Shashin
Well-known member
I did not define photography.I have no interest in your definition of "photography". I have interest in seeing some gear being capable of taking certain images that other gear cannot.
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
I did not define photography.I have no interest in your definition of "photography". I have interest in seeing some gear being capable of taking certain images that other gear cannot.
But you are rejecting the above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) as photography.I did not define photography.
I never said any such thing.But you are rejecting the above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) as photography.
I have no idea why my gear matters to you...What matters to me is that your gear cannot shoot that kind of image with decent printing quality due to limited DR, regardless of your claimed skills.
For 200 years people could not shoot the milky way landscape. Why should I care about the obsolete gear?I never said any such thing.
I have no idea why my gear matters to you...
Anyway, that is your opinion. The problem is there is about 200 years of photographic history to say you are wrong about DR and decent print quality.
I am objecting your obviously flawed statement. The above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) is a nice example.Print quality at any size has nothing to do with DR. High quality prints have to do with your skill as a printer (and whether you can expose correctly). DR has nothing to do with that.
I can tell you one thing, I can get more than eight stop out of my 645D and p25+ and a whole host of digital cameras I have used--there is no comparison to slide film that was probably eight stops.
You can object. I don't mind. I think you have summed up your position adequately.For 200 years people could not shoot the milky way landscape. Why should I care about the obsolete gear?
I am objecting your obviously flawed statement. The above image (which ErikKaffehr posted #14 of this thread) is a nice example.
Exposure latitude, that would probably be far more accurate description of what I am after. Wish I had of thought of that.All I am really saying is that I am not sure what Jeff really has. If he was taking only one patch and changing exposure, that would make sense, but he is taking two, which does not. If he is looking for the exposure latitude, which is different from DR, then I can see that two patches would show him how many stops in this particular situation would give him, but a different scene contrast would change that result.
I just think it is simpler and more useful to measure scene contrast and then photograph it and compare the two. But to be honest, the best way is through experience where a photographer learns to work intuitively. It would be a really pain in the neck to measure scene contrast and then try to figure out exposure each time (This is why Adams made a subjective scale (which it not accurate) to get photographers to visualize a scene for the Zone System. And the fact that scene contrast exceeds DR does not prevent a great image to be taken. Photographers have always had that problem and solved it by controlling exposure and reproduction.