Black & White Pixels versus Silver Nitrate Crystals

How much dynamic range is required to accurately imitate Ansel Adams

Photographs? How many digital bits would be needed? While this is

similar to my last post and may be deleted, I thought it deserved a

new topic due to comparison to film. What digital cameras can

achieve close to an Ansel Adams result? Do any cameras vary voltage

pixel by pixel to extend B&W range?

<i>"What digital cameras can achieve close to an Ansel Adams result?"</i><p>

 

None, unless they have Ansel Adams behind them. <p>

 

You can extend dynamic range as much as you want with a digital camera by making multiple exposures at different settings and digitally combining them, so it's almost pointless to try to construct a digital camera capable of a 10-stop range. Adams achieved close to that with film only through extensive exposure/development/printing manipulation anyway.<p>

 

At any rate, you could spend your whole life trying, maybe even finally duplicating Adams' technical expertise, yet never produce a compelling photograph.

SMal cameras of course. They solve every problem don't they?

 

Ray, if you want to push the Smal technology (and I'm sure you do), don't try to hide your agenda. You know damn well that some cameras "vary the voltage pixel by pixel to extend the (dynamic) range".

 

Stop messing around with the forums asking bogus question you know the answer to in order to promote discussion of a topic you want discussed. Youre being disingenuous.

But didn't Ansel use LArg cameras? :P

 

Personally, I don't think I like the sound of the "Mal" part of whatever it is. Mal usually means "bad". MAL-practice, MAL-ware, MAL-evolent, MAL-icious, MAL-arkey, MAL-de-mer, MAL-t Liquor.

 

Oh, forget that last one.

Sorry, Bob. You are right I do know SMaL cameras can vary voltage pixel by pixel. I do not know and currently do not believe they have the ability to extend B&W range - since all of mine including my non hacked $80 flatfoto have bayer filters. I believe someone in an earlier post indicated a human eye can only perceive 500 shades (9 bits) of of gray. Somehow that doesn't seem to coincide with Ansel's work or Silver Nitrate molecular limits - but I don't know and that is why I am posting questions. While it certainly appears that I believe strongly in SMaL patents and technology, I am not even close to understanding a fraction of the details. There is no financial motive - SMaL is privately owned, and the hack is not mine - I only tried to organize and moderate threads. My main desire is to better educate myself and others especially if new technology presents useable advances. I will grant that if the photo.net culture were to show interest and find value, I would be in line to buy SMaL stock should they ever go public.

 

Bob, can you provide some suggestions on how I can better use photo.net to ask my questions and educate myself on SMaL Technology which in truth is what I am trying to understand but am unable to without apparently offending others.

What I saw till now on SMALcamera sample pictures was quite similar to doing a exposure bracket and (realy) badly photoshoping the stuff together.

I believe automatic neg to paper printers have this feature too. None of these stupid robots is able to substitute Adams yet. Capturing everything is only a very 1st step. Making it good looking is the real art or task.

In 10 years digital cameras might be able to do it automatically.

Any camera that has Ansel Adams' genius driving it (and the rendering/printing post

process) can achieve Ansel Adams' results.

 

If you want to know more about SMaL technology, forget Photo.net. Do a search with

Google or any of a hundred other web search engines on 'SMaL'. Photo.net is a

collection of forums and articles about photography, not imaging chip technology.

 

Godfrey

I can forget SMaL for awhile, I was trying not to mention it anymore but Bob is requesting my honest expression including source of my curiosities. And I have tried googling for black and white dynamic human eye - but found highly technical stuff indicating our eyes are limited to 200 stops not even close to 500. I strongly believe experts exits on photo.net that can give me more informed answers than google (google is great, getting better and someday all google photo questions might just point back to photo.net - many already do).

No idea what SMaL is, nor do I care, but when Ctein talked about how many levels the eye could discern, I believe he made a qualifying statement- the levels have to be distributed properly. I assume that means (using the minimum number he quoted) equally distributed levels won't do the job.

 

BTW, haven't I seen camera commercials where some kind of "scene guide" puts lines on the LCD so you can place the dancing turtle in the middle of the photo? Isn't that one step closer to having Ansel in the camera?

Ray,

 

Go to the library and pick up a few good books on imaging sensors, the human eye, etc. This is a deep subject. Reading and understanding the reference books is the best way to become knowledgeable about a complex subject. The "experts" on photo.net may indeed know a lot, but if you don't know the material yourself, you will not be able to determine whether they're giving you an opinion or stating facts.

 

Godfrey

Some of the latest 22mp digital backs have a usable dynamic range far greater than that of conventional film. Getting a dynamic range is not the problem - it's distributing the tones to look right and not flat and dull that requires the skill.

Extended dynamic range, better than negative film? Where'd you hear that, john?

Once upon a time when I was much younger I ran a lens test on my Nikon. Using Tri-X film and Accufine developer I was able to resolve up to 88-lines/mm (roughly two to three silver grains per line)in the film's longitudinal direction. In the vertical direction it was more like 65 lines/mm.

 

(This difference was because the developing tank could not be agitated randomly and had to be spun back and forth with a small knob.)

 

Assuming that Ansel Adams was even more careful developing his large format sheet film, the difference between B&W film and digital imaging is significant. One may further assume that the difference between Kodachrome (or Kodacolor) and the best digital imaging is many times greater than the difference with B&W film.

 

And that's without giving a thought to Ansel Adams' fantastic artistic vision and large format negatives ... let alone his meticulous darkroom technique for both film and prints.

 

You may want to read Ansel Adams' series on photography, starting with 'The Camera' and 'The Negative', or begin with something from Zone Six ... neither of which are likely to be in print any longer.