Serious thinking of the Pentax 645 or shall wait? Locked

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
Mako2011
Mako2011 MOD
Forum ProPosts: 15,115
See
In reply to roustabout66, 2 months ago

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

Mako2011 wrote:

roustabout66 wrote:

It is TOTALLY true that you can not capture 13 stops of DR in a PRINT. You make claims with no proof what so ever.

Print doesn't capture but reflects It is also true that you can also accurately and in a very pleasing way (no posterization) represent 13 stops of DR in print. As Dmax has improved...so has the ability to represt DR in print. The proof can be seen at 406 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen, CO 81611. I can also see it on my wall (dif in Papers of different Dmax...same scene).

Again...you seem convinced I said the DR of Print is 13 stops. I never said that...I think

When someone says "what good is a high DR sensor when you can only print 6 stops" I smile

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

-- hide signature --

My opinions are my own and not those of DPR or its administration. They carry no 'special' value (except to me and Lacie of course)

Where did I get the idea that you said a print can show "represent" 13 stops...your words.

Exactly. Very diffrent from "capture" 13 stops

"Said another way...the ideal that the 13 stops of DR in a single capture can't be accurately represented in print due to the DR limitations of the medium.... is false."

Also very different from saying the DR of print is now 13 stops.

Yes, it is represented by compressing it down to fit on the available print medium, just as I said in the beginning.

Then we are back on the same sheet. Again I never once posted that the DR of print was equal to what the sensor captured. I did say the DR capability of print has increased recently. Combine that with lighting optimized for prints, and strives made in processing,  and we have a winner.

You just keep making outrageous claims with no evidence whatsoever. As a moderator of this forum you should hold yourself to a higher standard than that in my opinion. What you are saying is not true and you know it. Some of the newbies here probably actually think your comments are accurate.

they are accurate. You simply misinterpret.

Link please. You keep making claims with no proof. If there is a new fantastic print paper capable of anywhere near the claims you make they would state so in their advertising or product release info. Since you refuse to post a link to back up your claim it is obviously just your opinion.

http://layersmagazine.com/finestra-art-papers.html
"According to Finestra, both papers have a Dmax of 2.3–2.47, depending on which inks and printer you’re using" Nice improvemnet over the 1.7 for most matte prints or even the 2.3 with Premium Luster paper.

Post (hide subjects)Posted by
NiceNew
TrueNew
trueNew
easyNew
SeeNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow