Exactly,
With a slide you get a really good d-max in the super black blacks
the slide film will produce, and in the same shot you can also have
clear film base d-min, that's a pretty large dynamic range.
But in terms of exposure, you're going to hit those brick walls of d-
min and d-max reasonably quickly (and a lot less quickly than with
print film). I think that's part of the look of slide film and part
of why it looks so good (when done properly), you're essentially
expanding the dynamic range of the scene when you capture it on film.
Think about it, in the scene those shadows might not have been
anywhere near d-max in terms of what your eye can perceive (you could
perceive details in them) but on the slide they may be rendered as
near, or at, d-max. This can reduce details in the shadows and
highlights but it expands the differences between midtone values.
This is a huge part of the look of slide film and if you do it right
can really add drama to a scene.
I think this also explains why I find so many HDR images look
atrocious, because they're doing the reverse, they're compressing a
huge range of scene values into a much lower dynamic range. This
means your shadows tend to loose their punch and a huge range of
values from the scene all end up on top of each other in the midtones
in the image.
On Jan 24, 2009, at 11:21 AM, ws wrote:
> Velvia D-range of 3.5-4 while print Crystal Archive Pearl has ~2.3.
> Seems the paper has Lower D-range than slide, not Higher??
> The D-range of slide film is not the exposure range, which is
> what is confusing people.
>
> Wayne
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|