Can't believe someone would say this with a straight face

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 24, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    re: Kodak exiting the film business

    The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
    industry.

    "The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
    cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.
    RichA, Aug 24, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >re: Kodak exiting the film business
    >
    >The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
    >industry.
    >
    >"The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
    >cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.



    What have they been smoking?

    I have never had much time for the BJP, but that statement has taken
    my respect down a further two or three notches.
    Bruce, Aug 24, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > RichA <> wrote:
    >>re: Kodak exiting the film business
    >>
    >>The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
    >>industry.
    >>
    >>"The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
    >>cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.

    >
    > What have they been smoking?
    >
    > I have never had much time for the BJP, but that statement has taken
    > my respect down a further two or three notches.



    Obvously a decade or so behind the times. I know lots of people like that,
    and arguing with an ideology set in stone is pointless :-(

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Aug 24, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Ric
    Trexell <> wrote:

    > I think if you are using a 8X10 camera, then film has the upper edge.


    nope.

    8x10 film only wins because it's huge. comparing 8x10 film to 35mm size
    digital is ludicrous, just as 8x10 film to 35mm film would be.

    compare like versus like, i.e., 8x10 film & an 8x10 scanning back.

    > By
    > good scanner, they are probably talking about a $5000 drum scanner. Perhaps
    > even a 4X5 would beat a digital. The new Nikon 800 is suppose to be equal
    > to a medium format. So there is not at this point a camera that will meet
    > the resolution of an 8X10. That is not saying a digital back on a large
    > format camera wouldn't do it,


    it will.

    > but they could be right depending on what they
    > are comparing it to. Digital does not have the range of film.


    digital has much more range than film.

    > I think it
    > can only show something like 40 shades of black and white while film can
    > record over a hundred.


    nonsense.

    > However, the paper it is printed on can only record
    > about 40 shades of gray, so you are not gaining much. Serious black and
    > white photographers laugh at digital, so there must be a reason.


    ignorance is the only reason.
    nospam, Aug 25, 2012
    #4
  5. R. Mark Clayton <> wrote:

    > When it comes to prints however most computer printers (except Kodak's
    > lucious dye sublimation system)


    Canon -> Selphy

    > rely on dithering and so the colour
    > resolution achieved on the page may not be the same as on photo-paper.


    However, the printers have incredible dot resolutions.
    2400x9600 dpi is not unusual.
    Good printers often also use 8+ or 10+ colours[1] and several
    dot sizes. Usually up to 3 colours can share any given dot,
    depending on the paper. And even full groups of 256 dots are
    usually close enough for 300 ppi real resolution ...

    Many photo papers are deveolped with 300 or 400 ppi.


    > OTOH even in the best process printed images the resolution is quite low and
    > the dots can be easily seen with a low magnification lens.


    Yep, the loupe can see the dots, which does not mean that the
    continous tone photographic paper has more resolution --- it
    merely degrades far more gracefully under magnification.

    -Wolfgang

    [1] almost always with a diluted magenta and cyan, and sometimes
    with one or several diluted grays --- and then some less
    important colours that "merely" stretch the colourspace
    (often a red, green and/or blue).
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 25, 2012
    #5
  6. Ric Trexell <> wrote:

    > Savageduck: I wasn't talking about f/stops, but by shades I meant that if
    > you took a picture of 100 swabs of paint (used as an example) the first one
    > consisting of 100 parts white, then the next having 99 parts white and 1
    > part black, and repeated this until at the end of the board you had 100
    > parts black, the digital would see about 40 different shades of gray where
    > as film would see more.


    Interesting, but it doesn't match my experiences at all. Oh,
    I could imagine situations where a JPEG would be rendered like
    that and where the film would be able to render more, but that
    would be pure incompetence on the part of the photographer.
    Overexposure comes to mind.

    > For someone like me with what I call shade
    > blindness, that is in tests my former employer gave me of 20 different
    > shades of red-blue, I would only see about 15 it doesn't really matter.


    Which may be the reason you believe there are only 40 shades of
    gray in digital.

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 25, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Ric Trexell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "RichA" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> re: Kodak exiting the film business
    >>
    >> The British Journal of Photography said the news would concern the
    >> industry.
    >>
    >> "The resolution is still a thousand times higher than most digital
    >> cameras can offer so long as a good scanner is used.

    > ***************************************************************
    > I think if you are using a 8X10 camera, then film has the upper edge.


    Might beat a Nikon D800, but there is also larger format digital these days.


    >By good scanner, they are probably talking about a $5000 drum scanner.
    >Perhaps even a 4X5 would beat a digital.


    You need to specify what digital you are comparing to and why?


    >The new Nikon 800 is suppose to be equal to a medium format. So there is
    >not at this point a camera that will meet the resolution of an 8X10.


    Comparing 35mm to 8x10 is rather stupid.


    >That is not saying a digital back on a large format camera wouldn't do it,
    >but they could be right depending on what they are comparing it to.


    Even stupider of them to compare apples with oranges if that's the case.


    >Digital does not have the range of film. I think it can only show
    >something like 40 shades of black and white while film can record over a
    >hundred. However, the paper it is printed on can only record about 40
    >shades of gray, so you are not gaining much. Serious black and white
    >photographers laugh at digital, so there must be a reason.


    Exactly, the reason is the printer not the camera. Even then the range of
    printers and papers are now getting much better for digital, and the
    selection of papers for wet processing *far* worse :-(
    But serious B&W photographers are by definition wanting old ways of doing
    things, that's the reason! :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Aug 26, 2012
    #7
  8. Alan Browne <> wrote:

    > Yep. I really don't know where the threshold is for the eye - I don't
    > even know if my iMac displays 8 or 6 bits per color. At 6 bits it would
    > be a mere 262,144 separate colours and I doubt many could see the
    > difference between any two at one level of difference - and less so
    > randomly dispersed.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_Rate_Control

    -Wolfgang
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 26, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 26, 11:41 am, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:

    > Well, not necessarily. In real life, 4x5 and 8x10 shooters shoot at f/32 and
    > f/45 a lot, at which point the resolution on the film isn't as good as 6x7
    > shot at f/8.
    >
    > In landscape work, the large format users go after scenes with incredible
    > amounts of detail; in the landscape magazines here, the LF work jumps off
    > the page at one. But the resolution on the page isn't adequate for even
    > digital.
    >
    > -- David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    I think the comparisons should be limited at most to medium format
    film because if it's resolution you want, a collage of digital shots
    fused together can be any resolution. From a practical standpoint,
    medium format film is about the limit for varied photography, unless
    there are still people shooting sports with Speedgraphics.
    RichA, Aug 26, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > FWIW, I find 6x7 (56 x 70 mm) film scanned on a Nikon 9000 very close to
    > what I see from the 21MP 5DII. With a good lens at f/8, the 5DII is
    > friggin amazing. It's competing with over four times the area of film


    My experience too, and the D800 is even better, and then there is medium
    format digital!


    >> Comparing 35mm to 8x10 is rather stupid.


    > Well, not necessarily. In real life, 4x5 and 8x10 shooters shoot at f/32
    > and f/45 a lot, at which point the resolution on the film isn't as good as
    > 6x7 shot at f/8.


    That would support my claim it is stupid to compare. However I dispute your
    claim that the resolution of an 8"x10" film shot with a high quality large
    format lens at f32 is less than 6x7cm film at f8. *IF* you tried to use the
    same lens perhaps! Otherwise you're dreaming.
    Remember you need a longer lens for larger formats at the same angle of
    view, and the aperture does not cause the same diffraction effects until it
    is correspondingly smaller.


    > In landscape work, the large format users go after scenes with incredible
    > amounts of detail; in the landscape magazines here, the LF work jumps off
    > the page at one. But the resolution on the page isn't adequate for even
    > digital.


    Agreed, there is no benefit of using LF for small size prints like
    magazines. The situation changes somewhat if you try to do a large mural
    using a 35mm camera!
    (you might do pano and stitch these days of course)
    You certainly don't see many pictures being taken on 8x10" any more, it's
    pretty hard to justify the cost of film for no real benefit. And the cost of
    LF digital backs is rather prohibitive atm!

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Aug 27, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    Rob Guest

    On 27/08/2012 10:45 AM, Trevor wrote:
    > "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> FWIW, I find 6x7 (56 x 70 mm) film scanned on a Nikon 9000 very close to
    >> what I see from the 21MP 5DII. With a good lens at f/8, the 5DII is
    >> friggin amazing. It's competing with over four times the area of film

    >
    > My experience too, and the D800 is even better, and then there is medium
    > format digital!
    >
    >
    >>> Comparing 35mm to 8x10 is rather stupid.

    >
    >> Well, not necessarily. In real life, 4x5 and 8x10 shooters shoot at f/32
    >> and f/45 a lot, at which point the resolution on the film isn't as good as
    >> 6x7 shot at f/8.

    >
    > That would support my claim it is stupid to compare. However I dispute your
    > claim that the resolution of an 8"x10" film shot with a high quality large
    > format lens at f32 is less than 6x7cm film at f8. *IF* you tried to use the
    > same lens perhaps! Otherwise you're dreaming.
    > Remember you need a longer lens for larger formats at the same angle of
    > view, and the aperture does not cause the same diffraction effects until it
    > is correspondingly smaller.
    >
    >
    >> In landscape work, the large format users go after scenes with incredible
    >> amounts of detail; in the landscape magazines here, the LF work jumps off
    >> the page at one. But the resolution on the page isn't adequate for even
    >> digital.

    >
    > Agreed, there is no benefit of using LF for small size prints like
    > magazines. The situation changes somewhat if you try to do a large mural
    > using a 35mm camera!
    > (you might do pano and stitch these days of course)
    > You certainly don't see many pictures being taken on 8x10" any more, it's
    > pretty hard to justify the cost of film for no real benefit. And the cost of
    > LF digital backs is rather prohibitive atm!
    >
    > Trevor.
    >
    >
    >
    >



    My take on this is a MF and LF have a better feel to the picture and are
    more acceptable than a stitched DX or FX digital. Its not necessarily
    more resolution its prospective. A 90 degree coverage with a 90mm lens
    makes a nice image.

    Yes my digital camera is high Mp and the only way to cover a scene for
    me is long lens and stitch, then lots of post processing to take out the
    distortion and make it flat. This is my way of recreating the feel of MF
    and LF.
    Rob, Aug 27, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Rob" <> wrote in message
    news:k1ehfg$fip$...
    >> Agreed, there is no benefit of using LF for small size prints like
    >> magazines. The situation changes somewhat if you try to do a large mural
    >> using a 35mm camera!
    >> (you might do pano and stitch these days of course)
    >> You certainly don't see many pictures being taken on 8x10" any more, it's
    >> pretty hard to justify the cost of film for no real benefit. And the cost
    >> of
    >> LF digital backs is rather prohibitive atm!
    >>

    >
    > My take on this is a MF and LF have a better feel to the picture and are
    > more acceptable than a stitched DX or FX digital.


    Everyone is entitled to a preference without justification.

    >Its not necessarily more resolution its prospective.


    "Prospective" ?

    >A 90 degree coverage with a 90mm lens makes a nice image.


    The lens focal lenth/angle of view/perspective is only relative to the
    film/sensor size. A 90mm lens on a 35mm camera is less than 30deg, and
    simply using a 21mm lens will give you approx 90deg coverage.


    > Yes my digital camera is high Mp and the only way to cover a scene for me
    > is long lens and stitch, then lots of post processing to take out the
    > distortion and make it flat. This is my way of recreating the feel of MF
    > and LF.


    For what purpose though?

    Actually few 8x10" photos are taken with lenses equivalent to 90mm on a 35mm
    camera (which of course is less than 90deg). If you meant 90mm on an 8x10
    camera, that's still not as common as something like a 135mm or more. But
    whatever choices work for you are all that matters, to you, surely?

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Aug 28, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    "Neil Ellwood" <> wrote:

    >Ric Trexell wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >> news:201208250105017987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom... >On
    >> 2012-08-25 06:12:28 -0700, Alfred Molon <> said:
    >> >
    >> > > In article <>, Ric
    >> > > Trexell says...
    >> > > > Digital does not have the range of film. I think it
    >> > > > can only show something like 40 shades of black and white while
    >> > > > film can record over a hundred.
    >> > >
    >> > > That's very strange, because most DLSRs easily have a range of 11
    >> > > stops, which should be way more than 100 shades of grey (although
    >> > > it's not clear what you mean with "shades"). In addition you can
    >> > > use HDR to extend the range and some cameras have inbuilt DSLR.
    >> >
    >> > You might want to rephrase your last few words.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > -- Regards,
    >> >
    >> > Savageduck

    >> __________________________________________________________________
    >>
    >> Savageduck: I wasn't talking about f/stops, but by shades I meant
    >> that if you took a picture of 100 swabs of paint (used as an example)
    >> the first one consisting of 100 parts white, then the next having 99
    >> parts white and 1 part black, and repeated this until at the end of
    >> the board you had 100 parts black, the digital would see about 40
    >> different shades of gray where as film would see more. For someone
    >> like me with what I call shade blindness, that is in tests my former
    >> employer gave me of 20 different shades of red-blue, I would only see
    >> about 15 it doesn't really matter. Part of the reason I said former
    >> employer is that I was employed as a printer, and when they asked me
    >> if I noticed these two colors were off, I would say...they are? Ric.

    >
    >Surely that would be 101 shADES.



    But aren't there 50 shades of grey? ;-)
    Bruce, Aug 28, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 25/08/2012 15:42, Ric Trexell wrote:
    > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > news:201208250105017987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2012-08-25 06:12:28 -0700, Alfred Molon <> said:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, Ric
    >>> Trexell says...
    >>>> Digital does not have the range of film. I think it
    >>>> can only show something like 40 shades of black and white while film can
    >>>> record over a hundred.


    It is hard to imagine how you can be so totally wrong about both digital
    and film systems simultaneously.

    >>> That's very strange, because most DLSRs easily have a range of 11 stops,
    >>> which should be way more than 100 shades of grey (although it's not
    >>> clear what you mean with "shades"). In addition you can use HDR to
    >>> extend the range and some cameras have inbuilt DSLR.

    >>
    >> You might want to rephrase your last few words.


    Consumer digicams are typically limited to 12 bits linear better kit is
    14 bits and the high end cooled astronomical CCDs are at least 16 bits
    and fully quantitative over the entire dynamic range provided that the
    wells do not actually overflow (leading to a whole row burning out).

    > Savageduck: I wasn't talking about f/stops, but by shades I meant that if
    > you took a picture of 100 swabs of paint (used as an example) the first one
    > consisting of 100 parts white, then the next having 99 parts white and 1
    > part black, and repeated this until at the end of the board you had 100
    > parts black, the digital would see about 40 different shades of gray where
    > as film would see more. For someone like me with what I call shade
    > blindness, that is in tests my former employer gave me of 20 different
    > shades of red-blue, I would only see about 15 it doesn't really matter.


    Paint on a card or paper is just about the worst possible test case. You
    cannot make an adequate photometric black that way nor an acceptable
    white. The dynamic range is severely limited by scattered light from the
    target and not by any intrinsic defect of the imaging system or sensor.

    Xray film by transmitted light has more dynamic range than normal film
    can cope with and will challenge a 16 bit linear system to capture both
    extremes of shadow detail and highlights (subject to original correct
    exposure).

    > Part of the reason I said former employer is that I was employed as a
    > printer, and when they asked me if I noticed these two colors were off, I
    > would say...they are? Ric.


    Being colour blind and working in a colour printshop must be something
    of a handicap. At least electronic engineers can measure resistors when
    they cannot read the colour bar codes reliably.

    It is actually quite hard to distinguish more than about 100 shades of
    pure grey on print media because of surface scattered and reflected
    light. Even the very best matt pigments on paper are pathetic blacks
    when compared to the inside of a ball lined with black velvet.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 28, 2012
    #14
  15. On 8/28/2012 1:49 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

    > It is actually quite hard to distinguish more than about 100 shades of pure grey on print media
    > because of surface scattered and reflected light. Even the very best matt pigments on paper are
    > pathetic blacks when compared to the inside of a ball lined with black velvet.
    >


    The best blacks on prints are on the glossiest papers, properly
    lit with a single spot light at an angle. Some papers can get
    well over 1000:1 contrast ratio. Of course, that assumes an
    otherwise black room for background. The results using prints
    so lit with brightness at or approaching sunlight are simply stunning.

    I sometime made prints for that express purpose. This requires
    a whole recalibration of one's mental "Zone System", especially
    what Zones 0, 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 mean. And so far I have not found
    ink-jet prints that are dark enough in the blacks to equal
    either B&W or color chemical prints.

    Doug McDonald
    Doug McDonald, Aug 28, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 28/08/2012 22:49, Doug McDonald wrote:
    > On 8/28/2012 1:49 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
    >
    >> It is actually quite hard to distinguish more than about 100 shades of
    >> pure grey on print media
    >> because of surface scattered and reflected light. Even the very best
    >> matt pigments on paper are
    >> pathetic blacks when compared to the inside of a ball lined with black
    >> velvet.

    >
    > The best blacks on prints are on the glossiest papers, properly
    > lit with a single spot light at an angle. Some papers can get
    > well over 1000:1 contrast ratio. Of course, that assumes an
    > otherwise black room for background. The results using prints
    > so lit with brightness at or approaching sunlight are simply stunning.


    I'd give it more like 500:1 but that is with a black velvet sheet as a
    target for the front surface reflection. On ordinary print media even in
    glossy magazines you seldom see anything like 100:1.

    I use this trick for photographing old archive material that is too
    fragile to flatbed scan in situ side lit at an angle so that the
    reflection is of a black velvet sheet. It works surprisingly well.
    Perspective correction in software afterwards squares the image up.
    >
    > I sometime made prints for that express purpose. This requires
    > a whole recalibration of one's mental "Zone System", especially
    > what Zones 0, 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 mean. And so far I have not found
    > ink-jet prints that are dark enough in the blacks to equal
    > either B&W or color chemical prints.


    Agreed. True black is very hard to do. Although this is only obvious
    when you have a reference true black nearby to compare with. The eye is
    wonderfully good at adapting to the dynamic range it is offered.

    Fujicolour Crystal Archive is about as good as I have seen (ignoring for
    the moment traditional silver based printing media - which are also not
    always a perfect black either).

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 29, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:06:30 AM UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
    > On 28/08/2012 22:49, Doug McDonald wrote:
    >
    > > On 8/28/2012 1:49 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

    >
    > >

    >
    > >> It is actually quite hard to distinguish more than about 100 shades of

    >
    > >> pure grey on print media

    >
    > >> because of surface scattered and reflected light. Even the very best

    >
    > >> matt pigments on paper are

    >
    > >> pathetic blacks when compared to the inside of a ball lined with black

    >
    > >> velvet.

    >
    > >

    >
    > > The best blacks on prints are on the glossiest papers, properly

    >
    > > lit with a single spot light at an angle. Some papers can get

    >
    > > well over 1000:1 contrast ratio. Of course, that assumes an

    >
    > > otherwise black room for background. The results using prints

    >
    > > so lit with brightness at or approaching sunlight are simply stunning.

    >
    >
    >
    > I'd give it more like 500:1 but that is with a black velvet sheet as a
    >
    > target for the front surface reflection. On ordinary print media even in
    >
    > glossy magazines you seldom see anything like 100:1.
    >
    >
    >
    > I use this trick for photographing old archive material that is too
    >
    > fragile to flatbed scan in situ side lit at an angle so that the
    >
    > reflection is of a black velvet sheet. It works surprisingly well.
    >
    > Perspective correction in software afterwards squares the image up.
    >
    > >

    >
    > > I sometime made prints for that express purpose. This requires

    >
    > > a whole recalibration of one's mental "Zone System", especially

    >
    > > what Zones 0, 1, 2, 8, 9 and 10 mean. And so far I have not found

    >
    > > ink-jet prints that are dark enough in the blacks to equal

    >
    > > either B&W or color chemical prints.

    >
    >
    >
    > Agreed. True black is very hard to do. Although this is only obvious
    >
    > when you have a reference true black nearby to compare with. The eye is
    >
    > wonderfully good at adapting to the dynamic range it is offered.



    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630082647.htm

    Anyone here photgraphed a Black Hole, well there is Hawkins radiation that is emitted but I'm not sure what colour that is ;-)

    >
    >
    >
    > Fujicolour Crystal Archive is about as good as I have seen (ignoring for
    >
    > the moment traditional silver based printing media - which are also not
    >
    > always a perfect black either).
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Martin Brown
    Whisky-dave, Aug 29, 2012
    #17
  18. RichA

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 29/08/2012 13:13, bugbear wrote:
    > Martin Brown wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I'd give it more like 500:1 but that is with a black velvet sheet as a
    >> target for the front surface reflection. On ordinary print media even
    >> in glossy magazines you seldom see anything like 100:1.
    >>
    >> I use this trick for photographing old archive material that is too
    >> fragile to flatbed scan in situ side lit at an angle so that the
    >> reflection is of a black velvet sheet. It works surprisingly well.
    >> Perspective correction in software afterwards squares the image up.

    >
    >
    > At the risk of topic drift, could you expand on that a little.
    >
    > I'm struggling to work out where the light, sheet, and camera are.


    Usually depending on the subject matter one of either.

    Picture hung on a wall camera off axis about 20-30 degrees to left and
    space frame with black cloth (ideally velvet) placed so that it blocks
    any reflections of background that would be present. Two diffuse lights
    above and below the plane to get uniform illumination.

    Same sort of thing on a desk with a piece of that 5mm black foam board
    providing the dark side and again camera about 30 degrees offset the
    other way. ASCII art is pushing it a bit here:

    Camera Black card
    \ /
    \ /
    \ /
    Subject

    Requires an assistant or a retort stand to clamp the black board.

    It is mainly of use when there is no way to avoid a square on image
    showing a reflection of the camera, room lights or an ornate ceiling.

    Same method also works to eliminate glass reflections when photographing
    delicate exhibits inside glass cabinets. Control what gets reflected so
    that it is close to being uniform and black.

    --
    Regards,
    Martin Brown
    Martin Brown, Aug 29, 2012
    #18
  19. In rec.photo.digital Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > On 28/08/2012 22:49, Doug McDonald wrote:
    >> On 8/28/2012 1:49 PM, Martin Brown wrote:


    >> The best blacks on prints are on the glossiest papers, properly
    >> lit with a single spot light at an angle. Some papers can get
    >> well over 1000:1 contrast ratio. Of course, that assumes an
    >> otherwise black room for background. The results using prints
    >> so lit with brightness at or approaching sunlight are simply stunning.


    It's annoying how many galleries are really poorly lit. So when
    printing wide range images you either have to print to their
    restricted lighting, which prints look silly under good lighting, or
    put up with losing lots of dark detail.

    > I'd give it more like 500:1 but that is with a black velvet sheet as a
    > target for the front surface reflection. On ordinary print media even in
    > glossy magazines you seldom see anything like 100:1.


    > I use this trick for photographing old archive material that is too
    > fragile to flatbed scan in situ side lit at an angle so that the
    > reflection is of a black velvet sheet. It works surprisingly well.
    > Perspective correction in software afterwards squares the image up.


    So the camera is offset too as well as the light. So how do you avoid
    (or deal with) the lighting gradient? Do you use two opposed lights
    rectangular to the camera view?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 30, 2012
    #19
  20. In rec.photo.digital Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > On 29/08/2012 13:13, bugbear wrote:
    >> Martin Brown wrote:


    >>> I'd give it more like 500:1 but that is with a black velvet sheet as a
    >>> target for the front surface reflection. On ordinary print media even
    >>> in glossy magazines you seldom see anything like 100:1.
    >>>
    >>> I use this trick for photographing old archive material that is too
    >>> fragile to flatbed scan in situ side lit at an angle so that the
    >>> reflection is of a black velvet sheet. It works surprisingly well.
    >>> Perspective correction in software afterwards squares the image up.

    >>
    >> At the risk of topic drift, could you expand on that a little.
    >>
    >> I'm struggling to work out where the light, sheet, and camera are.


    > Usually depending on the subject matter one of either.


    > Picture hung on a wall camera off axis about 20-30 degrees to left and
    > space frame with black cloth (ideally velvet) placed so that it blocks
    > any reflections of background that would be present. Two diffuse lights
    > above and below the plane to get uniform illumination.


    > Same sort of thing on a desk with a piece of that 5mm black foam board
    > providing the dark side and again camera about 30 degrees offset the
    > other way. ASCII art is pushing it a bit here:


    > Camera Black card
    > \ /
    > \ /
    > \ /
    > Subject
    >
    > Requires an assistant or a retort stand to clamp the black board.


    > It is mainly of use when there is no way to avoid a square on image
    > showing a reflection of the camera, room lights or an ornate ceiling.


    > Same method also works to eliminate glass reflections when photographing
    > delicate exhibits inside glass cabinets. Control what gets reflected so
    > that it is close to being uniform and black.


    You've answered my question. I've often thought of doing that, but
    never been well organised enough to do more than park a dark clothed
    person in the way of the reflections. For small things my
    "photographer's scarf" of very black felty wool is a good stand in.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 30, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Len

    Face to Face Purchase Help UK

    Len, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    541
    Graham
    Nov 1, 2003
  2. Annika1980

    FACE TO FACE WITH THE D60 !!!

    Annika1980, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    569
    Robert A. Barr
    Nov 9, 2003
  3. Anon

    You say SIM, I say SEM

    Anon, Mar 17, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    512
    Randal T. Rioux
    Mar 18, 2006
  4. Bucky Breeder
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    498
    Bucky Breeder
    May 23, 2007
  5. Fierce Guppy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    512
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page