>> And why would the fact that there is a bigger tonal range lead to the >> conclusion that more contrast needs to be applied?
Even though Jack tends to think this is a merely subjective thing, I can tell you that , by definition, a file with infinite dynamic range would look like a grey patch, because this inexistent file would have such subtle gradation between one tone and the next and the previous that the overall appearance is that of total lack of contrast . It follows that if we pick a slide and scan it and use it as reference to dynamic range comparisons, then both the negative scanned in a similar fashion and files from digital cameras all require a contrast adjustment to achieve the same tones of a slide, and if you don't make the adequate adjustments, I promise you your work will look dull and flat when printed. Have you ever shot negative film from cinematography film? You will find out in a snap what I am talking about since those emulsions still manage a better dynamic range than average negative film( not to mention the beautiful grain). THe contrast is so soft you will re-think typical photo neg film to be contrasty. The only subjectivity I see here is in how can each one of us choose to arrive at the desired target contrast / tonal range/ etc. THe real advantage of the extended dyamic range lies precisely in the possibiity of start up with a file with more details both in the highlights and in the shadows, and then you make your aesthetic choices as to what elements will you pick , and this is critical , considering the CMYK litho printing will let you work in a very limited 4 or maybe 5 stops range overall, the "ideal" reccomended "safe" range for photogs shooting slides being 3 stop range to make sure everything falls in place when printing. Jorge Parra =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
