I forgot about the D range versus D max. I remember trying to
combine multiple scans to increase the D range. But the point
is that film capture range is not the same as the film D range
it can display. The higher the output D range the more dramatic.
Input capture range is only an issue of exposure, and why most
of Peter Lik's shots are done at the magic hour of light.
And yes the more you try to make the lightest and darkest part visible
will flatten the image. The viewer perception of good range
requires that black be really black and highlights very high, while
preserving highlight detail. Those are the types of images that give
the impression of range. Also why so many HDR image presentations
look very flat, as the range has been compressed. And one of the
difficult challenges with digital cameras that are pushing 9 stops
of capture range.
Expanding a 5 stop scene versus compressing a 9 stop scene
to fit in the output display range is where some of the art of
photography is lost with digital, where film, like Velvia, forces
the issue by being more selective, yet its output range is
very high.
Peter Lik uses Crystal Archive paper for prints using
Fujifilm Frontier system laser printers which has a very high
D range.
The reason I'm arguing this point is that one can too easily dismiss
this aspect of photography with arguments that suggest because
film has only 5 stops of capture range that some how good
results are harder to achieve. I think it is just the opposite.
Digital capture with 9 stops of range is equally hard to get
good output results. Or the implication that digital is better
because it has 9 stops of capture range, hence it will
have better output results.
Wayne
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|