Dynamic Range of Negative Film

[john_a5]

<p>The tests that Kodak does are for traditional printing. Traditional printing needs certain density differences between "zones" in order to make an acceptable print. At the bottom end, the toe, in particular, things get really compressed but a scanner can read that and interpret it. On the other end, depending on the shoulder curve, is where there is normally a bit more latitude. But again, a scanner can still read and separate "zones" even when the shoulder flattens out further than where a traditional print can.</p>

<p>Tests, I have never been one to make those kinds of tests, I use film and push its use, but I think I have the experience over the years to know what does or doesn't work in practice. Believe me, what i did--could do--in a wet darkroom is totally different than what I can do with a film scan and the digital darkroom. I don't argue the "tests" for wet darkroom work but scanning is different--I don't know any analog printing process that can produce a full range print from a negative that looks clear, do you? Digital can--albeit it will be a bit rough!</p>

<p>I think everyone has to make their own conclusions and maybe test things in the field. Not every scanner or person's ability with it or in the digital darkroom is the same, you have to find what works for you. I just know there is more there than 10 stops with my own processes.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I just know there is more there than 10 stops with my own processes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What is your process for measuring that? The scanner-as-densitometer method or something else?</p>

<p>I'm curious because in some previous discussions on this topic, the technique some folks describe seems closer to tone mapping of the scanned negative/slide to give the impression of greater dynamic range rather than demonstrating the film actually recorded a greater dynamic range.</p>

<p>Others have described film exposure and developing techniques that would be unusual and less than optimal for conventional optical printing, sounding somewhat comparable to Mortensen's gamma infinity theory.</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@ Ken Papai, ahaha. I think it's funny you post a link to another forum I started and call it harsh. It's good people have their views and I find it amusing when someone gets offended because their opinions aren't parallel. People want to sugar coat everything so they don't hurt feelings. It's like these critique forums on here, everyone is basically saying nice things... how does that person getting critiqued ever expect to learn and grow if he thinks everything he does is wonderful. I'm pretty sure the admins of this website are getting to know me real quick. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>So if I understand you correctly, Chris, you are a purist who uses the superior medium of film. By contrast, a digital photographer's medium is inferior to yours, and thus you call such a photographer a "digi-snapper." And then you find it amusing when someone gets offended.</p>

<p>Edit: I just visited your profile to view some of your images. You seem not to have any. It would be interesting to see some of your work.</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Sarah Fox, I use both formats. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Why?</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Sarah Fox, Will you elaborate on your question? <br>

Also, Could you send a private message. This forum thread is not about the use of mediums. Thanks. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I just find it strange that you would use a medium that you describe thusly:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Because let's face it, digital still lacks those traits, great dynamic range, color tonality depth, suffers from moire, and yes, has no personality. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I was asking why you would use a medium with these traits, instead of using the superior medium of film exclusively (being a purist, and all). I'm sorry if this question does not follow the direction of your original post, which was...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard with modern scanners, the full range of a scanned negative is about 15-19 stops....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As far as I can tell, that post provided no indication as to the direction this discussion should take, hence Tom Mann's question. Anyway, I'm just curious why you don't want to use film exclusively, since it is replete with personality (unlike digital) and can achieve a full 19 stops of dynamic range (which digital cannot, at least not without HDR methods).</p>

<p>My questions to you are mostly rhetorical. I suppose it is my way of appealing to you for some modicum of civility on this forum. Digital photographers probably shoot digitally for the same reason film photographers shoot film -- because they prefer the medium. Nobody here is ignorant or naive for having made their respective choices, and I would hope we can all respect those choices.</p>

<p>There is no moderator symbol beside my name. I have no power here. I'm just appealing to you, as one forum member to another, not to sprinkle poison in our watering hole.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>Look at your film's characteristic curve. <br /> The straight portion of the curve is the part where you get no compression of tones.The straight line portion for most color negative films is about 3.0 log exposure units, or 10 stops. <br /> <br /> So while you can capture 10 stops of dynamic range on the negative, part of your artistic challenge is deciding what part of that to throw away on the print.</p>

[rossb]

<p> I like the term digi snapper. I am a digi snapper and a film snapper. I plan on snapping off a few this weekend. My DSLR is a snapping fool for sure but my F100 has a much more pleasant sound to it's snap. They both take a picture of whatever you aim it at. </p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@ Sarah Fox, You shouldn't find it strange I use a medium I dislike. I would use film exclusively, If I could.. Here's the thing, I'm not opposed to the small working class companies that I sometimes get commissioned by. Their companies are start ups, new in the game... and If a client has a budget of $5000, which will barely cover the cost of my time, the grips, lighting, make-up & hair stylist, and models... I'll shoot digital. The client likes it because it is faster but is naive to the quality. Because when you shoot everything perfect with digital you start to have a -cartoonish- looking ad. When you shoot with the same intent, style, and with film, it looks like a brilliant movie set, that looks surreal, and not unreal. It really is paramount. The bigger companies have a minimum budget of 25 grand... So you can see the difference. I got my start with art galleries for my work with film. And eventually was represented by a well known LA and New York gallery. This later started to branch out into magazine work. <br>

This is a very noisy and complicated world we live in, Sarah. Which is the very reason I haven't uploaded any of my photos... (Even if my gallery representatives would let me) Nor have I used an email or name that isn't anonymous. Chris Antidote? ha, I was looking at my assistant when we put those two together. Why? You ask... because I would be frowned upon if anyone I worked with, commissioned by, represented with, found out I was having my sh*ts and giggles in an online forum. My name is too distinctive and people talk. I like to post ridiculous question I already know the answer to and watch everyone argue. Which sometimes is hilarious and surprisingly sometimes very informative. </p>

[leslie_cheung]

<p>Maybe Antidote is an unknown film loser or maybe he is famous as he said. Either way, he's wrong in that the medium matters very much, it doesn't. It doesn't matter if he's HCB or, say, David Lynch...he's still wrong in that DR makes the pictures! </p>

<p>How often do you hear...Wow! Look at the DR, damn that's amazing DR! I love that movie or that photo just because of the DR...</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p>My name is too distinctive and people talk. I like to post ridiculous question I already know the answer to and watch everyone argue. Which sometimes is hilarious and surprisingly sometimes very informative.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br>

That says it all right there. You are an admitted TROLL with nothing to add. I pretty much suspected as such.<br>

Adios!</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>CA: <em>"... I like to post ridiculous question I already know the answer to and watch everyone argue. ..."</em><br>

That is one of the most arrogant, self-centered, immature statements I have ever heard on photo.net. You have essentially admitted to being a troll, and that's exactly what I suspected when I read your first post in this thread. One of the main goals of photo.net is helping each other. Generosity, mentorship and similar qualities obviously aren't even on your radar screen.</p>

<p>It also explains your previous statement, <em>"...I'm pretty sure the admins of this website are getting to know me real quick. ..."</em></p>

<p>Tom M</p>

[sarah_fox]

<blockquote>

<p>I like to post ridiculous question I already know the answer to and watch everyone argue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no place for TROLLS on this forum. Personally, I wish you'd spare us your "sh*ts and giggles" and go elsewhere. You'll note that I use my real name, because I have nothing to hide. It is my hope that my clients do find me here and perhaps learn from some of the discussions I engage in. There's a lot of impressive talent here, both professionals and amateurs alike. I also hope that people browsing the web find their way to my website. All professional photographers I know have some sort of web presence and court traffic. You're the first photographer I've encountered who is so (self)important that a web presence is not allowed... er... by "gallery representatives."</p>

[rossb]

<p> Well I do not have a stop number of DR to toss out. I know my D200 is poor and other models look quite impressive on the DXO charts. My 35mm has a dynamic range that is wide enough when shooting BN400BW C41 Kodak. It's a pretty amazing BW film. I am also satisfied with color film but it can sometimes be marginal. </p>

<p> Well Chris after your words of personal greatness to everyone you have no place to go but put up some great photos. Otherwise you are pretty much done here I would say. </p>

[museebfoto]

<blockquote>

<p>I've heard with modern scanners, the full range of a scanned negative is about 15-19 stops....</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If I understand the statement, so I have this opinion: The scanner can not create stops that are not on the negative. So the scanner limits depend on the negative and the print depend on paper, because the negative and papers are the bottleneck for dynamic range. Is there a film has dynamic rage up to 19 stop?. This is the question.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Well it seems the OP's account has been deleted.</p>

 

[bobatkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Nor have I used an email or name that isn't anonymous. Chris Antidote? ha, I was looking at my assistant when we put those two together. Why? You ask... because I would be frowned upon if anyone I worked with, commissioned by, represented with, found out <b>I was having my sh*ts and giggles in an online forum</b>. My name is too distinctive and people talk. <b>I like to post ridiculous question I already know the answer to</b> and watch everyone argue</em>"<br>

<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're not that anonymous Mr Pupo</p>

[chris_pupo]

<p>Bob Atkins will you please remove my name from this forum as it goes against the privacy law photo.net has enforced. I'm one of the photo assistant for the person who has been suspended via my account. We make accounts under our names or the company name because we aren't allowed to use her name. We do this for most contractual agreements. She doesn't seem to care but I don't like my name on these sites. -thanks.</p>