What was wrong with film?

MikeWhy writes:

So, it's time for your juvenile antics to pack up and leave us.

I don't understand the personal attack. What is your point?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Reciprocity Failure writes:

Sorry, I apparently was too subtle. Expansion in zone system terms means
increasing dynamic range. I was trying to politely tell you that contrary to
your statement, Ansel Adams didn't spend much of his life trying to compress
dynamic ranges.

Well, yes, he did. The real world has a much greater range of
luminosities than can be recorded on film or paper. Ansel spent a lot
of time figuring out how to capture as much information as possible from
the real-world range of luminosities in a form that could still be
useful on film and paper, and this inevitably required a great deal of
compression and selection. A lot of compression is inherent in
photography, but more still is required in many situations for best
results.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Ansel spent a lot
of time figuring out how to capture as much information as possible from
the real-world range of luminosities in a form that could still be
useful on film and paper

I agree

and this inevitably required a great deal of
compression and selection.

Not necessarily. Some scenes or visions of scenes require contraction, some
require expansion, some require neither. That's why there is such a thing as
N and N + development as well as N minus. The need to expand the tonal range
is also why Adams developed the technique of selenium toning negatives.
That's also why we sometimes use colored filters on our cameras with black
and white film. That's part of the reason why there is such a thing as grade
4 and grade 5 paper and why there is such a thing as number 4 and 5 filters
used with variable contrast papers, to mention only a handful of techniques
sometimes used to expand the tonal range of a negative or print that would
be unnecessary if contraction was the only or the principal problem involved
with photography.

A lot of compression is inherent in
photography, but more still is required in many situations for best
results.

A lot of compression isn't inherent in photography. A lot of compression may
be needed when photographing scenes that present a range of tones greater
than the film can handle and/or when the print you wish to make will involve
a smaller range of tones than exist in the scene. But then a lot of
expansion may be needed when photographing scenes with a limited tonal range
and/or when the print you wish to make will involve a greater range of tones
than exist in the scene.

I'm reasonably familiar with Adams' life and with his work. If you can point
me to some source for your statement that he spent much of his life working
on methods to contract tonal ranges I'll happily admit error but based on
what I know now this is an incorrect statement to the extent it implies that
this was the dominant or principal technical problem on which he spent his
life. Take a look at his books "The Print" and "The Negative." You'll find
very little, maybe one percent if that, devoted to contracting the tonal
range of negatives or prints.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure writes:

Sorry, I apparently was too subtle. Expansion in zone system terms
means
increasing dynamic range. I was trying to politely tell you that
contrary to
your statement, Ansel Adams didn't spend much of his life trying to
compress
dynamic ranges.

Well, yes, he did. The real world has a much greater range of
luminosities than can be recorded on film or paper. Ansel spent a lot
of time figuring out how to capture as much information as possible from
the real-world range of luminosities in a form that could still be
useful on film and paper, and this inevitably required a great deal of
compression and selection. A lot of compression is inherent in
photography, but more still is required in many situations for best
results.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Unless there is some special technique you're using with which I'm not
familiar, you can't make a print that shows densities equal to ten distinct
stops using normal materials (and of course not too many scenes contain a
ten stop range in the first place). That's what I tried to explain in my
previous message and that's why I was, and am, confused by your statement.
How did you conclude that your dull muddy prints contained a ten stop range?
The way print density ranges are usually measured is through use of a
reflection densitometer. Is that what you did? If not, how did you decide
that the prints contained a ten stop range?

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure wrote:

I'm not sure what you're saying.

What I'm saying is if you end up with a print that has 10 stops of the
original scene displayed on the paper, it's going to be a dull, muddy
mess.
--

Stacey

Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Unless there is some special technique you're using with which I'm not
familiar, you can't make a print that shows densities equal to ten
distinct stops using normal materials (and of course not too many scenes
contain a ten stop range in the first place). That's what I tried to
explain in my
previous message and that's why I was, and am, confused by your
statement. How did you conclude that your dull muddy prints contained a
ten stop range?

What I'm talking about is changing the contrast of the original scene to the
point of being so flat, it looks like mud. IMHO 99% of photographic images
can be captures in the f-stop range that slide film handles. If you -use-
all the information on print film (10+ stops), the contast is so low on the
print it looks like crap.

Do you understand this? :-)
--

Stacey

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, Stacey posted:

What I'm talking about is changing the contrast of the original scene
to the point of being so flat, it looks like mud. IMHO 99% of
photographic images can be captures in the f-stop range that slide
film handles. If you -use- all the information on print film (10+
stops), the contast is so low on the print it looks like crap.

Why would the image become flat if the full contrast range is used?

Try it and see for yourself.

Isn't
that a compositional issue? I'd think that low-contrast scenes may or may
not be improved in a photographic image by increasing the contrast. It
would depend on such things as the subject and intent of the image, no?

Try it and see for yourself.


Do you understand this? :-)

Not really. It sounds more like a personal preference than a technical
matter.


It's -not- a technical matter and yes you can use the full range of print
film (digitally) to make a print. Not sure anyone would ever be proud to
display the results. Using chemical/optical prints, you have to choose the
range of the negative you want to put on the papar. There is a reason they
don't make photo paper low enough in contrast to print all the info on the
negative.

--

Stacey

Recently, Stacey posted:

Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Unless there is some special technique you're using with which I'm
not familiar, you can't make a print that shows densities equal to
ten distinct stops using normal materials (and of course not too
many scenes contain a ten stop range in the first place). That's
what I tried to explain in my
previous message and that's why I was, and am, confused by your
statement. How did you conclude that your dull muddy prints
contained a ten stop range?

What I'm talking about is changing the contrast of the original scene
to the point of being so flat, it looks like mud. IMHO 99% of
photographic images can be captures in the f-stop range that slide
film handles. If you -use- all the information on print film (10+
stops), the contast is so low on the print it looks like crap.

Why would the image become flat if the full contrast range is used? Isn't
that a compositional issue? I'd think that low-contrast scenes may or may
not be improved in a photographic image by increasing the contrast. It
would depend on such things as the subject and intent of the image, no?

Do you understand this? :-)

Not really. It sounds more like a personal preference than a technical
matter.

Neil

Recently, Stacey posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, Stacey posted:

What I'm talking about is changing the contrast of the original
scene to the point of being so flat, it looks like mud. IMHO 99% of
photographic images can be captures in the f-stop range that slide
film handles. If you -use- all the information on print film (10+
stops), the contast is so low on the print it looks like crap.

Why would the image become flat if the full contrast range is used?

Try it and see for yourself.

After almost 40 years of "trying it myself", I think I'll just go for
trying to understand what you're presenting.

Do you understand this? :-)

Not really. It sounds more like a personal preference than a
technical matter.


It's -not- a technical matter and yes you can use the full range of
print film (digitally) to make a print. Not sure anyone would ever be
proud to display the results. Using chemical/optical prints, you have
to choose the range of the negative you want to put on the papar.
There is a reason they don't make photo paper low enough in contrast
to print all the info on the negative.

Hmm. I think we're talking apples and oranges, here. What this paragraph
seems to suggest is that the problem is not with the scene, or with the
negatives, but that most print media won't reproduce the full range of
contrast that a negative can record. BTW - that has nothing to do with
printing "digitally" or optically. Both are constrained.

What you were describing as being a "flat" image if the full density range
is printed (above) is unlikely to be a reproduction of the full density
range, as measured by a reflective densitometer. If it was, the amount of
contrast would be determined by the scene or subject, not the technique.

Neil

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Unless there is some special technique you're using with which I'm not
familiar, you can't make a print that shows densities equal to ten
distinct stops using normal materials (and of course not too many scenes
contain a ten stop range in the first place). That's what I tried to
explain in my
previous message and that's why I was, and am, confused by your
statement. How did you conclude that your dull muddy prints contained a
ten stop range?

What I'm talking about is changing the contrast of the original scene to
the
point of being so flat, it looks like mud. IMHO 99% of photographic images
can be captures in the f-stop range that slide film handles. If you -use-
all the information on print film (10+ stops), the contast is so low on
the
print it looks like crap.

Do you understand this? :-)
--

Stacey

Without meaning any disprespect, I think you would improve your
understanding of how film and paper work by picking up a 21 step wedge - a
Stouffer uncalibrated step wedge can be bought for about $10 - and playing
around with making contact prints of it at various contrasts and various
exposure times. In no more than an hour's time you'll be able to visualize
how film and paper work to provide tones and tonal range. For example,
you'll see that if you utilize all the information on "print" film (which,
BTW, doesn't include ten distinct stops) you would get a very high contrast
print, not a very flat print.

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
Reciprocity Failure wrote:

Unless there is some special technique you're using with which I'm not
familiar, you can't make a print that shows densities equal to ten
distinct stops using normal materials (and of course not too many scenes
contain a ten stop range in the first place). That's what I tried to
explain in my
previous message and that's why I was, and am, confused by your
statement. How did you conclude that your dull muddy prints contained a
ten stop range?

What I'm talking about is changing the contrast of the original scene to
the
point of being so flat, it looks like mud. IMHO 99% of photographic images
can be captures in the f-stop range that slide film handles. If you -use-
all the information on print film (10+ stops), the contast is so low on
the
print it looks like crap.

Do you understand this? :-)
--

Stacey