Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I don't disagree with anything you've said.
I didn't expect you to. I worry, probably overmuch, about the effect of
some shorthand comments we, specifically including myself, sometimes
make in our posts. "It doesn't matter how good the scanner." suggests
that which scanner used, how and with what software doesn't matter, and
I don't think either of us believe that.
> 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.
>
True - and yet ... We aren't dealing with plumbing. Hook a 1/2" hose on
the end of a 4" fire hose, and you get no more volume through the system
at a given pressure than if it were 1/2" all the way. Right? (Well, no,
there are friction issues if the system is very long and volume high.
Still, pretty much true.)
But photographic images are more closely analogous to electronic
signals. It's well known, and folks like AG can probably do the math,
that the response of an audio or video system is not so simple. The
range of response is not equal to, but less than, that of the narrowest
response segment. Moreover, the better the other pieces, the better the
overall result. The weakest link has the largest effect, but not the
only one.
I know I've seen test examples of this with film and lenses, and I
suspect you have also.
AG just wrote about the use of mixing equipment transparent to 150khz to
produce output limited probably to 20khz, to be listened to by folks
lucky to hear clearly to 15khz. Yet, apparently it makes an audible
difference.
I think the same principle applies to photographic systems. Making sure
each step is the best it can be does have an effect on the end result.
The difference will likely not be obvious, but more a sense of
transparency, openness, clarity, immediacy, or some such unquantified terms.
I am personally convinced that one of the things than differentiates
decent from excellent images is not just the range of tones captured,
but how they are distributed. The "right" curve distributing the tones
from the subject to the tones on paper makes a huge difference. I think
it's one of the not immediately obvious factors that makes one large
print of aspens in fall ordinary and another riveting.
I believe it's part of what makes many prints by folks like Edward
Weston, even of very simple appearing light and shadow on simple shapes,
so engaging. Ansel Adams had a similar care for tonal distribution, and
at least partially systematized it in the Zone System.
Another of these factors is the behavior of the image at edges between
different tones in the image. Scanning tends to vitiate this local
contrast, as I have written elsewhere. LCE is a big help, but not
entirely natural. Care in every step of the process can minimize loss,
thus needing less artificial "recovery", and a subtly finer image.
I remember listening to a sub-woofer at an audio shop. Frequency
response was good, price and size were attractive, but it didn't sound
right to me. After some careful listening, I found that two things were
wrong. One, the dynamic "curve" was wrong. It didn't have the ability to
respond linearly to crescendos, "compressing highlights". Two, to put it
into photographic terms, local contrast was poor. It was "slow" in
responding to sharp changes in volume, blurring the transitions.
It took time and care to find out what the problem was. Knowing there
was a problem, that it wasn't as good as others, came quickly upon
listening.
> 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.
>
Not just scanner magic; perhaps "eye", exposure, lens, film, chemical
processing, scanning, computer processing and printer magics? :-)
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/
|