Interesting, I would have thought that it would do better. I'm able to get a greater dynamic range than I can print. ACR, even the previous version, is supposed to be one of the best converters.
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > ACR, not the newest version, I am using > with PS CS(1) > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > P. J. Alling > Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 6:12 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there > > > Which raw converter are you using? > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> Well, only 8 stops out of print film has got >> to be a mistake of some sorts, I have >> seen numbers reported as high as 15 stops >> out this type of film and I know for >> a fact there is like 3 stops of LATITUDE >> alone on the good slow color neg films, >> (not to be confused with dynamic >> range )which would be impossible if there >> was only 8 stops total range. >> >> I did some tests with the DS shooting >> RAW and found that I was unable to record >> capture what I could easily see, even using >> raw. The exposure latitude with that camera is >> much smaller than color neg film. >> >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of William Robb >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:55 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Peter Lacus" >> Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there >> >> >> >> >>> Bill, >>> >>> >>> >>>> DSLR cameras are showing 10 stops or more of dynamic range, which is >>>> > > >>>> about 3 stops more than that of print film, probably 5 stops more >>>> range than slide >>>> film. >>>> >>>> >>> IMHO there's only one definitive truth - film emulsions react to the >>> light in a different way than linear digital sensors. Indeed it's >>> > much > >>> >>> >> >> >>> easier to extract useful data from digital RAW files but does it >>> prove >>> >>> >> >> >>> that digital sensor captures wider dynamic range? IMHO it proves that >>> current scanners are not capable of extracting data from the film >>> > more > >>> >>> >> >> >>> than anything else. >>> >>> >> I'd have to dig out my charts from when I was learning the Zone >> System, but my recollection is that I was never able to get more than >> 9-10 stops out of >> B&W film without going to very exotic processing methods. >> My experience working as a QC technician in the photo lab industry >> indicated >> to me that print film, when measured on a densitometer, was incapable >> > of > >> givng more than 7-8 stops of dynamic range. >> >> My observations were not dependant on scanner limitations or paper >> dynamic ranges, but on direct measurement of film samples using a >> device designed >> specifically for that purpose. >> >> William Robb >> >> >> >> > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
