DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Annika1980, Sep 16, 2008.

  1. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    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.
     
    Noons, Sep 19, 2008
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 18/09/2008 1:24 AM:
    > On Sep 17, 2:11 am, Scott W <> 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.
     
    Noons, Sep 19, 2008
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    Annika1980, Sep 19, 2008
    #23
  4. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 19, 7:49 am, Noons <> 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.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 19, 2008
    #24
  5. Annika1980

    Helen Guest

    On Sep 16, 1:57 am, Annika1980 <> 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
     
    Helen, Sep 19, 2008
    #25
  6. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 19, 2:17 am, Noons <> 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
     
    Scott W, Sep 19, 2008
    #26
  7. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 19, 1:40 am, Noons <> 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
     
    Scott W, Sep 19, 2008
    #27
  8. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <> wrote:
    > On Sep 19, 7:49 am, Noons <> 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
     
    Scott W, Sep 19, 2008
    #28
  9. Annika1980

    Scott W Guest

    On Sep 19, 1:11 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >
    > On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <> 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
     
    Scott W, Sep 20, 2008
    #29
  10. In rec.photo.digital Scott W <> wrote:
    > On Sep 19, 1:11?pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >> "Scott W" <> wrote:
    >>
    >> On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <> 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
     
    Chris Malcolm, Sep 20, 2008
    #30
  11. Annika1980

    D-MAC Guest

    On Sep 20, 6:45 pm, Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital Scott W <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Sep 19, 1:11?pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    > >> "Scott W" <> wrote:

    >
    > >> On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <> 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


    The whole concept of dynamic range in the way Bret presents it is
    extremely flawed.
    HDR photos - not the ugly ones but ones with a high dynamic range
    without going overboard... Seldom display a range from black to white.
    In fact most of mine are in the lower numerical range but still needed
    blending of two or more distinctly different tone ranges to produce a
    high dynamic range from 40D images.

    All Bret's image shows is a high contrast, not a high dynamic range.
    http://www.d-mac.info/examples/HDRatdawn.htm is just one example of
    how narrow DR images have to be blended together to match what
    transparency film is able to get with just a 1/3rd stop of exposure
    correction.

    After many years making contrast masks for "Cibachrome" printing and
    making wide format prints from digital images, I know full well that
    digital cameras have some uncanny quirks that will produce seemingly
    wide DR shots at close range but magical cannot come close to film
    when the distance increases.
     
    D-MAC, Sep 20, 2008
    #31
  12. Annika1980

    D-MAC Guest

    On Sep 20, 9:36 am, Scott W <> wrote:
    > On Sep 19, 1:11 pm, "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > "Scott W" <> wrote:

    >
    > > On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <> 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


    Conside also Scott, that photo paper itself is not 255, 255, 255. Most
    (if not all of it) is a paler shade of beige. Infact much of the "fine
    art" paper on the market is quite soft in it's whiteness. This in
    itself will make producing a colour at 250, 250, 250 impossible which
    is why many of us see "blown highlights" when in reality they are not
    blown but are the colour of the paper we use.
     
    D-MAC, Sep 20, 2008
    #32
  13. Annika1980

    Colin.D Guest

    Noons, 9/19/2008 11:49 PM:

    > 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".
    >
    > Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside
    > 200,200,200 and 100,100,100?
    >
    > You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range
    > and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented
    > a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had
    > quite a few more zones than just 4-6.
    > That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing
    > images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality,
    > it's not really that hard and quite rewarding.
    >
    >>
    >> In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
    >> at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.

    >
    > I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good
    > in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most
    > of the time, I'll let you know!
    > Try this for REAL detail:
    > http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
    > LOL!
    >

    No sir. Detail is detail, sharpness is sharpness. You are mistaking
    sharpness for detail. Sharp edges do not detail make. Push that image
    up a bit - there is no detail whatsoever in the roofs of the buildings
    behind the trees, no hint of corrugations or tiles, or bricks in the
    buildng beyond - in fact, almost all surfaces are artificially smooth,
    only tonal boundaries are at all sharp. In other words, the MTF sucks.

    Given your claimed 'knowledge' of things photographic, I am surprised -
    or maybe not.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Sep 21, 2008
    #33
  14. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:05 PM:


    >>

    > No sir. Detail is detail, sharpness is sharpness. You are mistaking
    > sharpness for detail. Sharp edges do not detail make. Push that image
    > up a bit - there is no detail whatsoever in the roofs of the buildings
    > behind the trees, no hint of corrugations or tiles, or bricks in the
    > buildng beyond - in fact, almost all surfaces are artificially smooth,
    > only tonal boundaries are at all sharp. In other words, the MTF sucks.


    are you totally deranged? WTF are you "pushing up" a
    downressed jpg for? Do you *seriously* expect it to show
    more detail? It's a 1280X850 downress, dickhead!
    If you want to see MORE detail, just ask which area and
    I'll post a crop of the original FULL SIZE image. Can you
    even comprehend what the term "downress" means?
    Did you even REMOTELY read what was written
    there, you moron?


    > Given your claimed 'knowledge' of things photographic, I am surprised -
    > or maybe not.


    Dear me, you just showed again what a stupid idiot
    you really are, Colin. Must be that high wind in NZ:
    straight between the ears, eh?

    I'd STFU if I were you: it's really embarrassing
    to hear you clop all over your own d**k...
     
    Noons, Sep 21, 2008
    #34
  15. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 20/09/2008 9:11 AM:
    > "Scott W" <> wrote:
    > On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 <> 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.


    Not quite correct. And anyways, you only got 8 bits to play
    with in that printer driver, that's 8 stops at best *if* the
    printer can handle the subtleties in tonality: why shoot
    yourself in the foot by creating images with even LESS dr
    to start with?

    >
    > 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.



    Folks, the REAL problem is that everyone here is talking
    different units of measurement without defining what each means!

    Printers can *easily* produce images which originally had more than
    8 EIs *relative* DR even though most cannot do more than about 6
    stops *absolute* range. All that is needed is to compress the
    additional DR into what the printer can do!

    This is what colour negative films have done for years by compressing
    10 stops into 7, while modern slide does 9 into 7 and b&w does 10
    into 8. That's the function of the "knee" and "elbow" in the response
    curves you see in the technical data. Yes, there are films with
    flat curves, but for now just stay with me here: I'm talking the
    *general* case!

    The *real* trick is to make sure the *final* output media is capable
    of displaying the expanded differences in tonality range.

    To make it easier to understand, an analogy: make the printer
    *separate* EI 5 and 6 in a form that is *clearly* visible in the
    final print. It doesn't have to be a *full* 1 EI desnity difference,
    it just must be *clearly* visible.
    Not easy, and few printers can do it. The cost also rises
    proportionally... Requires also all kinds of curve adjustment
    and fitting in the drivers and that also costs.

    That is also why some new cameras process 14-bit colour even though
    we can easily fit 10 EIs into 12-bits: to give them the ability to
    slightly manipulate the curves so the different tones can be discerned
    in the final jpg output at 8 EIs. Assuming of course a good
    quality final output screen, properly adjusted.

    That's been the problem all along. Most folks who use film are not
    aware of these subtleties of digital image rendering and D-A
    conversion. That is why they end up with overly saturated images
    with lots of exaggerated noise. Once that learning curve is
    overcome there is no difference between what one can achieve
    with film or digital sensors, if the output media is kept the
    same for both.

    Counter case: without any adjustment, try to print with an
    enlarger a dslr image and print with a digital printer a
    negative image, and THEN compare both side by side! See what
    I mean?


    Horses for courses, is what is needed. Fit the process
    to the target you got, rather than fit the target to
    your process.


    Witness this for an example of bad digital processing:
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/5d2 cap.jpg
    above is a 100% size 300X200 crop of a 5D2 image available from here:
    http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/
    it's this one:
    http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/originals/img_0660.jpg
    if you care to download and verify by yourself.
    It's one of the sample images of the new 5D2.

    No: I'm *not* picking on Canon, it's just an example:
    I could do the same with a Nikon, Sony, whatever.

    Now, I ask you: is that 21MP resolution? Or even good colour
    saturation in the full size jpg? Of course not! I really hope
    Canon will fix this problem in the Digic IV. Notice how the
    "easy to process" edge between the cap and the background water is
    quite sharp, yet *on the same plane* the letters in the back of the
    cap are completely messed up!
    If that is not a *bug* in the Digic IV software demosaic and sharpen
    algorithms, I don't know what is!


    I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have.
    Here is the demonstration:
    http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/colourful-rescue-98461919
    same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour
    saturation DIFFERENCE! And no, good rez is not synonymous
    with bad saturation:
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/astia full def02.jpg
    that is also a 100% size 300X200 of the original 5600X3700
    scan. I didn't particularly sharpen this one, although of course
    I could if I wanted to: that is not the purpose of this.

    But even without it, - unfair to film given the Digic IV is clearly
    over-processing *selective* areas of the jpg - I can still resolve
    text at much SMALLER size than the one in the cap in the 5D2 crop!

    Same size, same 100%, same original image dimensions, same
    21MP theoretical resolution, same jpg compression in both cases.
    Film shows very small detail, the 5D2 does not: simple as that!

    The 5D2 is also *clearly* much *worse* in colour saturation - both
    photos were taken in full sun - in resolution and even in sharpness
    of an already ultra-processed final jpg:
    http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/latest/5d2 oof.jpg
    (Ye gawds! *Who* let this one out?!...)

    I hope someone alerts Canon to the obvious problem they have with
    this incarnation of the Digic IV: it's obvious it's got its knickers
    in a twist in the colour curve processing and demosaic and sharpen
    software.

    Not to say they won't fix it: I fully expect in a year's time we'll
    be seeing full rez, fully saturated colour photos from the 5D2 with
    reasonable sharpness even at full size crops.

    It will never be totally sharp, that's also why Bret's 100% original
    crop was so soft. That is NOT a problem of the software or lens:
    it's just the way demosaic works in Bayer sensors. Or ANY d/a
    sensor for that matter, including scanners!

    But for now it remains a perfect example of the problems of
    fitting correct DR into a limited media and then "re-fitting"
    it all over again in the final output media. A common problem
    with ANY digitized image, no matter what sensor was used to
    make it. Which is the point I wanted to make.

    Now, to bed: tomorrow is another work week! :)
     
    Noons, Sep 21, 2008
    #35
  16. Annika1980

    Noons Guest

    Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:21 PM:

    >
    > You do realize that the zone system inherently involves variable
    > development time to control contrast; that exposure is only half the
    > story, thereby placing the measured tones on a gamma curve controlled by
    > development?


    No, I *really* needed you to alert me to that...



    > Using the zone system on modern films, where the development time and
    > gamma cannot be varied really undermines the value of the zone system,
    > which is basically reduced to placing mid-grey about half-way up the curve.



    Try Acros at 50ASA with 8 minutes versus Acros at 100ASA and
    9 minutes, both in DDX, then come back to me with that
    "modern films are not usable in the zone system" and "everything
    has to be half-way up the curve"! And BTW: the *whole* point
    of the zone system development control is to *move* the curve,
    not the exposure!

    Cripes, Colin: you really don't know what you're talking
    about, do you? Spend some time in apug and learn, man.
    Instead of just spurting the usual dslr marketing moronic
    utter *crap*!


    > You cannot now simultaneously place shadow, mid, and highlight tones
    > where you want them, the best you can do is to place a particular tone
    > where you want it, and let the others fall where the development puts them.


    Really? I'd like you to explain that to all the apug
    members. Let me see: they are all ignorant idiots while
    you are the only "genius". Right?


    > Pity about that. "I use the Zone System" sounds so cool, doesn't it?


    Yes, it does. That is however not the case with you...
     
    Noons, Sep 21, 2008
    #36
  17. Annika1980

    Colin.D Guest

    Noons, 9/22/2008 12:15 AM:

    > Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:05 PM:
    >
    >
    >>>

    >> No sir. Detail is detail, sharpness is sharpness. You are mistaking
    >> sharpness for detail. Sharp edges do not detail make. Push that
    >> image up a bit - there is no detail whatsoever in the roofs of the
    >> buildings
    > > behind the trees, no hint of corrugations or tiles, or bricks in the
    > > buildng beyond - in fact, almost all surfaces are artificially smooth,
    > > only tonal boundaries are at all sharp. In other words, the MTF sucks.

    >
    > are you totally deranged? WTF are you "pushing up" a
    > downressed jpg for? Do you *seriously* expect it to show
    > more detail? It's a 1280X850 downress, dickhead!
    > If you want to see MORE detail, just ask which area and
    > I'll post a crop of the original FULL SIZE image. Can you
    > even comprehend what the term "downress" means?
    > Did you even REMOTELY read what was written
    > there, you moron?
    >
    >
    >> Given your claimed 'knowledge' of things photographic, I am surprised
    >> - or maybe not.

    >
    > Dear me, you just showed again what a stupid idiot
    > you really are, Colin. Must be that high wind in NZ:
    > straight between the ears, eh?


    Reading between the inevitable ad hominem remarks - your trademark - it
    was you who posted that image saying:

    Try this for REAL detail:
    http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
    LOL!

    Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
    were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your
    claim?

    and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as
    I said, that image sucks. As do you.
    >
    > I'd STFU if I were you: it's really embarrassing
    > to hear you clop all over your own d**k...


    The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a
    bullshit artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
    paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with
    bullshit. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes,
    in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might
    recognise another one when it comes along.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Sep 22, 2008
    #37
  18. Annika1980

    Colin.D Guest

    Noons, 9/22/2008 1:27 AM:

    > Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:21 PM:
    >
    >>
    >> You do realize that the zone system inherently involves variable
    >> development time to control contrast; that exposure is only half the
    >> story, thereby placing the measured tones on a gamma curve controlled
    >> by development?

    >
    > No, I *really* needed you to alert me to that...
    >
    >
    >
    >> Using the zone system on modern films, where the development time and
    >> gamma cannot be varied really undermines the value of the zone system,
    >> which is basically reduced to placing mid-grey about half-way up the
    >> curve.

    >
    >
    > Try Acros at 50ASA with 8 minutes versus Acros at 100ASA and
    > 9 minutes, both in DDX, then come back to me with that
    > "modern films are not usable in the zone system" and "everything
    > has to be half-way up the curve"! And BTW: the *whole* point
    > of the zone system development control is to *move* the curve,
    > not the exposure!
    >
    > Cripes, Colin: you really don't know what you're talking
    > about, do you? Spend some time in apug and learn, man.
    > Instead of just spurting the usual dslr marketing moronic
    > utter *crap*!


    Ah, yes, I was a bit slack there; till now the conversation has been
    around 35mm film machine processed, as in color negative film, and I
    wasn't considering home processing.

    However, unless you are processing sheet film individually, exposure by
    exposure, my comments still apply. You cannot fully use the zone system
    if you are shooting roll film, unless you have a magic way of varying
    the development frame by frame, which I doubt even you could perform.

    Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
    monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to
    color film without color shifts.
    >
    >
    >> You cannot now simultaneously place shadow, mid, and highlight tones
    >> where you want them, the best you can do is to place a particular tone
    >> where you want it, and let the others fall where the development puts
    >> them.

    >
    > Really? I'd like you to explain that to all the apug
    > members.


    Unless Apug members are shooting cut or sheet film one at a time, as did
    Ansel Adams, then they cannot adjust individual process times either.

    > Let me see: they are all ignorant idiots while
    > you are the only "genius". Right?


    I have reason to doubt your reasoning powers, Noons. FYI, knowledge is
    a continuum, there is a huge gulf between an ignorant idiot and a
    genius, and most of us are somewhere between the two, including you and
    me, and everybody else you take issue with. Only difference is, you
    appear to be closer to the former limit.
    >
    >
    >> Pity about that. "I use the Zone System" sounds so cool, doesn't it?

    >
    > Yes, it does. That is however not the case with you...


    See my para. above ...

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Sep 22, 2008
    #38
  19. Annika1980

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Sep 21, 9:17 am, Noons <> wrote:

    > I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have.
    > Here is the demonstration:http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/colourful-rescue-98461919
    > same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour
    > saturation DIFFERENCE!


    So you boosted the saturation? So what?
    The color balance looks much more natural in the 5DII pic, and there
    is details in the shadows as well. In your pic the shadows are gone.

    Oh yeah, it is no great feat to read wrting on a boat that is sitting
    on a trailer. Try doing it on a speeding boat and get back to us. I
    have a few of those shots myself.
     
    Annika1980, Sep 22, 2008
    #39
  20. Annika1980

    D-MAC Guest

    On Sep 22, 10:27 am, Doug McDonald <>
    wrote:
    > Colin.D wrote:
    > > Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
    > > monochrome film.  Very limited development variation can be applied to
    > > color film without color shifts.

    >
    > At least with ordinary Kodak consumer color film that's not true.
    > The contrast can be varied dramatically, especially in the "contrastier"
    > direction, without serious color shifts. Even before Photoshop I had no
    > trouble makng prints from such negatives. With Photoshop even the
    > worst color shifts I ever saw are completely correctable.
    >
    > Doug McDonald


    Years ago I used ordinary consumer film to make internegs for slide
    printing. I did it by using 200 ASA at 100 ASA and altering the
    development to compensate for it. low (as in compressed) contrast
    resulted in beautiful prints otherwise only obtainable with Cibachrome
    at 5x the cost.
     
    D-MAC, Sep 22, 2008
    #40
    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. Robert Feinman

    Scene range vs dynamic range

    Robert Feinman, Jun 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    697
    Marvin
    Jul 4, 2005
  2. M-M

    THE MOON LOVES THE 40D !

    M-M, Oct 16, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    341
  3. Annika1980

    LATE-BREAKING NEWS LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Nov 4, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    325
  4. Annika1980

    2008 LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Jan 1, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    541
    Eric Miller
    Jan 3, 2008
  5. Annika1980

    FUNNY FACES LOVES THE 40D!

    Annika1980, Sep 13, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    331
    tony cooper
    Sep 13, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page