> I'm able to > get a greater dynamic range than I can print. Isn't that normal? Scanning Velvia is an education in that respect.
> > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2007/03/08 Thu PM 12:51:17 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there > > 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 > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
