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

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:06:28 -0600, Frank Pittel
wrote:

can also use a _lot_ of ink!)

I went to a lecture given by a photographer that has done a lot of work in
the area of creating digital negatives. He even has a number of patents
covering some of the things that he does. One thing he learned very early on
is to not use black inks when printing the negatives. He brought some of his
work and it was stunning. I have a URL to his website somewhere and if
there's interest I'll post it when I find it.


Dan Burkholder is the name that
often comes up in this context.

http://www.danburkholder.com/


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

Although I like some of the concept usage, I find some of them
a lot less successful than Jerry Uslemann's work. Still in general
I like Dan's work better than some digital work and he does print on
Platinum.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
rafe bustin wrote:

On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 07:06:28 -0600, Frank Pittel
wrote:

can also use a _lot_ of ink!)

I went to a lecture given by a photographer that has done a lot of work in
the area of creating digital negatives. He even has a number of patents
covering some of the things that he does. One thing he learned very early on
is to not use black inks when printing the negatives. He brought some of his
work and it was stunning. I have a URL to his website somewhere and if
there's interest I'll post it when I find it.


Dan Burkholder is the name that
often comes up in this context.

http://www.danburkholder.com/


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

Although I like some of the concept usage, I find some of them
a lot less successful than Jerry Uslemann's work. Still in general
I like Dan's work better than some digital work and he does print on
Platinum.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:04 -0000, (Travis
Porco) wrote:


But even with a better camera, this sort of software messing around is
just not something I want to fool around on a routine basis.
It's only fun the first time and after that it's just extra work, on a
large number of images. Higher dynamic range image capture is, all else
being equal, better. Actually very high dynamic range sensors and file formats
do exist; it's an area where digital can really do very well. As far as I can
tell there is a ways to go before lots of this possibility becomes a reality
in commercial digital cameras. If we settle for software mucking around as
a substitute for better image capture it will never get better.


I don't believe that digital capture
yet has the range of C41 film, but I'm
speaking only from personal experience
and not from technical specs or "first
principles" of physics.

In almost all cases, the capture has far
more available range than print technology
can use. The artistry is in how the input
tones map to available output tones in the
chosen media.


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

On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:04 -0000, (Travis
Porco) wrote:


But even with a better camera, this sort of software messing around is
just not something I want to fool around on a routine basis.
It's only fun the first time and after that it's just extra work, on a
large number of images. Higher dynamic range image capture is, all else
being equal, better. Actually very high dynamic range sensors and file formats
do exist; it's an area where digital can really do very well. As far as I can
tell there is a ways to go before lots of this possibility becomes a reality
in commercial digital cameras. If we settle for software mucking around as
a substitute for better image capture it will never get better.


I don't believe that digital capture
yet has the range of C41 film, but I'm
speaking only from personal experience
and not from technical specs or "first
principles" of physics.

In almost all cases, the capture has far
more available range than print technology
can use. The artistry is in how the input
tones map to available output tones in the
chosen media.


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

rafe bustin wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:04 -0000, (Travis
Porco) wrote:


But even with a better camera, this sort of software messing around
is
just not something I want to fool around on a routine basis.
It's only fun the first time and after that it's just extra work, on
a
large number of images. Higher dynamic range image capture is, all
else
being equal, better. Actually very high dynamic range sensors and
file formats
do exist; it's an area where digital can really do very well. As far
as I can
tell there is a ways to go before lots of this possibility becomes a
reality
in commercial digital cameras. If we settle for software mucking
around as
a substitute for better image capture it will never get better.


I don't believe that digital capture
yet has the range of C41 film, but I'm
speaking only from personal experience
and not from technical specs or "first
principles" of physics.

In almost all cases, the capture has far
more available range than print technology
can use. The artistry is in how the input
tones map to available output tones in the
chosen media.



8 bit/color sRGB photo have an incredible dynamic range potential, just
over 17 stops. Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots, that
uses that full range. I have it as a resized tiff since jpg tends to
muck up with the range and I loss a couple of stops. Play with levels
on this photo and you will get a feel for the range in it. I don't
do this very often since there is not real point to having an image
with this range, fun to know it can be done but pretty pointless.

http://www.sewcon.com/drange/wide.tif

Scott

rafe bustin wrote:
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:00:04 -0000, (Travis
Porco) wrote:


But even with a better camera, this sort of software messing around
is
just not something I want to fool around on a routine basis.
It's only fun the first time and after that it's just extra work, on
a
large number of images. Higher dynamic range image capture is, all
else
being equal, better. Actually very high dynamic range sensors and
file formats
do exist; it's an area where digital can really do very well. As far
as I can
tell there is a ways to go before lots of this possibility becomes a
reality
in commercial digital cameras. If we settle for software mucking
around as
a substitute for better image capture it will never get better.


I don't believe that digital capture
yet has the range of C41 film, but I'm
speaking only from personal experience
and not from technical specs or "first
principles" of physics.

In almost all cases, the capture has far
more available range than print technology
can use. The artistry is in how the input
tones map to available output tones in the
chosen media.



8 bit/color sRGB photo have an incredible dynamic range potential, just
over 17 stops. Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots, that
uses that full range. I have it as a resized tiff since jpg tends to
muck up with the range and I loss a couple of stops. Play with levels
on this photo and you will get a feel for the range in it. I don't
do this very often since there is not real point to having an image
with this range, fun to know it can be done but pretty pointless.

http://www.sewcon.com/drange/wide.tif

Scott

On 27 Mar 2005 13:36:23 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:


8 bit/color sRGB photo have an incredible dynamic range potential, just
over 17 stops. Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots, that
uses that full range. I have it as a resized tiff since jpg tends to
muck up with the range and I loss a couple of stops. Play with levels
on this photo and you will get a feel for the range in it. I don't
do this very often since there is not real point to having an image
with this range, fun to know it can be done but pretty pointless.


I don't believe for a moment that any digicam
has a real dynamic range of 17 stops. That's
way beyond C41, and way beyond my experience
with a Canon G2 and 10D. How did you arrive
at this figure? CCD chip specs I've seen
specify a dynamic range of 12 stops (4000:1).



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

On 27 Mar 2005 13:36:23 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:


8 bit/color sRGB photo have an incredible dynamic range potential, just
over 17 stops. Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots, that
uses that full range. I have it as a resized tiff since jpg tends to
muck up with the range and I loss a couple of stops. Play with levels
on this photo and you will get a feel for the range in it. I don't
do this very often since there is not real point to having an image
with this range, fun to know it can be done but pretty pointless.


I don't believe for a moment that any digicam
has a real dynamic range of 17 stops. That's
way beyond C41, and way beyond my experience
with a Canon G2 and 10D. How did you arrive
at this figure? CCD chip specs I've seen
specify a dynamic range of 12 stops (4000:1).



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

On 27 Mar 2005 13:36:23 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:


8 bit/color sRGB photo have an incredible dynamic range potential, just
over 17 stops. Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots, that
uses that full range. I have it as a resized tiff since jpg tends to
muck up with the range and I loss a couple of stops. Play with levels
on this photo and you will get a feel for the range in it. I don't
do this very often since there is not real point to having an image
with this range, fun to know it can be done but pretty pointless.


I don't believe for a moment that any digicam
has a real dynamic range of 17 stops. That's
way beyond C41, and way beyond my experience
with a Canon G2 and 10D. How did you arrive
at this figure? CCD chip specs I've seen
specify a dynamic range of 12 stops (4000:1).



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

rafe bustin wrote:
On 27 Mar 2005 13:36:23 -0800, "Scott W" wrote:


8 bit/color sRGB photo have an incredible dynamic range potential,
just
over 17 stops. Here is a link to a photo I make using two shots,
that
uses that full range. I have it as a resized tiff since jpg tends
to
muck up with the range and I loss a couple of stops. Play with
levels
on this photo and you will get a feel for the range in it. I don't
do this very often since there is not real point to having an image
with this range, fun to know it can be done but pretty pointless.


I don't believe for a moment that any digicam
has a real dynamic range of 17 stops. That's
way beyond C41, and way beyond my experience
with a Canon G2 and 10D. How did you arrive
at this figure? CCD chip specs I've seen
specify a dynamic range of 12 stops (4000:1).



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

Scott