I think you still miss the point that Moose elaborated well.
Film scene range matches the film capture dynamic range when
exposure is done well. But output range, including print, may
exceed 5 stops. And film output range certainly exceed 5 stops.
Why else would the D-max of a scanner matter if film density was
only 5 stops?
I'm not sure I know the data that says printing is limited to 5 stops.
The output range is what the film is capable of displaying, and how
that is translated to other display formats depends on scanner and
print ability. But the film output range certainly exceeds 5 stops.
There is an expansion here that I think adds a dimension to an
image, and if one follows your line of reasoning would dismiss
to quickly the value it has to offer.
Clearly the prints I looked at the Peter Lik gallery had more than
5 stops of output range and that was part of their magnificence.
Wayne
At 10:03 PM 1/23/2009, you wrote:
>I think we're talking around each other. I have never once mentioned
>the "scene range"... only that the film dynamic range is 5 and that the
>final print will be even less than that. I was somewhat surprised to
>see the apparent differences in scanner output on your link but scanning
>is an art in itself and the results will depend as much upon the
>software and the operator as the scanner itself. While there are
>certainly differences in scanner quality (those listed range from low
>cost flatbed scanners to high end drum scanners) even the highest
>quality drum scanners only have a Dmax of about 4. So even the best
>isn't capable of capturing even Velvia's limited dynamic range in a
>single exposure pass.
>
>No doubt Peter Lik has the best scanners and processes available but I
>still strongly suggest the effect is as much from the presentation as
>the quality of the print.
>
>Chuck Norcutt
>
>ws wrote:
>> 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/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|