Talk:Exposure latitude

Different uses of latitude in film

One of the problems with this may be that the term is used inconsistently within the filmmaking field to begin with - some use it as a synonym for exposure range or dynamic range, while the "purists" insist that latitude is the amount of over and underexposure you can make while maintaining an acceptable image. Since this is a somewhat subjective quality and also depends on developing and printing processes, it's not an absolute number, but should be somewhat less than the range of a stock. Girolamo Savonarola 12:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to change the definition on the page to the following, but I'm not sufficiently confident in my theory to do so without proofing. ---

Exposure latitude (or just Latitude) is the extent to which a light-sensitive material can be over or underexposed and still achieve an acceptable result.

It is not to be confused with dynamic range, which is, in photographic context, the range of light intensities a medium can capture. A recording medium with greater dynamic range will be able to record more details in the dark and light areas of a picture. Greater exposure latitude, however, allows one to compensate for errors in exposure while retaining quality.

Latitude depends on dynamic range. If the same scene can be recording using less than the full brightness range available to the medium, the exposure can be shifted along the range with no clipping. ---

What do you think? Am I mistaken? -Alexdi, Nov 25

It looks much better to me. I wouldn't say clipping, though, since that's exclusively a digital concern. I'd probably say something like "the exposure can be shifted within the latitude without losing any range". That more correctly covers both the film and digital realms. (PS, you sign your comments with ~~~~). Girolamo Savonarola 23:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there seem to be two meanings of the word, I'd prefer if both versions would be stated. Peter S. 00:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point, when there already is a page for the other usage. Certainly it can be mentioned and linked to - maybe at the top? But to use half of the article for a contradictory term which will only confuse things further seems a bit...sadistic? :) Girolamo Savonarola 00:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you said in your first paragraph here that the word is used in 2 different ways. If we refer to one definition by "only linking to it", we imply and enforce "only 1 way is the correct way" - and telling "the other way is actually correctly called something else". Which it isn't, if I understand correctly. "Exposure latitude" is used to refer to two concepts, and depending on who you are talking to ("normal cinematographers" and "old-school cinematographers"), they refer to two different things. That's why I suggest we talk about both definitions: because certain people use "latitude" for one thing, and certain people use "latitude" to talk about another thing. And no, I'm not sadistic - or just very rarely so :-D Peter S. 01:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, but frankly, I'd be pretty damn confused if I stumbled upon this article myself. The first definition says "EL is dynamic range". The second definition says, "EL is something completely different that shouldn't be confused with dynamic range." I couldn't think of a good way to fix that short of nixing the first definition entirely. Alexdi 10:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the major sources I've been able to find specifically define exposure latitude as distinct from exposure range, so I've deleted all of the other material. I've also left the references for this at the bottom, should anyone want to check this. Girolamo Savonarola 07:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]