I dont think this is a correct statement in that there are a lot of low (normal) contrast negative films out there with extremely wide dynamic range CAPTURE capability, better than current digitals from everything I have read. They are not only not rare, they are probably the most common, both BW and Color. i.e. typical slow neg films. And you cant really tell the difference in a digital print, which is what you are using as an example, because those prints have less range than he films I am talking about and it wont be seen fully. Contact prints directly from film would be a better way to compare. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Godfrey DiGiorgi Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 12:36 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: The "Film Look" BTW, what I find with these DSLRs is substantially better DR than all but a very few films, of any format, either B&W or color. My old mentor/buddy who specializes in 'exotic process' 6x9cm and 4x5 inch B&W film work was impressed with the DR I was showing him when I visited with some portfolio prints on my trip. G On Dec 14, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Jostein Øksne wrote: > hehe. That means I still have some way to go with my raw > processing, Godfrey. > Both depressing and encouraging... > >> I find 7-9 stops of useful DR with RAW capture on the *ist DS, >> similar to my Canon 10D. I think the K10D is maybe up a stop from >> that range and averages closer to 9 than 7, at least from my early >> testing. >> >>> From my personal experience with *istD, I would say that the >>> latitude >>> is around 6-7 stops for a raw file, placing it firmly between slide >>> and colour negative film. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
