w shumaker wrote:
<> But let's compare print vs. slide.
I see where we have been miscommunicating. I was talking about more vs.
less contrasty films within one type (for me, negative film), where less
contrast means each range of scene brightness covers a wider range of
negative brightness. You are talking slide vs. print. I don't think I've
taken any slide film other than a bunch of of Ektachrome 160T copy work
in maybe 8 years, so I presume to no useful current experience or
knowledge of slide films.
So my view is that higher contrast gives more density variation and is
able to give more subtle tonal variation in the presence of noise (like
grain structure). The question is, what is the exposure value and where
does that place you on the density vs. exposure curve and what is the
slope at that point compared to its granularity. In the mid-range,
slides have a steeper slope (more contrast), at the extremes, print
film has more slope (more contrast). If they have similar grain, then
slides win in the mid-range, negatives win at the extremes. (does
granularity vary over the exposure range also?)
Sounds right to me. Awfully hard to tell what it all means in practical
picture taking and reproduction. Your points about the difference in
contrast at the extemes of density are interesting. The minimum exposure
curve shape of slide film is obviously the mirror of the negative image
from which it was reversed. The more congruent shapes of the 3 color
curves in neg vs. pos film would seem to suggest more consistent color
balance across density in the shadows I suppose these differences at the
extremes are the reason for the options in Photoshop for adjusting
shadow, midrange and highlight color balance separately. The absolute
differences in sensitivity between colors in neg film are what the
orange layer corrects, no?
Moose
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|