Yahoo Groups archive
Thread
2005-06-28 by Peter Marquis-Kyle
Danny Culbertson wrote: > Tyler wrote: "The votes are in, they are making it happen." > > Tyler, > Are you trying to say that man does not live by D-Max alone? ;-) > > Dan Could this be THE Dan Culbertson? Welcome back! Peter Marquis-Kyle www.marquis-kyle.com.au
2005-06-28 by Danny Culbertson
Peter wrote: "Could this be THE Dan Culbertson? Welcome back!" Yep, the prodigal son hath returneth. Although these days I'm usually called just "THE Dan" :-) Thanks for the welcome back. Dan
2005-06-28 by Clayton Jones
Hello Chris, >Is an inkjet matte print as flat as a darkroom matte print? I have >never felt happy with the black obtained in the darkroom >(Ilford MG RC) on matte, c.f. gloss. >Give me gloss any day. I don't have any silver matte prints to compare (because I too never used it much, only fiber glossy), but just from memory (having tried some long ago) I think that an inkjet matte print is far richer than the silver matte ever was. They probably aren't really comparable. Part of this is a confusion of terms between the silver and inkjet worlds. There was a recent thread that discussed how "glossy vs matte" in the inkjet world has been a reference to longevity as well as appearance, where "glossy" in the silver world did not imply longevity, only appearance. The longevity debate in the silver world was between RC and fiber, with glossy and matte surfaces being available to both. Today's matte inkjet papers are very rich in appearance, and the newer glossy papers are narrowing the divide in the longevity dept., so basically it's a whole new world and old definitions may not apply. Regards, Clayton Info on black and white digital printing at http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
2005-06-28 by steve_bye
Steve, You move easily between density, luminance, f-stops, and reflectivity. Can you suggest a good reference for the mathematical equations for these quantities? Also, are there any other references you've found to be especially useful? Steve ----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:18 AM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...
2005-06-28 by Brian Ellis
Steve Kale said: >Now I have picked on the Zone guys >here only by example. (I did so > >because >there are so often requests for a "digital >Zone system for dummies" here. >It only takes a little effort for a great >reward.) It does seem a little odd to pick on "Zone guys" as examples of photographers who don't wish to exert any effort to understand the very basic numbers you mention. The zone system is easy to understand but it does take some time and effort to do so. Then making the tests needed to apply it takes more time and effort and finally it takes some experience (time and effort) to apply it to best advantage. I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone who is sufficiently serious about photography to have made that effort knows or can easily figure out what dMax and dMin mean and can subtract 0.05 from 1.65, divide the result by .30, and come up with a density range expressed in log units. I'd also bet that same person knows or possesses the resources to easily find out that .30 log units represents one stop and so can express the result in terms of stops. I don't think I'd pick on any particular group of photographers as examples of people who don't want to spend any time or effort at their craft , unfortunately that's typical of many photographers. But if I did zone system people would probably be the last group I'd choose as examples.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:18 AM Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More... I think it's simply different strokes for different folks and in many cases different strokes for different images. Each has its place and neither is better. Some prints will be according to any particular individual better suited to one or the other in the same way that some are "better" (always only in the eye of the beholder) in sepia rather than cool. But it is worthwhile people understanding the properties of each. The dynamic range (in density, Exposure Zones or f-Stops) of one vs the other is just one of these properties. With understanding comes better application of your vision. I'd like to think that Tyler won his competition, firstly, because he took a damn good photo and, secondly, he chose materials and a means of presentation that took the qualities of that image and made them shine. I don't believe that his win says anything about which format is better. I don't believe anyone can say one is better than the other. What we can each say, though, is which format WE like the most for a particular image and come to understand and express why we like it. This is artistic choice and expression. (I am reminded of my first wine tasting session when I was told that you can't be taught what you like, only the means to identify why you like it and thereby increase the probability that you can articulate what you like and thus acquire more wine that you like.) As for the numbers, people seem to forget that they allow us a means of expressing to one another what results we get when we try something or another. Saying one is darkish but not quite as dark as the other doesn't help much. Measuring and quantifying certain aspects of what we see enhances communication and understanding. It is your choice as to whether you prefer medium a with dMax of 1.7 or medium b with dMax of 1.8 (or 2.45). The numbers are simply there to help you communicate. We are fortunate that the ICC has gone to great lengths to provide us with means of communicating colour. The issue with numbers is often people's apathy (a harsh word but likely true enough) towards understanding them. Such a Zone person, for example, may hear the phrase "dMax=1.65 and dMin of 0.05" and can't fathom to understand it - hasn't made the effort to understand that this is merely an expression of what he/she already knows in a slightly different language. A little effort and this person would know that the phrase means a dynamic range of 5.3 f-Stops and this person could also determine how stops were above and how many below Zone V 18% reflectance could be reproduced. The same Zone System person might also struggle to find when he/she switches to a digital camera from film why exposing for Zone V doesn't give him/her the shadow detail they think they should get. A little effort would show that they are better off (due to the way a digital sensor works as opposed to film) "exposing to the right" and fixing mid grey at their desk. Just a couple of examples. Now I have picked on the Zone guys here only by example. (I did so because there are so often requests for a "digital Zone system for dummies" here. It only takes a little effort for a great reward.) The point of my argument is that the numbers allow expression and understanding. The artistic use of this understanding is entirely up to you and your personal preference. To be honest, if you had true artistic integrity you would not care whether 30 people preferred the "glossy" (I would likely hate it BTW) over the "matte". It's which one best allows you to express what you feel is in the image that matters. Congratulations Tyler on seeing what must have been a beautiful image and taking it to fruition so that your vision can be shared! If only we could all see the print.
2005-06-29 by Peter Marquis-Kyle
Paul Roark wrote: > I'm just now working up my first digital camera (Canon XT/350D) > "B&W" shots, and I'm feeling a bit like I'm back with an 1160 and > OEM color inks in the "pre-Piezo" days, but at the image capture > end of the process. I suspect we're going to go through an > evolution of custom workflows at the capture end not unlike the > printing end. I'll be interested to hear your thoughts on this subject as they develop... Peter Marquis-Kyle