DYNAMIC RANGE LOVES THE 40D!

Gosh! You keep that up and you'll
get moiree, David!


David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:33 PM:
"Scott W" wrote:
I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


People keep saying that, but I wonder. I suspect that color balance gets out
of wack (or something else goes wrong) if you overexpose beyond what they
are designed for. If overxposing were a sensible thing to do, the film mfrs
would say so. But they don't.

Exactly. I go for correct placement of tones in the
zone scale. Works every single time. When I get
the patience to do it, of course...

"Scott W" wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 wrote:

My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
print.

I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. What
is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
rangle? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
the image.


I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
scale.

*: Truth in advertising: I'm still figuring this stuff out. Numbers are
subject to change, especially if I put dedicated B&W inks in one of my
printers.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

In rec.photo.digital Scott W wrote:
On Sep 19, 1:11?pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"Scott W" wrote:

On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 wrote:



My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
print.

I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. ?What
is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
rangle? ? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
the image.


I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
scale.

*: Truth in advertising: I'm still figuring this stuff out. Numbers are
subject to change, especially if I put dedicated B&W inks in one of my
printers.

My own take on this is that 255,255,255 should always print out as
full white, anything less should not, but how far we can see into the
shadows is going to depend on the technology used to show the image.
So I guess I am saying that the white point show be fixed but the
black point is going to change from output to output.

Even with the same monitor I can see much further into the shadows
when viewing at night then during the day.

And when looking at a good print I can see much further into the
shadows when viewing the print under a very strong light. That's why
when I set my monitor to show me as close to the same as a print I
looked athe monitor in its ideal conditions, which was a dim shaded
room, and the print in its ideal conditions, which was outside in the
garden on a bright day.

--
Chris Malcolm, IPAB, School of Informatics,
Informatics Forum, 10 Crichton Street, Edinburgh EH8 9AB

Noons, 9/19/2008 11:49 PM:

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 1:35 PM:

There are areas in all of your shots you posted that are 255,255,255.
There are also areas that are 0,0,0.
Good luck printing those.

No problem whatsoever. It's called full dynamic range.
Something you dslr users are not familiar with, with
that washed out watercolour stuff you call "photos".

Ever tried to get an image with ANYTHING outside
200,200,200 and 100,100,100?

You should really try it: it's called full dynamic range
and is what reality uses. Your beloved Ansel Adams invented
a thing to help get that called the zone system: it had
quite a few more zones than just 4-6.
That's why his stuff was so impressive. Try producing
images that have more than 150 different steps in tonality,
it's not really that hard and quite rewarding.


In your defense, the pics looked a lot better on my calibrated monitor
at home than my crappy LCD monitor at work.

I know. If I find a way of making pictures look good
in ANY monitor including the crap people work with most
of the time, I'll let you know!
Try this for REAL detail:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
LOL!

No sir. Detail is detail, sharpness is sharpness. You are mistaking
sharpness for detail. Sharp edges do not detail make. Push that image
up a bit - there is no detail whatsoever in the roofs of the buildings
behind the trees, no hint of corrugations or tiles, or bricks in the
buildng beyond - in fact, almost all surfaces are artificially smooth,
only tonal boundaries are at all sharp. In other words, the MTF sucks.

Given your claimed 'knowledge' of things photographic, I am surprised -
or maybe not.

Colin D.

Noons, 9/20/2008 12:13 AM:

Gosh! You keep that up and you'll
get moiree, David!


David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 17/09/2008 4:33 PM:
"Scott W" wrote:
I think some negative films could do very well, if they were exposed a
couple of stop passed where most people tend to expose there film.
Slide film would not have a chance IMO.


People keep saying that, but I wonder. I suspect that color balance
gets out of wack (or something else goes wrong) if you overexpose
beyond what they are designed for. If overxposing were a sensible
thing to do, the film mfrs would say so. But they don't.

Exactly. I go for correct placement of tones in the
zone scale. Works every single time. When I get
the patience to do it, of course...

You do realize that the zone system inherently involves variable
development time to control contrast; that exposure is only half the
story, thereby placing the measured tones on a gamma curve controlled by
development?

Using the zone system on modern films, where the development time and
gamma cannot be varied really undermines the value of the zone system,
which is basically reduced to placing mid-grey about half-way up the
curve.

You cannot now simultaneously place shadow, mid, and highlight tones
where you want them, the best you can do is to place a particular tone
where you want it, and let the others fall where the development puts them.

Pity about that. "I use the Zone System" sounds so cool, doesn't it?

Colin D.

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:05 PM:



No sir. Detail is detail, sharpness is sharpness. You are mistaking
sharpness for detail. Sharp edges do not detail make. Push that image
up a bit - there is no detail whatsoever in the roofs of the buildings
behind the trees, no hint of corrugations or tiles, or bricks in the
buildng beyond - in fact, almost all surfaces are artificially smooth,
only tonal boundaries are at all sharp. In other words, the MTF sucks.

are you totally deranged? WTF are you "pushing up" a
downressed jpg for? Do you *seriously* expect it to show
more detail? It's a 1280X850 downress, dickhead!
If you want to see MORE detail, just ask which area and
I'll post a crop of the original FULL SIZE image. Can you
even comprehend what the term "downress" means?
Did you even REMOTELY read what was written
there, you moron?


Given your claimed 'knowledge' of things photographic, I am surprised -
or maybe not.

Dear me, you just showed again what a stupid idiot
you really are, Colin. Must be that high wind in NZ:
straight between the ears, eh?

I'd STFU if I were you: it's really embarrassing
to hear you clop all over your own d**k...

David J. Littleboy wrote,on my timestamp of 20/09/2008 9:11 AM:
"Scott W" wrote:
On Sep 19, 4:19 am, Annika1980 wrote:
My point was that anything under about 15,15,15 will print to black
and anything over about 240,240,240 will blow out to white on the
print.

Not quite correct. And anyways, you only got 8 bits to play
with in that printer driver, that's 8 stops at best *if* the
printer can handle the subtleties in tonality: why shoot
yourself in the foot by creating images with even LESS dr
to start with?


I got to side with Noons on this one, rare but it does happen. What
is the point in having a range of 0 to 255 if you don't use the whole
rangle? Seems to me if a print driver blows out anything pass
240,240,240 to pure white that is a problem with the print driver not
the image.


I think the real issue is that print DR is a less than even 8* stops, so
it's impossible print so that everything you see on a calibrated
high-contrast monitor can be seen as clearly on the print. The gray scale
wedge patterns I've printed all lose it pretty badly in the shadows,
although the highlights do quite nicely. You have to dodge the shadows if
you want to see the shadow detail, since bringing up the shadows would
contrast in the rest of the image. But that doesn't work for a gray scale
wedge because it just would lose differentiation somewhere else on the
scale.


Folks, the REAL problem is that everyone here is talking
different units of measurement without defining what each means!

Printers can *easily* produce images which originally had more than
8 EIs *relative* DR even though most cannot do more than about 6
stops *absolute* range. All that is needed is to compress the
additional DR into what the printer can do!

This is what colour negative films have done for years by compressing
10 stops into 7, while modern slide does 9 into 7 and b&w does 10
into 8. That's the function of the "knee" and "elbow" in the response
curves you see in the technical data. Yes, there are films with
flat curves, but for now just stay with me he I'm talking the
*general* case!

The *real* trick is to make sure the *final* output media is capable
of displaying the expanded differences in tonality range.

To make it easier to understand, an analogy: make the printer
*separate* EI 5 and 6 in a form that is *clearly* visible in the
final print. It doesn't have to be a *full* 1 EI desnity difference,
it just must be *clearly* visible.
Not easy, and few printers can do it. The cost also rises
proportionally... Requires also all kinds of curve adjustment
and fitting in the drivers and that also costs.

That is also why some new cameras process 14-bit colour even though
we can easily fit 10 EIs into 12-bits: to give them the ability to
slightly manipulate the curves so the different tones can be discerned
in the final jpg output at 8 EIs. Assuming of course a good
quality final output screen, properly adjusted.

That's been the problem all along. Most folks who use film are not
aware of these subtleties of digital image rendering and D-A
conversion. That is why they end up with overly saturated images
with lots of exaggerated noise. Once that learning curve is
overcome there is no difference between what one can achieve
with film or digital sensors, if the output media is kept the
same for both.

Counter case: without any adjustment, try to print with an
enlarger a dslr image and print with a digital printer a
negative image, and THEN compare both side by side! See what
I mean?


Horses for courses, is what is needed. Fit the process
to the target you got, rather than fit the target to
your process.


Witness this for an example of bad digital processing:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/.../5d2%20cap.jpg
above is a 100% size 300X200 crop of a 5D2 image available from he
http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/canoneos5dmkii_preview/
it's this one:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/gallery/ca...s/img_0660.jpg
if you care to download and verify by yourself.
It's one of the sample images of the new 5D2.

No: I'm *not* picking on Canon, it's just an example:
I could do the same with a Nikon, Sony, whatever.

Now, I ask you: is that 21MP resolution? Or even good colour
saturation in the full size jpg? Of course not! I really hope
Canon will fix this problem in the Digic IV. Notice how the
"easy to process" edge between the cap and the background water is
quite sharp, yet *on the same plane* the letters in the back of the
cap are completely messed up!
If that is not a *bug* in the Digic IV software demosaic and sharpen
algorithms, I don't know what is!


I can do MUCH better rez than that with film, and I have.
Here is the demonstration:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/art/...escue-98461919
same image type, same sunny conditions, look at the colour
saturation DIFFERENCE! And no, good rez is not synonymous
with bad saturation:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/...ll%20def02.jpg
that is also a 100% size 300X200 of the original 5600X3700
scan. I didn't particularly sharpen this one, although of course
I could if I wanted to: that is not the purpose of this.

But even without it, - unfair to film given the Digic IV is clearly
over-processing *selective* areas of the jpg - I can still resolve
text at much SMALLER size than the one in the cap in the 5D2 crop!

Same size, same 100%, same original image dimensions, same
21MP theoretical resolution, same jpg compression in both cases.
Film shows very small detail, the 5D2 does not: simple as that!

The 5D2 is also *clearly* much *worse* in colour saturation - both
photos were taken in full sun - in resolution and even in sharpness
of an already ultra-processed final jpg:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/.../5d2%20oof.jpg
(Ye gawds! *Who* let this one out?!...)

I hope someone alerts Canon to the obvious problem they have with
this incarnation of the Digic IV: it's obvious it's got its knickers
in a twist in the colour curve processing and demosaic and sharpen
software.

Not to say they won't fix it: I fully expect in a year's time we'll
be seeing full rez, fully saturated colour photos from the 5D2 with
reasonable sharpness even at full size crops.

It will never be totally sharp, that's also why Bret's 100% original
crop was so soft. That is NOT a problem of the software or lens:
it's just the way demosaic works in Bayer sensors. Or ANY d/a
sensor for that matter, including scanners!

But for now it remains a perfect example of the problems of
fitting correct DR into a limited media and then "re-fitting"
it all over again in the final output media. A common problem
with ANY digitized image, no matter what sensor was used to
make it. Which is the point I wanted to make.

Now, to bed: tomorrow is another work week!

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:21 PM:


You do realize that the zone system inherently involves variable
development time to control contrast; that exposure is only half the
story, thereby placing the measured tones on a gamma curve controlled by
development?

No, I *really* needed you to alert me to that...



Using the zone system on modern films, where the development time and
gamma cannot be varied really undermines the value of the zone system,
which is basically reduced to placing mid-grey about half-way up the curve.


Try Acros at 50ASA with 8 minutes versus Acros at 100ASA and
9 minutes, both in DDX, then come back to me with that
"modern films are not usable in the zone system" and "everything
has to be half-way up the curve"! And BTW: the *whole* point
of the zone system development control is to *move* the curve,
not the exposure!

Cripes, Colin: you really don't know what you're talking
about, do you? Spend some time in apug and learn, man.
Instead of just spurting the usual dslr marketing moronic
utter *crap*!


You cannot now simultaneously place shadow, mid, and highlight tones
where you want them, the best you can do is to place a particular tone
where you want it, and let the others fall where the development puts them.

Really? I'd like you to explain that to all the apug
members. Let me see: they are all ignorant idiots while
you are the only "genius". Right?


Pity about that. "I use the Zone System" sounds so cool, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. That is however not the case with you...

Noons, 9/22/2008 12:15 AM:

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:05 PM:



No sir. Detail is detail, sharpness is sharpness. You are mistaking
sharpness for detail. Sharp edges do not detail make. Push that
image up a bit - there is no detail whatsoever in the roofs of the
buildings
behind the trees, no hint of corrugations or tiles, or bricks in the
buildng beyond - in fact, almost all surfaces are artificially smooth,
only tonal boundaries are at all sharp. In other words, the MTF sucks.

are you totally deranged? WTF are you "pushing up" a
downressed jpg for? Do you *seriously* expect it to show
more detail? It's a 1280X850 downress, dickhead!
If you want to see MORE detail, just ask which area and
I'll post a crop of the original FULL SIZE image. Can you
even comprehend what the term "downress" means?
Did you even REMOTELY read what was written
there, you moron?


Given your claimed 'knowledge' of things photographic, I am surprised
- or maybe not.

Dear me, you just showed again what a stupid idiot
you really are, Colin. Must be that high wind in NZ:
straight between the ears, eh?

Reading between the inevitable ad hominem remarks - your trademark - it
was you who posted that image saying:

Try this for REAL detail:
http://wizofoz2k.deviantart.com/journal/20548136/
LOL!

Why would you post that boast about film and provide the link if you
were going to show an image that was not capable of substantiating your
claim?

and, 1280x850 *is* capable of showing more than that image does, so, as
I said, that image sucks. As do you.

I'd STFU if I were you: it's really embarrassing
to hear you clop all over your own d**k...

The day you're embarrassed by anything will be the day, Noons. You're a
bull**** artist of the first order, a champion of the art. To
paraphrase the old saying, you have no science so you try to baffle with
bull****. Try you might, but few here would be baffled by you. and yes,
in case you missed it, that was an ad hominem attack, just so you might
recognise another one when it comes along.

Colin D.

Noons, 9/22/2008 1:27 AM:

Colin.D wrote,on my timestamp of 21/09/2008 7:21 PM:


You do realize that the zone system inherently involves variable
development time to control contrast; that exposure is only half the
story, thereby placing the measured tones on a gamma curve controlled
by development?

No, I *really* needed you to alert me to that...



Using the zone system on modern films, where the development time and
gamma cannot be varied really undermines the value of the zone system,
which is basically reduced to placing mid-grey about half-way up the
curve.


Try Acros at 50ASA with 8 minutes versus Acros at 100ASA and
9 minutes, both in DDX, then come back to me with that
"modern films are not usable in the zone system" and "everything
has to be half-way up the curve"! And BTW: the *whole* point
of the zone system development control is to *move* the curve,
not the exposure!

Cripes, Colin: you really don't know what you're talking
about, do you? Spend some time in apug and learn, man.
Instead of just spurting the usual dslr marketing moronic
utter *crap*!

Ah, yes, I was a bit slack there; till now the conversation has been
around 35mm film machine processed, as in color negative film, and I
wasn't considering home processing.

However, unless you are processing sheet film individually, exposure by
exposure, my comments still apply. You cannot fully use the zone system
if you are shooting roll film, unless you have a magic way of varying
the development frame by frame, which I doubt even you could perform.

Not to forget that the original zone system strictly applies to
monochrome film. Very limited development variation can be applied to
color film without color shifts.


You cannot now simultaneously place shadow, mid, and highlight tones
where you want them, the best you can do is to place a particular tone
where you want it, and let the others fall where the development puts
them.

Really? I'd like you to explain that to all the apug
members.

Unless Apug members are shooting cut or sheet film one at a time, as did
Ansel Adams, then they cannot adjust individual process times either.

Let me see: they are all ignorant idiots while
you are the only "genius". Right?

I have reason to doubt your reasoning powers, Noons. FYI, knowledge is
a continuum, there is a huge gulf between an ignorant idiot and a
genius, and most of us are somewhere between the two, including you and
me, and everybody else you take issue with. Only difference is, you
appear to be closer to the former limit.


Pity about that. "I use the Zone System" sounds so cool, doesn't it?

Yes, it does. That is however not the case with you...

See my para. above ...

Colin D.