I use both versions of ACR. There's no difference in how much range one can extract from a RAW file. ACR2 just offers more control over what falls in between the extremes, via curves. Paul On Mar 8, 2007, at 7:51 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
> Interesting, I would have thought that it would do better. I'm able to > get a greater dynamic range than I can print. ACR, even the previous > version, is supposed to be one of the best converters. > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> ACR, not the newest version, I am using >> with PS CS(1) >> jco >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >> Of >> P. J. Alling >> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 6:12 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there >> >> >> Which raw converter are you using? >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> Well, only 8 stops out of print film has got >>> to be a mistake of some sorts, I have >>> seen numbers reported as high as 15 stops >>> out this type of film and I know for >>> a fact there is like 3 stops of LATITUDE >>> alone on the good slow color neg films, >>> (not to be confused with dynamic >>> range )which would be impossible if there >>> was only 8 stops total range. >>> >>> I did some tests with the DS shooting >>> RAW and found that I was unable to record >>> capture what I could easily see, even using >>> raw. The exposure latitude with that camera is >>> much smaller than color neg film. >>> >>> jco >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf >>> Of William Robb >>> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 3:55 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there >>> >>> >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Peter Lacus" >>> Subject: Re: beauty shot: Pentax K10D- 17mm lenses are out there >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> Bill, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> DSLR cameras are showing 10 stops or more of dynamic range, which >>>>> is >>>>> >> >> >>>>> about 3 stops more than that of print film, probably 5 stops more >>>>> range than slide >>>>> film. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> IMHO there's only one definitive truth - film emulsions react to the >>>> light in a different way than linear digital sensors. Indeed it's >>>> >> much >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> easier to extract useful data from digital RAW files but does it >>>> prove >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> that digital sensor captures wider dynamic range? IMHO it proves >>>> that >>>> current scanners are not capable of extracting data from the film >>>> >> more >> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>> than anything else. >>>> >>>> >>> I'd have to dig out my charts from when I was learning the Zone >>> System, but my recollection is that I was never able to get more than >>> 9-10 stops out of >>> B&W film without going to very exotic processing methods. >>> My experience working as a QC technician in the photo lab industry >>> indicated >>> to me that print film, when measured on a densitometer, was incapable >>> >> of >> >>> givng more than 7-8 stops of dynamic range. >>> >>> My observations were not dependant on scanner limitations or paper >>> dynamic ranges, but on direct measurement of film samples using a >>> device designed >>> specifically for that purpose. >>> >>> William Robb >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw > uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
