steps must be measurable in some fashion (which tends
> to favor Austin's case) yet the measurements mentioned here, at
> least, seem to tend to show something approaching infinite (or more
> than can be measured?).
>
> Have I missed something?

Hi Tom,

Yes, I believe you misinterpreted the misinterpretation ;-)

From my understanding, Martin believes the bottom line is the smallest
signal, and the top line is the largest signal.  I believe the smallest
signal, as shown by diagram, is the smallest measurable difference, and
largest is the top line minus the bottom line.

Do you understand the distinctions?

Regards,

Austin

Austin-

Yes, I believe I see the difference. I'm trying to put you both on 
the same topic... I understand your response to be addressing the 
difference in density range and dynamic range, but, as I understand 
it, the original proposition was that more tones could be represented 
with inkjet vs. silver. On that issue, I think I stated the 
difference in your two positions.

If that is wrong, then I missed it.

tom


> Hi Tom,
> 
> Yes, I believe you misinterpreted the misinterpretation ;-)
> 
> From my understanding, Martin believes the bottom line is the 
smallest
> signal, and the top line is the largest signal.  I believe the 
smallest
> signal, as shown by diagram, is the smallest measurable difference, 
and

> largest is the top line minus the bottom line.
> 
> Do you understand the distinctions?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Austin

Tom,

As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for it might be granted."
<G>

I wish I had the lit degree.

Martin

----- Original Message -----
From: "tomoc" <tomoc@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range


> Martin-
>
> You are not the only ones following this. You are both making me wish
> I majored in engineering instead of English lit <g>.
>
> I am fascinated and absorbed... Don't DARE take this offline !!!
>
> Tom O'Connell
>
> TomOC@...
> www.thomasoconnell.com
>
>
>
> 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
>
> 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/
>
>
>

Maybe I should run a "degree" exchange as well as print exchange?

toc

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> Tom,
> 
> As the old saying goes, "Be careful what you wish for it might be 
granted."
> <G>
> 
> I wish I had the lit degree.
> 
> Martin
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tomoc" <tomoc@y...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 10:58 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Dynamic Range
> 
> 
> > Martin-
> >
> > You are not the only ones following this. You are both making me 
wish
> > I majored in engineering instead of English lit <g>.
> >
> > I am fascinated and absorbed... Don't DARE take this offline !!!
> >
> > Tom O'Connell
> >
> > TomOC@y...
> > www.thomasoconnell.com
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 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/

> >
> >
> >