Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
Subject: [Leica] Re: "the dynamic range of digital"
From: imagist3 at mac.com (Lottermoser George)
Date: Fri Sep 22 13:43:03 2006
References: <DC4B73A4105FCE4FAE0CEF799BF84B36013F1B6B@case-email>
 
Well David - if the Frontier scans gave you what you wanted the  
discussion becomes mute. But I would rather have your coast to coast  
histograms on file. As Ansel (so they say) suggested, "the negative  
(chrome, RAW file, in other words the original) is the score, the  
print is the performance (how you interpret the score). I want as  
much information as possible in the original so I have options in the  
performance. YMMV ;-)

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com



On Sep 22, 2006, at 3:32 PM, David Rodgers wrote:

> The Frontier scans looked a lot better than my scans.
> Yet the Frontier files were 8-bit and mine were 16-bit. The  
> Frontier had
> narrow histograms. Mine ran coast to coast.
In reply to: Message from drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers) ([Leica] Re: "the dynamic range of digital")