Where will B&W be in 5, 10, 20, 50, 100 .... years

rafe bustin wrote:
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:16:10 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

On 27 Mar 2005 13:36:23 -0800, "Scott W"
wrote:
[...] Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots, that
uses that full range.

Methinks you posted the wrong image. The one I see is exposed for
towards
the highlights and has mud-dark undifferentiated shadows. I can't
see
anything.


I agree. I'm not sure what Scott intends to
prove with that TIF.

82% of the pixels lie within the first 48
codes (8 bit space.) That's just underexposed.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

The photo is not meant to look good on your monitor, it is a
demonstration of how much dynamic range a 8 bit/color photo can have.
As I said in the post you have to play with the levels to see all the
detail in this photo. Your monitor is good for maybe 10 stops of
range, the photo has 17, you simply can't see the full range at one
time. As I said in the post there is not much point to a photo with
this level of dynamic range.

The point is that whereas you can easily get 17 stops of range by
blending 2 exposures there is not much point in doing so.

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

The point is that whereas you can easily get 17 stops of range by
blending 2 exposures there is not much point in doing so.

See the HDR reference earlier.

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...

The point is that whereas you can easily get 17 stops of range by
blending 2 exposures there is not much point in doing so.

See the HDR reference earlier.

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
The photo is not meant to look good on your monitor, it is a
demonstration of how much dynamic range a 8 bit/color photo can have.
As I said in the post you have to play with the levels to see all the
detail in this photo. Your monitor is good for maybe 10 stops of
range, the photo has 17, you simply can't see the full range at one
time. As I said in the post there is not much point to a photo with
this level of dynamic range.

Hi, Scott. Color spaces don't relate to brightness ranges in the same sense
that f/stops do. It's entirely possible to compress the entire gamut into
the brightness range supported by the monitor or paper. Paper white will
have to suffice for 1,1,1 and the densest black is still be an imperfect
representation of 0,0,0.


By far the greatest challenge we face is fitting the captured brightness
range onto paper. This is equally true of inkjet and optical printing.
Inkjet on gloss is good for at best 1.80 log density above paper white.
That's about 6 stops. Selenium toned Galerie on my best day is good for just
shy of 2.7 log density, or 9 stops densest black to cleanest paper white. I
reckon the best color darkroom papers are about the same as inkjet; I
haven't measured Cibas on the densitometer.

The point is that whereas you can easily get 17 stops of range by
blending 2 exposures there is not much point in doing so.

I didn't stop to look at your 17-stop image. I have quite a few of my own
and didn't feel the need. The best we can do is hold back the foreground
while we burn in the sky. This was true of wet printing, and remarkably
unchanged with Photoshop. The challenge is not so much printing the entire
brightness range, but printing enough separation in the details so it's not
a muddy mess. Scenic cloud-scapes are the worst of the bunch. One day, I'll
learn to stop clicking my shutter at them. You *can* rescue them, but I've
never found one that quite conveyed the majesty I was trying to capture.

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
The photo is not meant to look good on your monitor, it is a
demonstration of how much dynamic range a 8 bit/color photo can have.
As I said in the post you have to play with the levels to see all the
detail in this photo. Your monitor is good for maybe 10 stops of
range, the photo has 17, you simply can't see the full range at one
time. As I said in the post there is not much point to a photo with
this level of dynamic range.

Hi, Scott. Color spaces don't relate to brightness ranges in the same sense
that f/stops do. It's entirely possible to compress the entire gamut into
the brightness range supported by the monitor or paper. Paper white will
have to suffice for 1,1,1 and the densest black is still be an imperfect
representation of 0,0,0.


By far the greatest challenge we face is fitting the captured brightness
range onto paper. This is equally true of inkjet and optical printing.
Inkjet on gloss is good for at best 1.80 log density above paper white.
That's about 6 stops. Selenium toned Galerie on my best day is good for just
shy of 2.7 log density, or 9 stops densest black to cleanest paper white. I
reckon the best color darkroom papers are about the same as inkjet; I
haven't measured Cibas on the densitometer.

The point is that whereas you can easily get 17 stops of range by
blending 2 exposures there is not much point in doing so.

I didn't stop to look at your 17-stop image. I have quite a few of my own
and didn't feel the need. The best we can do is hold back the foreground
while we burn in the sky. This was true of wet printing, and remarkably
unchanged with Photoshop. The challenge is not so much printing the entire
brightness range, but printing enough separation in the details so it's not
a muddy mess. Scenic cloud-scapes are the worst of the bunch. One day, I'll
learn to stop clicking my shutter at them. You *can* rescue them, but I've
never found one that quite conveyed the majesty I was trying to capture.

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
The photo is not meant to look good on your monitor, it is a
demonstration of how much dynamic range a 8 bit/color photo can have.
As I said in the post you have to play with the levels to see all the
detail in this photo. Your monitor is good for maybe 10 stops of
range, the photo has 17, you simply can't see the full range at one
time. As I said in the post there is not much point to a photo with
this level of dynamic range.

Hi, Scott. Color spaces don't relate to brightness ranges in the same sense
that f/stops do. It's entirely possible to compress the entire gamut into
the brightness range supported by the monitor or paper. Paper white will
have to suffice for 1,1,1 and the densest black is still be an imperfect
representation of 0,0,0.


By far the greatest challenge we face is fitting the captured brightness
range onto paper. This is equally true of inkjet and optical printing.
Inkjet on gloss is good for at best 1.80 log density above paper white.
That's about 6 stops. Selenium toned Galerie on my best day is good for just
shy of 2.7 log density, or 9 stops densest black to cleanest paper white. I
reckon the best color darkroom papers are about the same as inkjet; I
haven't measured Cibas on the densitometer.

The point is that whereas you can easily get 17 stops of range by
blending 2 exposures there is not much point in doing so.

I didn't stop to look at your 17-stop image. I have quite a few of my own
and didn't feel the need. The best we can do is hold back the foreground
while we burn in the sky. This was true of wet printing, and remarkably
unchanged with Photoshop. The challenge is not so much printing the entire
brightness range, but printing enough separation in the details so it's not
a muddy mess. Scenic cloud-scapes are the worst of the bunch. One day, I'll
learn to stop clicking my shutter at them. You *can* rescue them, but I've
never found one that quite conveyed the majesty I was trying to capture.

In article .com,
Scott W wrote:
I didn't say a digital camera has 17 stops of range, what I said was 8
bit /color sRGB has 17 stops of range. The photo I posted a link to
was made form two photos shot at diferent exposers and blended
together.
17 stop is from log(255^2.2)/log(2), I have not seen a digital camera
yet that can make full use of this range, maybe 11 to 12 stops for the
20D.

The gamma in sRGB is slope limited. The real contrast (for 8-bit/ch) should
be in the order of 12 stops.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:40:10 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

The gamma in sRGB is slope limited. The real contrast (for 8-bit/ch) should
be in the order of 12 stops.

Is it at all possible to get you all to take these digital
topics to the appropriate group ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 08:40:10 +0200, (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

The gamma in sRGB is slope limited. The real contrast (for 8-bit/ch) should
be in the order of 12 stops.

Is it at all possible to get you all to take these digital
topics to the appropriate group ?

Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.puresilver.org

"Boat" wrote in message
m...

By far the greatest challenge we face is fitting the captured brightness
range onto paper. [...]

The word "fitting" bothers me; it is as if someone were to take an arbitrary
image and numerically compress or expand it into a foreign metric (pure
black to pure white). The true challenge is interpreting the luminance(s)
into what we want them to be.