Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/12/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm color vs. the tyranny of the masses
From: "animal" <s.jessurun95@chello.nl>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:07:44 +0100
References: <E99B16C4-26E7-11D8-9384-0003938C439E@btinternet.com> <11FDD418-26EF-11D8-90AA-003065D6E648@umich.edu> <DB6E1160-26F5-11D8-B6ED-000A958F513A@jphotog.com> <B8F767AC-2717-11D8-90AA-003065D6E648@umich.edu> <3FD08DFA.9E552729@rabinergroup.com>

According to Sinar literature,their coold backs have a dynamic range of 14
stops.
oops
simon j
- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mark Rabiner" <mark@rabinergroup.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] 35mm color vs. the tyranny of the masses


> Dante Stella wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 5, 2003, at 2:37 AM, Eric Welch wrote:
> >
> > > Here's one inaccuracy in your text:
> > >
> > >
> > > "-- Film has a much higher dynamic range than digital - 15 stops on
> > > TMY, or a 32768:1 ratio. That means that you capture everything in the
> > > scene and can go back and adjust up or down at will later."
> > >
> > > Not true. Film - even black and white, does NOT contain all details in
> > > a scene. Even ideally processed, it will not be able to cover the
> > > dynamic range of many, many scenes, especially contrast daylight.
> > > Neither can digital. But that's my point. Neither of them can, and
> > > film is not better.
> > >
> >
> I'm trying to think of a definition of the term "dynamic" that would
> make the statement that film has a "dynamic range" of 15 stops make any
> sense. I looked it up in several sources on the internet as well. The
> one definition I can think of is "in your wildest dreams" which can be
> found in the "Rabiner Pronouncing Dictionary of the English language".
>
> There are ten stops or "zones" in the zone system. Eleven if you count
> zone 0 which is film base fog and exists only in the neg not in the
> print. (Big deal)
> So I'm curious where they pulled they extra 4 stops out of!?!
>
> If they are using the term "dynamic" as "useful" which is a stretch then
> film only has about 4 or 5 stops which contain detail. And are thus
> "dynamic"?
> "Jumps right OUT at you!"
> The detail I get just kind of sits there but nevermind.
>
> And why they picked a thinner emulsion film like T-Max 100 to have that?
> A thicker emulsion 400 speed film would more likely be able to have a
> wider range and perhaps with special developing agents like Pyrocatechin
> to make developers designed for recording sun spots and atomic bomb
> blasts and severely lower the speed of your film. Not so useful in
> obtaining normal looking results in a typical scene. Mud I say! Mud! No
separation.
> (Or getting something resembling "normal" results from Tech Pan which is
> really a high contrast film, ultra thin emulsion)
> No only 4 or 5 of the 10 or 11 stops you'd get in black and white film
> have any real interest.
> A few less in ColorNeg.
> And a few stops less than that in color slide. Which hasn't left you
> with much.
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Portland, Oregon USA
> http://www.rabinergroup.com
>
> No Archive
> Hold the Anchovies
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@btinternet.com> (Re: [Leica] Thom Hogan's photo predictions for 2004)
Message from Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> ([Leica] 35mm color vs. the tyranny of the masses)
Message from Eric Welch <eric@jphotog.com> (Re: [Leica] 35mm color vs. the tyranny of the masses)
Message from Dante Stella <dante@umich.edu> (Re: [Leica] 35mm color vs. the tyranny of the masses)
Message from Mark Rabiner <mark@rabinergroup.com> (Re: [Leica] 35mm color vs. the tyranny of the masses)