Digital BW, The Print

> It is important to define exactly what dynamic range is being
> discussed.

I think Martin makes a good point. Though I've never been in this
conversation to know how the scanner manufacturers get away making absurd
claims. I've wondered why some of the PS gurus I admire have stated that BD
and DR are independent, and therefor seemingly in conflict with Austin's
undeniable logic. I'm starting to conclude that some of the differences of
opinion on the subject stem from where the person stands when they look at
the situation. Austin looks at it like an engineer who looks forward. He
needs to figure out how to get a piece of film with a DR of 3.7 into a file
which can be read by an image editing program. For his job, everything he's
stated is absolutely correct. The Photshop gurus on the other hand don't
really care what machinations analog data goes through on it's way to
digital code, they are looking backward. They are concerned with what the
file they just double clicked contains. From their point of view, they know
they've worked on high BD files with low DR, and low BD files of high DR,
and they know through manipulations they can alter the DR of a file at will,
regardless of bit depth.

Er, another light bulb turning on... If what I just stated about the PS
gurus were true, then why is it that those same gurus who proclaim that DR
is not bit depth dependent, are the ones who recommend doing major tonal
corrections (including DR manipulations, like changing end points) recommend
doing them in 16 bit mode rather than 8 bit? I guess we get into matters of
semantics here, where you may technically be able to have a low BD file with
high DR, but from a usability stand point it might suck. Which I think was
what Austin was suggesting.

Todd