Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Peter Lik again

Subject: Re: [OM] Peter Lik again
From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:12:38 -0500
I don't disagree with anything you've said.  But my main point is that 
the image is shot on Velvia which has a dynamic range of about 5.  Given 
the best scanner in the world and the best technique the dynamic range 
of the output is limited to 5 and the range of the subject is immaterial 
if the film wasn't able to capture it.  Finally, there is no print 
material which has even the limited dynamic range of Velvia.

All I was trying to say (and I think I'm in perfect agreement with you) 
is the magic in the display print didn't come about as a result of some 
scanner magic.  It came about from very careful shooting, scanning and 
printing.  And I think the presentation of large prints under halogen 
lights is at least half of the experience if not more.

Chuck Norcutt

Moose wrote:
> Chuck Norcutt wrote:
>> It doesn't matter how good the scanner. The dynamic range of Velvia is about 
>> 5 stops and the print less than that.  The scanner probably can't match the 
>> dynamic range of the film (at least on one pass) but it's probably good 
>> enough for the range of the print which is probably less than 4.
>>   
> 
> Whoa! Wait a moment. I'm not sure I agree.
> 
> The range of brightness captured may be limited, but it's spread across 
> almost the whole range of transparency of the film, from almost 
> perfectly clear to almost perfectly opaque. What matters for scanning is 
> not only the range of the subject but that of the film.
> 
> In the case of slide film, the challenge is generally to capture the 
> whole dynamic range of the film. If the scanner can't do that in one 
> pass, the mechanical ability to make multiple, registered 
> passes/readings and software that can assemble them into a wider range 
> output are a big help. In my case, a recent test showed that 12 passes 
> made no difference in highlight or shadow detail in scanning an 
> Ektachrome 200 slide taken at night on a deck with tome bright local 
> lighting.
> 
> With CN and chromogenic B&W film, the challenge is to capture the subtle 
> graduations of tonality of a much greater subject range that have been 
> compressed into a smaller film density range. When digital measuring 
> devices became common, the problems of accuracy vs. resolution became 
> important. When the reading is 7.4, the natural tendency is to assume 
> the actual value being measured is 7.4. But if the accuracy of the 
> device is +- 0.2, the actual value is between 7.2 and 7.6.
> 
> With slide film, the much greater change in film density with subject 
> brightness means errors in scanning accuracy have less effect on the 
> tonal accuracy of the scanned output than for orange masked neg film.
> 
> I performed similar multiple vs. single pass scan tests on Portra negs. 
> Because of the lower DMax of the film, I didn't expect any significant 
> differences. Sure enough, no increased dynamic range. BUT - wait a 
> minute, resolution of fine, subtle detail increased noticeably! What's 
> that about?
> 
> I can speculate about extremely small mis-registration in the scan 
> passes capturing slightly different 'cuts' of the film grain. Perhaps 
> that and/or slight variations in  brightness levels at the limits of 
> measuring accuracy combine to increase edge contrast?
> 
> Is this the case with other scanners? I don't know. My point, however, 
> is that the scanner does make a difference. The further point is that 
> extensive practice with scanner and software, working to learn their 
> subtleties can make a difference in the results one achieves.
> 
> I know nothing about Peter Lik other than what I've now seen from posts 
> about him. I do know enough from life experience to know that someone 
> who practices deeply and throughly with any limited set of tools is not 
> uncommonly able to achieve more with them than more casual or eclectic 
> persons who spreads their learning and use over a broader range of 
> things. I'm not, by the way advocating one approach over the other for 
> any individual.
> 
> It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that Lik has, by focusing on a 
> very limited tool set, work flow, learning how the variables of each 
> step work in great depth, for his WA landscapes, achieved results beyond 
> what more casual users of the same things can manage.
> 
> A couple of examples: Not all lenses of the same make and model give 
> identical results (Yes, AG, I agree.). Mike Hatems's compulsive tests of 
> multiple examples of MF WA lenses on FF Canons reinforce this point. 
> Someone focused on finding the best individual prime lens for a 
> particular camera and use may capture a better image in the camera than 
> someone using lots of different lenses and camera bodies.
> 
> In another area of workflow, I've found that NeatImage is generally a 
> great tool for both NR and some resharpening. I use it on image files 
> from a number of different sources, many different films scanned on a 
> couple of different scanners and files from three current and several 
> older digital cameras. The truth is that it is like sheer magic with 
> some image sources, ok with some and a struggle with others. If my 
> interest were to make the absolute best images with sources from a 
> single source, I might well try out all the NR and sharpening apps 
> available to find which one works best on my special files.
> 
>  From lens through film through post through printer/paper through 
> display lighting, I believe intense work on a single path toward a 
> specific result will often defy common wisdom and experience about what 
> is possible.
> 
> This is true in many areas beyond photography.
> 
> Moose
-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz