Re: Dmax versus process?

Terry,

as I responded to Ryuji now I don't see as much interest in achieving a high
Dmax, it may not be that useful if in the end you can't see the difference
because of the lighting conditions. I would think, I suppose, that one
should reach for somekind of common denominator and in doing that I assume
all process can bring it's values to light.

At first, I ask the question out of curiosity and with the answers given I
realise it doesn't really matter which is the top ranking Dmax producing
process.

Regards
Yves

----- Original Message -----
From: TERRYAKING@aol.com
To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Dmax versus process?

In a message dated 1/5/06 5:33:59 pm, rs@silvergrain.org writes:

Subject: Re: Dmax versus process?
Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 11:32:35 -0400

> It might be interesting to gather more information on this with wider
> sampling, but for useful results it would have to be done in standard
> conditions and with calibrated equipment.

In reality, as you suggested, maximum density depends on the surface
smoothness for processes that are capable of very high Dmax, and it
may not mean much as long as Dmax is above 1.8. You'd have to have
very bright viewing light to discern tonality in deep black area and
gallery illuminations are too dim to give high density such a
priority.

Surely the significant point here is human perception rather than machine
read d max.. Once the machine comparisons have been made do you intend to
test perception ? And then if you do, how would you seet up that test and
what do you think it would prove ?

Tk
Received on 05/01/06-12:53:48 PM Z