>>2896103Obviously, digital has a wider range with uniform colour reproduction and small noise. However, we are talking about extreme highlights - areas of photos which should have just distinguishable details, because they are compressed anyways.
In these terms the digits suck. Yes sure I can photograph at base ISO of my camera with 14EV (by DxO) but I will sacrifice the part of tonal range reproduced by camera with best quality just to get a tad bit of details - the thing which I get with specific kinds of film for, kinda, free.
The scene captured on your picrelated is digitally faked yet digestable by masses.
Highlights are retarded. Here is a better try of digits.
>>2896110>I'm accepting them at face value.There are no values on the graph to face after certain point.
>What are you talking about?ARBITRARY TONAL CURVES dude. That thing which I can make as mad as I want.
>Have you EVER been in a darkroom?No. Sorry for that tho.
>Developed normally? Transition to d-max is very rapid. I've actually had someone ask me if one of my Acros darkroom prints was digital for that very reason.Now that is interesting.
>so of course it tolerates extreme under/over exposure.The sun is not blown at +6. It is blown at -4 because of expocorrection algorythm which does not take the contrast change into account.
>But you need to do it before arguing forever on a forum.There are two photos posted by other anons which illustrate my point.
