Moose, stating the obvious, has just given me an epiphany.
The most important being that the output and the input of
photo capture are different aspects, and somehow I lost sight
of that. Thanks again Moose for enlightening something I knew,
but some how I lost sight of when moving from film to digital.
There was a reason I preferred slide film, and Velvia in particular,
and it has to do with the range of capture of the film versus the
range of output from the film. (well maybe I preferred Provia...)
There is a lot of focus on digital's ability to capture a wide dynamic
range, which I fully appreciate. And I have been working on ways
to manage that high dynamic range relative to the output. But I
think, in general, the wide dynamic range is not fully understood
when it comes to how to display it. Hence I have seen some
really ungodly HDR images lately, to the point of being a fad.
Slide film, the main film I shot, has lower input range but
very high output range, but digital is moving in the reverse,
with high input dynamic range.
Ever since I visited the Peter Lik gallery, and knowing that this
was the result of film capture from a 6x17 Technorama camera,
I have been trying to figure out how such results could be achieved.
Well, there is the amount of film area, which allows for larger
display and detail, but there was also that extra feeling of presence
that was created by the display's dynamic range.
Again this in part is the art of photography, shooting at the magic
hour when the range is narrowed, and translating that into a
great photo display. We all know how harsh lighting can create
flat images, where subdued lighting allows for pulling out nuances
of a scene that border on magical.
So, the thought is, how to get that magic back with digital
and perhaps film has some magic we forgot about.
I don't think we need to abandon what digital high dynamic range
has to offer, but I'm seeing that people are struggling with the
output display of such images. I don't see the magic, but I see
unreal scenes that I personally don't get the sense of presence
but feel I'm looking more at an illustration of something rather
than something that takes me to where the scene actually was.
Wayne
At 03:36 PM 1/23/2009, Moose epiphany wrote:
>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.
...
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|