[filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Hi Todd,

> > I disagree, as it is simply an inherent property of the
> image/media, just
> > like a CD.  By "your" thought, you'd say that the image isn't
> on the film
> > unless you're viewing it.  If the image exists, it's inherent properties
> > exist, whether it's being viewed or not.
>
> Austin
>
> Well I'm not one to go that far, though some might as Laurie
> illustrated. I
> guess what I'm saying is, at a minimum, how you measure or
> observe something
> will determine the quality of your results.

Absolutely quality of measurement is directly proportional to quality of
results!  Observance can certainly play a part in it...but that's more
subjective as to how it effects quality of results.

> The real persnickety among us
> might want to know what instruments were used to measure the
> characteristics
> of the objects or systems we are looking at.

Of course, and typically, in very detailed papers, this is mentioned.

> If I told you I took my film density measurements by shining a flashlight
> through it and reading it with my spot meter would you feel I
> captured it's
> absolute inherent properties?

Possibly, but not probably...

> Anyway, this IS getting obscure so I'll drop it, but I think we do observe
> things relative to our methodology.

Agreed, but that has nothing to do with what Anthony said.  Your bringing a
subjective tone to the argument, where there wasn't one, when talking about
dynamic range...it's simply there.

> I only wish Dickbo were here to call me Rabbi Flashner...

Careful...you might get what you wish for!

Austin

P.S.  I believe I hear a baby crying in the background of your email... ;-)


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body