Micro Contrast, Is It a Myth?

Started 1 month ago | Discussions thread
Dem Bell Regular Member • Posts: 198
Re: What Microcontrast looks like

fPrime wrote:

WunWegWunDarWun wrote:

Well then I'd say that the differences in the red leaf pattern are mostly due to the different color renditions of different shades of red/pink/magenta between the cameras rather than microcontrast,

Of course you’d say that, you’ve already acknowledged that you define microcontrast as resolution of fine detail. I show you that microcontrast is instead tonal resolution which you simply don’t want to accept.

I think you are replacing one made up term, "microcontrast", with another made up term "tonal resolution".

There is resolution and there is contrast. "Tonal resolution" seems to imply that "both resolution and contrast need to be present at the same time".

If we can resolve fine details in the image, then the resolution is there. The contrast might be poor either because of the lens flare or because of the poor processing or whatever. If contrast of this image is high, then people call the whole thing good "microcontast". It is just a short hand for "resolution + contrast", right?

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