FotoDave@aol.com
Tue, 12 Jan 1999 22:47:09 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 1/12/99 4:48:25 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Bob_Maxey@mtn.3com.com writes:
> I think the problem is too many people think they know much more than they
> do. I occasionally use a variable ND Wedge that is true continuous tone -
> it has to be, and they are made with a carbon suspension. Ultra close-up
> will reveal a bunch of particles as well. It is as continuous tone as
> possible.
Bob,
I agree with you, and you and I both prefer continous-tone negatives.
That's a flaw in the logic which has been used many times. It says that since
each silver particle is opaque, camera negatives is just like digital
negatives. I have actually shown the contrary about half a year ago. The
particles are suspended in in the gelatine mix, and when light passes it, it
is absorb, reflected, difracted, etc. etc. so that when the light passes
through, it is much more closer to true continuous tone than, say, a digital
negative.
What I have shown was not new, of course, that microscope scan of the
suspension of silver grains in gelatine mix is shown in almost very science of
photography book.
> Secondly, why the arguments about what is and is not continuous tone in the
> first place?
Because I said digital negatives were not the same as continous-tone
negatives. I said they weren't the same even if resolution approaches
infinity. :)
> Every negative I have ever taken is continuous tone. In this
> discussion of contone whatever the heck that is as it applies to this
> argument, is not continuous tone, for going to the atomic level would
> reveal particles with space around them. Yes, this is so ridiculous I hate
> typing it.
Bob and Steve and others, please be patient.
A "true" contone film will affect some alt. photo processes unlike a digital
negative. The other side of the argument is that since there is diffusion,
difraction (gosh, I can never spell this one), and even some deliberate
blurring of the dots, digital negatives can be the same as contone negative. I
still think that it can't. It can have middle tones all right, but the effect
is (or might not be) the same as a truly contone negative.
But since we don't have true contone or true binary negatives, the disucssion
will be
1. if true contone affect some processes differently from true binary
2. if camera contone is closer to true contone than a high-res binary.
> The point is, the discussions of this type is complicated, and in my view
> pointless.
<snip>
> Incidentally, if you mix several colors of paint together and look at them
> under a microscope, there nothing more than particles side by side. No
> continuous tone there. In fact, by the replies from several, continuous
> tone can't possibly exist anyway. False. Can we find another topic?
I agree with you completely. Please join the discussion as I start it later
this week. :)
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41