As I said, "Thanks, Anthony, the education is useful." This statement was and is not sarcasm. You have every right to bitch at me about many things. In normal conversation, a "your welcome" would be in order. Then again, this is not normal conversation.
Yes, you have stayed on topic. (That can be different from on subject, but that's another matter.) In as much as "Dynamic Range", as a term, has crept into photography discussions, it's use is at least somewhat on topic. This term is, however, most commonly found in audio, radio and control systems engineering and is in common use by audiophiles. Many of us are not as highly educated in or as astute about photography as you, but most of us have some sort of sound system and are familiar with the terminology used in the specifications of these systems. Since there are some analogous concepts between audio reproduction and image reproduction, it's not surprising that some terminology "leaks" from one discipline to another. This is often appropriate, but not always. I am of the opinion that a term common to one discipline is not necessarily appropriate to another discipline just because the concept is analogous. "Dynamic range" is one of those concepts that I believe is often being misused in it's application to photography. This is not to say that the term never applies anywhere in photography, only where I've seen it used here appears to be inappropriate. Since the term is most commonly used in other disciplines, It should not be surprising that some discussion of how and why the term is used in other disciplines will take place. You brought up a term that I was unfamiliar with, and I decided to research it. None of my books mentioned it or had it in their glossary of photographic terms, so I turned to the web. Surprise! a Google search turns up one (1) reference. Given this, I assume that the term is certainly little, or almost never used. You say, "What's the point of quoting material (the Google search results) to support your POV if you won't tolerate an investigation of the materials' accuracy?" I say, "Cite where have I indicated in any way that I won't tolerate an investigation of the materials' accuracy." You say, "Who's being the arsehole?" I clearly said, "I believed this was my position." Can't you read? - And the word is asshole. You can at least get a fella's title right. You are not a prick to discuss photography. You are just a prick. It's a global judgment. It represents my opinion and not anyone else's, however, I am the quintessential prick. I've studied for it all my life. I know one when I interact with one. Take it from me, you are a prick. Wear your badge proudly. I do. Now, if you would like to come to some understanding of each other, I am certainly amenable to trying to find some way beyond this caustic mess. Regards, Bob... -------------------------------------------- "History is not a school-mistress. She does not teach. She is a prison matron who punishes for unlearned lessons." -- Vasily Klyutchevsky, Russian historian > From: Anthony Farr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Bob, > > Here's the opening post in this thread from you, in full: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 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). > Regards, > > Bob... > ------------------------------------------ > Veritas vos Liberabit > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > I reckon I've stayed on topic, but all the waffle about dynamic range > applied to non-photography has been both off topic and outside > the original > query. Even so, what a prick I must be to discuss photography when you're > engaged in an interesting exchange of views regarding sound levels :( > > What's the point of quoting material (the Google search results) > to support > your POV if you won't tolerate an investigation of the materials' > accuracy? > Who's being the arsehole? > > Screw you. > > regards (whatever), > Anthony Farr. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Thanks, Anthony, the education is useful. > > > > The subject is still "Dynamic Range". > > > > "Dynamic" expressly implies continual change with time. Music > has dynamic > ............. > > > (snip) > > > >
