«

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:11 PM:

> I am not sure what you are thinking here, slide film has maybe 5 stops
> of range, I don't know of any negative film that is that narrow. The
> output of some slide film is on the order of 10 stops, because it is
> so high in contrast, but the capture range is very small.

It can compess 10 EIs into 6-7 in the latest emulsions - that
"5 stops" nonsense is just urban myth based on info gathered
8 years ago.
More than enough to do anything you might like with
a colour monitor or printer that can hardly do 6 EIs
in 99% of the cases.

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2008 1:24 AM:
> On Sep 17, 2:11 am, Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Slide film is of course much worse yet.
>>> Actually, it isn't
>> I am not sure what you are thinking here,
>
>
> Dude, you're talking to Noons. Thinking doesn't enter into it.

"of course much worse" is not a universal truth,
it's just parroting urban myths. I prefer facts.
You should try looking at those instead of believing
everything you find on the net.
Do you believe this guy:
http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/
as well?
I don't, but he's funny.

On Sep 19, 8:19*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

> Do you believe this guy:http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/
> as well?
> I don't, but he's funny.


I prefer the real one.

http://www.insidedigitalphoto.com/ra...eos-5d-mark-ii

On Sep 19, 7:49*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:
>
> > There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
> > There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
> > Good luck printing those.
>
> No problem whatsoever. *It's called full dynamic range.
> Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
> that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".

My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
print.

BTW, the dynamic range of the digital greatly exceeds film.

On Sep 16, 1:57*am, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Here's a full-sized crop of an image I took at the polo match with the
> 40D.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/103209055/original
>
> This image was just as shot and had no post-processing applied to it
> other than cropping.
> Note that the highlights aren't blown and the shadows have little
> detail, but are not quite down to true black.
>
> I'd like to see the film that could give similar results.


Seeing that no post processing was applied, it's very impressive.
It's clear there is a greater range of tonal detail. Great example.
Helen

On Sep 19, 2:17*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:11 PM:
>
> > I am not sure what you are thinking here, slide film has maybe 5 stops
> > of range, I don't know of any negative film that is that narrow. *The
> > output of some slide film is on the order of 10 stops, because it is
> > so high in contrast, but the capture range is very small.
>
> It can compess 10 EIs into 6-7 in the latest emulsions - that
> "5 stops" nonsense is just urban myth based on info gathered
> 8 years ago.
> More than enough to do anything you might like with
> a colour monitor or printer that can hardly do 6 EIs
> in 99% of the cases.

Can you give me the name of this film?

Scott

On Sep 19, 1:40*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> Nevertheless, it sucks that it is 72MP, doesn't it?
> And no amount of crappola from the likes of you
> is gonna change that.

You could scan it at 8000 ppi and get 288MP, but you would not have
anymore detail.
You have 72MP of soft pixels, if that floats you boat go for it, me I
got 300MP of very sharp pixels,
I could have 1200MP of soft pixels, but what would the point be.

Scott

On Sep 19, 4:19*am, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 7:49*am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:
>
> > > There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
> > > There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
> > > Good luck printing those.
>
> > No problem whatsoever. *It's called full dynamic range.
> > Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
> > that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".
>
> My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
> and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
> print.

I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. What
is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
rangle? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
the image.

Scott

On Sep 19, 1:11*pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
> > and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
> > print.
>
> I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. *What
> is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
> rangle? * Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
> 240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
> the image.
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
> it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
> high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
> wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
> although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
> you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
> contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
> wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
> scale.
>
> *: Truth in advertising: I'm still figuring this stuff out. Numbers are
> subject to change, especially if I put dedicated B&W inks in one of my
> printers.

My own take on this is that 255,255,255 should always print out as
full white, anything less should not, but how far we can see into the
shadows is going to depend on the technology used to show the image.
So I guess I am saying that the white point show be fixed but the
black point is going to change from output to output.

Even with the same monitor I can see much further into the shadows
when viewing at night then during the day.

Scott

In rec.photo.digital Scott W <> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:11?pm, "David J. Littleboy" <davi...@gol.com> wrote:
>> "Scott W" <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
>> > and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
>> > print.
>>
>> I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. ?What
>> is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
>> rangle? ? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
>> 240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
>> the image.
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>> I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
>> it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
>> high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
>> wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
>> although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
>> you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
>> contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
>> wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
>> scale.
>>
>> *: Truth in advertising: I'm still figuring this stuff out. Numbers are
>> subject to change, especially if I put dedicated B&W inks in one of my
>> printers.

> My own take on this is that 255,255,255 should always print out as
> full white, anything less should not, but how far we can see into the
> shadows is going to depend on the technology used to show the image.
> So I guess I am saying that the white point show be fixed but the
> black point is going to change from output to output.

> Even with the same monitor I can see much further into the shadows
> when viewing at night then during the day.

And when looking at a good print I can see much further into the
shadows when viewing the print under a very strong light. That's why
when I set my monitor to show me as close to the same as a print I
looked athe monitor in its ideal conditions, which was a dim shaded
room, and the print in its ideal conditions, which was outside in the
garden on a bright day.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB