From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Entering "film acceptance range" into the Google search engine generates one (1) hit only. Film latitude generates about 673 hits. "Stop latitude" generates about an additional 236 hits. "exposure latitude" generates about 92,000 hits.
"Dynamic" expressly implies continual change with time. Music has dynamic range. Photographs do not. The scene may have it, but aside from multiple exposures etc., still photographs do not record it. Regards, Bob... Control Systems Engineer & Technical photographer... ---------------------------------------------------------------- They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken. From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > The actual term is "film acceptance range" when applied to film. If digital > terminology was parallel with and consistent to film then the digital > equivalent would be "sensor acceptance range. BUT the digital equivalent > varies depending upon the bit-depth capability of the file being written, so > "dynamic range" works as well as any other words IMO. Just so long as most > of us are consistent with the usage. > > If anyone was worried about terminology being corrupted by digital imaging, > then the term "Gamma" (in digital processes) should have come under assault > years ago. I have ~never~ seen a change of gamma of a monitor or of image > attributes in a picture editor even remotely resemble a change of developed > gamma of a film. Somehow I think the propellerheaded software developers > had no idea what gamma meant in photography, and reinvented it for their own > purposes. > > regards, > Anthony Farr > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > May I suggest that in most (if not all) cases where the term "dynamic > range" > > has been used, we photographers should be using the terms "range, in > stops" > > (light variation across the scene) or "latitude, in stops" (ability to > > handle or record light variation).
