However, the histograms of the negatives show very little tonal range latitude, this is also true with some older negatives I had prior to digital cameras. That said, the histograms of the digital photos I shoot on the monochrome setting have much more tonal latitude and require less post processing.
No... It doesn't equate to your understanding of digital and it's wrong to try to think of it with the same logic.
The histogram you see is from the digital file, it is how you've converted the densities in the negative to digital values. Three cases:
1) An optimally exposed and developed negative
has a Dmax of around 2.7. This is the useful difference in density that a negative can record. With an optimum exposure you have definite separation and values for the shadows, by optimising the development you can keep the highlights at the top end of the density range and again keep some separation in values.
2) An under-exposed and overdeveloped negative, (push processed),
has a Dmax of around 2.7. But the shadows are blocked because there was not enough exposure to cause a reaction in the film and therefore a separation of tones. The highlights are blown out because the over-development has caused them to reach maximum density.
3) An under-exposed and under-developed negative may have a Dmax of 1.0. The shadows being under-exposed have failed to cause a reaction in the film and similarly the under-exposure and under development have failed to allow the highlights to reach any meaningful density in the film.
Most modern flatbed scanners that can do film have a Dmax of around 4.0. The histogram of the scan in the scanning application relates to the density range in the negative against the recording range of the scanner. It does not relate to the DR of film against the DR of the original scene. The histogram of the file relates to how well you transferred the densities of the negative into the digital format, not the DR of film or the DR of the original scene.
The trick to exposing film is to get the important parts of the scene
to record as useful densities on the film, i.e. the ones in that useful Dmax of 2.7. Then when scanning the trick is to transfer those density values as near to the numerical values that represent near black and near white in a digital file as you can, (
experience will teach you that setting absolute black and white points that correspond with the minimum and maximum densities on the negative is not always optimum).
Now with the examples, 1) and 2) will both be easy to work with but 1) will show a greater recorded DR than 2) which will block the shadows and blow the highlights though both will show the same range of densities though 2) will *appear* more *contrasty*. Example 3) will be awful to work with and when scanned will show distinct lack of contrast and boosting it will show enhanced grain. It will quite possibly have recorded a greater range or DR in the original scene than either example 1) or 2) but that detail will be so lost in muddy mid-tones that it will neither print nor scan well.
So the question is, does film have less tonal range than digital
B&W film has the greatest latitude for film. But even when optimally exposed and developed it will be less than digital.
But...
So blinded are we by advertising and comparing stats/numbers and ever increasing capabilities that we simply do not question that a DR measured in a lab under strict lab conditions of 14.5 is better than one measured in the same lab of 14. "
The camera is better and the numbers prove it."
Is it better? Does it actually translate into better photos visually, how the image looks and not the camera specs?
No, not really, not with film, detail in every pixel, every shadow does not produce the best images or is consistent with how film *looks*. With digital and digital editing it's possible to manipulate a file and produce an image that's convincing. But you still have to fit the range of tones into the output space, and this is the problem. The output range is fixed, finite. It doesn't matter how large the range of brightness of the scene is, your finished image will always have the same range. So if you record the infinite amount of detail in shadows and highlights then you have to compress the contrast to fit them all in the output space, that rather large range between the brightest highlight and the deepest shadow. With digital you can manipulate it perceptually, with film you can scan and digitally manipulate it in the same way but you end up with an image that has the same digital manipulation as a straight digital file, so why not just shoot digital if a digital result is what you want. The point is that it will no longer look like film, this is the dilemma of hybrid processing, not to subject your film images to the same process and criteria as your digital image otherwise they will look the same.
I've posted enough of my images around this forum somewhere as to not need to post them again here, but I've never found that a modern scanner, (I currently use an EPSON V800), has ever failed to extract the maximum tones in a well exposed and developed negative. It's normally the not so well exposed and developed that I have problems with, the ones that have too little density, and that's my fault.
Resolution is a different matter and 2400dpi is about optimum for the V800 and produces really good A2 sized prints. This is the other advantage of the hybrid process, producing large prints. They still won't be quite as good as a proper wet print though. It's all very well being a purist but having the space to install an enlarger so it has the reach of A2 and being able to tray process really needs a dedicated darkroom.
I am please to say my 1910 camera does it part.
I'm very pleased to hear it, I have a half plate from 1898-1901 that works but is a real pain to set up and use compared to the Linhof.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/33/33906-2f9b24e4b1e1be07f68257916df0f2b3.jpg?1734164328)
