Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/11/05

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

Subject: [Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.
From: frank.dernie at btinternet.com (FRANK DERNIE)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 07:16:54 +0000 (GMT)
References: <C71819F8.57F60%mark@rabinergroup.com> <A3306028-C1B0-4FD4-BF37-5901D1A320CF@gmail.com> <F7A89B679AEC4D529BE53CE61E4AFF96@jimnichols> <4E3764774E0740E2BDAA37ED4411C3CF@syneticfeba505> <200911052110.BZV56030@rg4.comporium.net> <7ac27f4f0911051325q6dd7bce0nb6e4b4ad52e15b4f@mail.gmail.com>

Surely both are floating dots? The difference is only size and randomness. I 
know B&W film has silver grains randomly floating in gelatin as the 
sensitive element whereas digital has an even grid of fixed position 
electronic light sensitive elements. The irony is, of course that the film 
process then becomes immediately digital, since a light effected grain is on 
or off, whereas the digital sensor is analogue at this point and can resolve 
12 to 14 bits of dynamic range (it requires over 4000 grains of silver to 
produce the same depth as 1 pixel) which is amplified, if required, to be 
equivalent to a higher sensitivity (iso) adding noise, then converted into 
digital in a A/D convertor.
In prints it looks like the dots from an inkjet are random, but I imagine 
they aren't. The silver grains -are- random.
But they are both floating dots.
Or have I missed something?


----- Original Message ----
From: Richard Man 
 I have seen many good inkjet print too, but silver is
different from floating dots.


Replies: Reply from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.)
In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Why the mad rush to use Canon or Nikon bodies?)
Message from steve.barbour at gmail.com (Steve Barbour) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)
Message from jhnichols at lighttube.net (Jim Nichols) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (tedgrant at shaw.ca) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.)
Message from images at comporium.net (Tina Manley) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.)
Message from richard.lists at gmail.com (Richard Man) ([Leica] Why the mad rush / toxicity / DARKROOMS & CHEMICALS.)