I think you miss the main point, that the film range and the scanner
and the scene range and capture are different aspects. If the scene
range fits within the film range, it is another matter to then get the film
range into display, so the dynamic range of the output has nothing
to do with the film capture range, but everything to do with the film
D-range. So I thing your argument is fundamentally flawed
when it comes to display relative to film capture range. The display
range has to do with the film D-range, not the film scene capture range.
Take a look at the site I pointed to:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/scan-comparison/
and just see what the difference the scanner can make on the output.
Wayne
At 06:12 PM 1/23/2009, you wrote:
>I don't disagree with anything you've said. But my main point is that
>the image is shot on Velvia which has a dynamic range of about 5. Given
>the best scanner in the world and the best technique the dynamic range
>of the output is limited to 5 and the range of the subject is immaterial
>if the film wasn't able to capture it. Finally, there is no print
>material which has even the limited dynamic range of Velvia.
>
>All I was trying to say (and I think I'm in perfect agreement with you)
>is the magic in the display print didn't come about as a result of some
>scanner magic. It came about from very careful shooting, scanning and
>printing. And I think the presentation of large prints under halogen
>lights is at least half of the experience if not more.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|