Dealing with luminance ranges

sanking · Apr 16, 2005

Stephen Benskin said:
I look at BTZS as tone reproduction with some Zone terms. I can accept however you want to apply it. I can also respectfully disagree with it too. We can argue that Davis writes that "SBR" is his abbreviation for Subject Luminance Range, but what's the point? I think it's possible to communicate our ideas without coming to an agreement on terms.

I've place Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Arts on my reading list. Thanks for that.

As for the question:
Here's an interesting question. Except for special cirumstances, all scenes look best in a print when there is a full range of tones. Why can't we let a flat scene remain flat in the print (apart from artistic considerations)? It's flat in nature, why not the print?

Part of the reason is psychological. It falls under the heading of visual adaptation, and more precisely the area of lateral adaptation, and perhaps falls within simultaneous contrast. Every photographer has experienced at one time or another photographing a scene on an overcast day and being disappoint by the flat results. The scene looked fine when photographing it. What happen? For various survival purposes, it's important to be able to distinguish elements in a scene as clearly as possible. So our brain wants to adjust every scene so that it has as full of a range as possible. That's why the scene looked good to the photographer and came out flat on the film. And I believe that is why we want to see a print with the full range of tones.

Back to the topic of the thread. One of the images in the current issue of PHOTO Techniques required something new for me. The subject was the stone work in Peterborough Cathedral. The camera was pointed up toward the ceiling. Strong ambient light was coming in from a bank of windows and illuminating the lower columns, and the ceiling remained in shadows. The luminance range was around normal, but not only was the balance of tones not aesthetically pleasing, there was little tonal seperation in the stone work.

If I pushed the film, the tones on the lower columns would be increased further unbalancing the tones, and the local contrast in the stone work would change little. Masking was an option. I figured it would take approximately four or five seperate mask to accomplish the look I wanted. I needed to hold down the columns while I brought up the ceiling. I needed to increase the local contrast over the entire image with an additional increase in the ceiling. There were a few touches that could also be accomplished by bleaching.

I could either go the complicating masking route or try something different. I chose to go digital. Digital is just another tool. I had the negative scanned, worked on it in Photoshop (just using the tonal controls - no cutting and pasting) and then had it output on a negative. It now has the look I want and is almost capable of a straight silver print.

OK, I dont expect that you necessarily agree or disagree with me. I am just trying to make the point that the use of the term SBR is neither incorrect nor contrary to the language of sensitometry. It is simply a word used by Davis as part of his BTZS incident system of metering. Since LSLR can not be measured with an incident meter I wonder what term you would have preferred to describe what he means by SBR?

As to the other point, I certainly dont discount the role of psychological factors such as visual adaptation, lateral adaptation, and simultaneous contrast as part of the creative process of Emerson's photography, even though my first inclination would be to explain his style by more ubiquitous influences such as the sister arts and the influence of other contemporary artists, both painters and photographers. And, though I could make a very good case that his style was primarily influenced by contemporary artists, such as Whistler, there might be some information in Von Helmoltz's Physiological Optics that would tie in with your idea of psychological factors.

Sandy

Jorge · Apr 16, 2005

Kirk Keyes said:
Right - that's what I was trying to point out. When we are all using different materials, then it is not so clear unless we state the materials being used.

Jesus men, I give you Phil's quote, directly from the horses mouth, not my interpretation, not what I think it means and you still have to argue a point....did you read the entire quotation I gave you? He says assuming a constant ES an SBR target is fine, BUT if you state G bar you dont have to state ES...Now if you want to once more argue a point, I suggest you take it up with Phil...I am not getting caught in another circular jerk off again....

Benskin, I am not fighting I simply tried to answer your initial question and you started with the "please allow me the right to use..blah, blah blah.." One more time, it seems your posts are designed to show how much you know and not in an interest to share a discussion. Since you understand the BTZS terminology as well as the other stuff you use, I thought it would make sense we all use the same languange, I apologize for making such a silly assumption..... As Don said I am outta here, I dont see this thread eveolving any better than the other one....you all have fun.

Stephen Benskin · Apr 16, 2005

sanking said:
I am just trying to make the point that the use of the term SBR is neither incorrect nor contrary to the language of sensitometry.

As to the other point, I certainly dont discount the role of psychological factors such as visual adaptation, lateral adaptation, and simultaneous contrast as part of the creative process of Emerson's photography,
Sandy

We disagree with the language of sensitometry. Fine, and the points you've made have been well taken. With Emerson, I was only adding to the information you supplied on the subject. I found your post intriguing and look forward to reading the book you mentioned.

--------------------------------

Once again Jorge gets upset and insults people. Do you not see how ".blah, blah blah.." is insulting to people? You read the tone of my post as antagonistic which appears to be more about your personality.

I believe the information on flare, and about how I've approached different luminance ranges has been helpful for people. I don't have a need to prove how much I know as you can see by the limited number of posts I've made. I've been visiting this forum for one or two years and haven't participated in it until recently when I jumped in to admonish what I saw as an inappropriate attack on another poster.

How many times has Jorge and Don referred to someone's intelligence in a derogatory manor? How often do you guys end a post by blowing off someone? How many times do you insult people's talent? I'm sorry, but you are constantly contemptuous of the people on this forum and it is petty.

Please Jorge, if you don't like what I'm saying ignore it. You definitely don't have anything to teach me.

Stephen Benskin · Apr 16, 2005

Donald Miller said:
Stephen Benskin wrote "Here's an interesting question. Except for special cirumstances, all scenes look best in a print when there is a full range of tones. Why can't we let a flat scene remain flat in the print (apart from artistic considerations)? It's flat in nature, why not the print?"

While you would certainly be entitled to your viewpoint...I heartily disagree...
A print can look stunning without the full range of tones provided there is adequate local contrast.

I agree with your point. I have to admit, my assumption to the question wasn't well stated. Perhaps I should have said "one of the general principles..." or something like that. Still, over 90% of black and white images tend to fall into the full range catagory. When I said special circumstances, I was thinking about people like Huntington Witherill's beautiful high key work and Ray McSavaney's work. This is just a simple case of bad wording.

I also like to do high key work and found that printing the image on a grade three and giving it a little flash makes for some nice local contrast while helping to hold the highlights.

Don, why not participate with an example on how you would handle a high key shot or a scene with a limited luminance range? You obviously know something about it.

sanking · Apr 16, 2005

Stephen Benskin said:
We disagree with the language of sensitometry. Fine, and the points you've made have been well taken. With Emerson, I was only adding to the information you supplied on the subject. I found your post intriguing and look forward to reading the book you mentioned.

OK, but what about my question? Since LSLR can not be measured with an incident meter I wonder what term you would have used/preferred to describe what Davis really means by SBR?

And let's be clear as to the facts. Although one could pull language from Beyond the Zone System to suggest that Davis equates SBR with SLR, or LSLR as you prefer, a full reading of his text shows that he has a separate and very different meaning for the two terms.

Sandy

smieglitz · Apr 16, 2005

" The second great artistic evil engendered by Science is the careless manner in which things are expressed." - Peter Henry Emerson

FWIW, I find it very interesting that Emerson has been mentioned in this thread.

In 1888 he wrote "Naturalistic Photography" and promoted the idea that Photography could rank as Art along with painting., etc.

That same year Eastman introduced the Kodak and democratized Photography. "You push the button and we do the rest." You don't have to be a chemist to make photographs anymore! Photography liberated from science once more.

Also in that good year of 1888, Hurter & Driffield published the results of their initial investigations into sensitometry. Turns out photographic materials were predictable after all, much to the dismay of artistic alchemists, and Photography very much a science.

So upset by H&D curves, in 1889 Emerson ate some warm crow and rebuked himself with "The Death of Naturalistic Photography."

And here we are today talking about that same old stuff again. "...Priceless."

Joe

Stephen Benskin · Apr 16, 2005

sanking said:
OK, but what about my question? Since LSLR can not be measured with an incident meter I wonder what term you would have used/preferred to describe what Davis really means by SBR?

And let's be clear as to the facts. Although one could pull language from Beyond the Zone System to suggest that Davis equates SBR with SLR, or LSLR as you prefer, a full reading of his text shows that he has a separate and very different meaning for the two terms.

Sandy

Sandy, I'm fine with what you say. As you know, I'm not intimately acquainted with Davis' book as I am with sensitometry and tone reproduction. I don't think I can authoritatively speak to your question until I have time to familiarize myself once again with BTZS. To me, BTZS is just tone reproduction, so I moved past it long ago. I do have some interest in investigating your question, but there are priorities that might not allow it.

Off the top of my head, I can understand that there really isn't a sensitometric term to define the luminance range derived from an incident meter, and that Davis had to invent one for his system. This makes sense to me. From a purely sensitometric perspective, the use of SBR is limited, but with BTZS it has additional meanings. Davis could have chosen from dozens of terms, and my suggesting one doesn't really matter at this point.

You still have to admit that BTZS is more of a niche than the main stream. And that this forum isn't the BTZS forum. And that I'm not being unreasonable wishing to use (at least for myself) the nomenclature from the greater world of sensitometry (or what ever you want to call it).

I will admit that as far as I know at this time, SBR when used with an incident meter has no correlating international term and therefore Davis has every right to use it in this context.

Although, he does use ES instead of LER without any apparent difference in meaning. Not that there's anything wrong with it. All I have been saying is that these terms are outdated (with a possible exception now of SBR and incident metering). It was more of an interesting point of fact than a challege.

sanking · Apr 17, 2005

Kirk Keyes said:
Wouldn't SIR - "Subject Illumination Range" have been appropriate if Davis modified the system to not include the addition of "5" to the difference of all readings?

(But then it doesn't matter, as Davis is free to use any terminology he wishes. It is his system, after all.)

Kirk,

Yeah, that would have worked fine for me. But if he had used SIR what would we be obsessing about now?

Sandy

smieglitz · Apr 17, 2005

Let me propose Subject Luminance Range be given the acronym SLuR.

Might be appropriate given how this discussion has progressed.

sanking · Apr 17, 2005

smieglitz said:
" The second great artistic evil engendered by Science is the careless manner in which things are expressed." - Peter Henry Emerson

FWIW, I find it very interesting that Emerson has been mentioned in this thread.

In 1888 he wrote "Naturalistic Photography" and promoted the idea that Photography could rank as Art along with painting., etc.

That same year Eastman introduced the Kodak and democratized Photography. "You push the button and we do the rest." You don't have to be a chemist to make photographs anymore! Photography liberated from science once more.

Also in that good year of 1888, Hurter & Driffield published the results of their initial investigations into sensitometry. Turns out photographic materials were predictable after all, much to the dismay of artistic alchemists, and Photography very much a science.

So upset by H&D curves, in 1889 Emerson ate some warm crow and rebuked himself with "The Death of Naturalistic Photography."

And here we are today talking about that same old stuff again. "...Priceless."

Joe

Yes, very curious, even bizarre by my understanding of the word.

But Emerson's first book obviously had a very profound impact on several generations of pictorialists, even though he subsequently renounced virtually all of his earlier writings.

A similar analogy could me made with Demanchy. Clearly the most important pictorialist of his generation he gave up photography entirely at the height of his creative period. But the ensuing artistic silence does not detract from the genius of his earlier creative work.

Sandy

Kirk Keyes · Apr 17, 2005

sanking said:
Kirk, Yeah, that would have worked fine for me. But if he had used SIR what would we be obsessing about now?
Sandy

Probably about whether SBR would have made more sense - or if 5 stops was a good choice.

I have to say, I'm not really obsessing about it as I don't have much time invested in it. Other than the sometimes unobtainable quest for the perfect abbreviation, it's fine with me.

Do you have any suggestions on one, just for fun?

Ole · Apr 17, 2005

Jorge said:
huh......good try but you rnumbers are not realistic, go out on the field and try it and get back to me...

Jorge, those numbers ARE from field experience. The high range is the "Bridge" photo which I eventually had to lith print to reproduce the full range of highlight tones, the low range is my little waterfall on a rainy day.

Claire Senft · Apr 17, 2005

Just a crazy thought. If the topic is for example BTZS techniques then those that post information should be cognizant with BTZS terminology and understand its usage. If the posting is about sensitometry then the appropriate terms from that field of discipline should be used. If someone is not familar with the terms of either methodology then they may be well advised to ask what a particular term means.

If concepts that are not understood by anyone except the writer are used I believe that either a lot of confusion may result or no real communication will transpire. The confusion may well be replaced by ACRIMONY.

I, for one, welcome the opportunity to contribute as well as to learn.

Donald Miller · Apr 17, 2005

Ole said:
Jorge said:

...
Spot meter readings can be converted to SBRs by the following formula:

SBR=(7*(D-N))/D

where:
D= spread
N= N number (development)
...QUOTE]

Let's see: I have a scene with a spread from EV3 to EV17, that's a spread of 14. I developed it to N-3 or something like that - compensating developer by inspection so I don't really know.

SBR=(7*(14-(-3))/14) gives 17/2, or 8.5

Another scene, EV4 to EV6 (flat and dim), given a N+2 development:

SBR=(7*(2-2))/2 is 0?

Sorry, the formula doesn't work as written...

Click to expand...

Ole,

A thought that may apply to this particular set of examples...I believe that you will find that the formula is accurate for SBR readings above 5. However below five I think that the adjustment that Sandy mentioned elsewhere may be appropriate. That would indicate that for SBR below 5 would indicate to subtract the measurement from 5 and in that event your correct SBR on your low contrast scene would be SBR 3.

Jorge, I would like your thoughts on this as well.

sanking · Apr 17, 2005

jdef said:
I made a simple post and Donald Miller decided to interject his "expertise" on the subject to tell me how wrong I was, and was soon followed by Jorge and Sandy. At least Sandy refrained from personal attacks, unlike Jorge and Donald.
Jay

Jay,

What is that all about? I did not have any part of the exchange you had with Donald and Jorge.

Sandy

Stephen Benskin · Apr 17, 2005

sanking said:
Jay,

What is that all about? I did not have any part of the exchange you had with Donald and Jorge.

Sandy

I believe Jay meant the thread went off topic.

sanking · Apr 17, 2005

jdef said:
I know Sandy, and I acknowledged as much. I only included you because you also posted that I was wrong for using SBR as a function of development, and I know that both Donald and Jorge consider you an authority on BTZS, and rightly so. My point is that not one of the experienced BTZS users was willing to give me the benefit of the doubt long enough to consider what I was saying, or to even consider the possibility that there might be some merit to my point.

I just think that as an acknowledged authority on the use of BTZS, you might have looked a little closer at the question before making the kinds of absolute statements that you did. Just to be clear, I do NOT group you in with the likes of Donald and Jorge. I respect your opinions and value your input, which is why I hold you to a higher standard than Donald or Jorge.

Jay

Jay,

But where did I post that you were wrong to use SBR as a function of development? As I stated, I did not join in the exchange between you, Donald and Jorge in any way and I don't remember ever saying anywhere that it is wrong to consider SBR as a function of develoment. I am not sure that I would call SBR a function of development, but there is certainly a correlation between time of develoment and SBR, as anyone who has done any film testing and plotting knows.

Perhaps you are confusing something I said on another thread? I do recall saying something on another thread to the effect that SBR refers to subject lighting conditions and is not dependent on exposure and develoment but I certainly did not mean that to understand that there was no correlation between time of development and SBR. In that statement I was simply trying to differentiate SBR from CI in that SBR is a measure of subject contrast whereas CI is a measure of contrast in the negative.

Sandy

Donald Miller · Apr 17, 2005

Jay,

You appear to have made some allegations of things that I said within this thread, at least I read your post to indicate that. I would really appreciate it if you would point out what it was that I said and when I said it in this thread.

I still don't think that SBR is a function of development, just as Sandy King recently reitterated once again. However, I don't believe that I ever indicated that there was no correlation.

I look forward to your response.

Donald Miller

Jorge · Apr 18, 2005

jdef said:
Unfortunately, I think this thread was doomed from the beginning by the acrimony carried over from the BTZS and low contrast scenes thread. I made a simple post and Donald Miller decided to interject his "expertise" on the subject to tell me how wrong I was, and was soon followed by Jorge and Sandy. At least Sandy refrained from personal attacks, unlike Jorge and Donald. You guys have curious way of helping out a newcomer to the BTZS. In the end, a few things were cleared up for me despite the very negative tone of the discussion, thanks in part to Jorge for going to the source and consulting Phil Davis, even though I'm sure he was disappointed that Davis confirmed my position on SBR as a function of development. Thank you to all of you who have contributed to this thread in the spirit of mutual respect and for sharing your considerable knowledge and experience.

Jay

Aww men, I put this thread on ignore. Out of curiosity I check it out and nothing has advanced or improved.

Now jdef, you are congratulating yourself too much. As Phil said, for a fixed ES , SBR can be targeted for development. You never mentioned this until I posted Phil's response. In fact as I had stated the more apropriate way to target development is G bar, because as he said, you dont have to specifically state ES or SBR.
So, no, Phil's response did not "support" your contention. I would say that if we are going to keep score as you seem to want to do, it supported my position and the position of those who disagreed with you more than yours.

As to the previous thread, I was no more insulting than you were. I tried posting in this thread an contribuite hoping that we could have a real discussion, but it seems you are more interested in "being right" than in having a real discussion. YOu are the one continuing bickering, keeping "score" and insinuating your "expertise". For someone who calls himself a "beguinner" you certainly act like you know it all.

Next time, if I post a response from Phil, please read all of it, not just the parts you want to read. Unless you think you know more than Phil, you certainly behave that way....

Jorge · Apr 18, 2005

Donald Miller said:
Ole said:

Ole,

A thought that may apply to this particular set of examples...I believe that you will find that the formula is accurate for SBR readings above 5. However below five I think that the adjustment that Sandy mentioned elsewhere may be appropriate. That would indicate that for SBR below 5 would indicate to subtract the measurement from 5 and in that event your correct SBR on your low contrast scene would be SBR 3.

Jorge, I would like your thoughts on this as well.

Click to expand...

There has been a continuing misinterpretation that N- numbers are equivalent to numbers above 7 in the BTZS notation. This is incorrect, for example an N-2 number is not equivalent to targeting a G bar corresponding to an SBR of 9. Depending on the ES of the paper a G bar corresponding to an SBR of 9 might be anywhere from N-1 to N-3. WIthout knowing the paper Ole is using it is impossible to tell if the SBR number obtained by the formula is correct. Even so, I have to agree with Ole that for that extreme range the formula seems to be off, unless we are thinking that the formula assumes an ES of 1.05 for silver paper. Nevertheless this seems to be too big an assumption to make.

As to the N+2 example, I think this is an unrealistic example. Anything having an EV of 4 I dont think will have enough light to have a highlight giving an EV of 6. If anything I think a closer number for the highlight would have been 4.5 or 5.

You make a good point that it is possible this formula was created for SBR numbers of 5 and above, being that the BTZS was not initally designed for lower than 5 SBRs. I got the formula direct from Phil and it is also in the apendix of the books, at least it is in my second edition.

In any case, you all dont have to take my word for it. Phil is always willing to answer questions at the BTZS web site. If this is a really important point for any of you I suggest you ask him directly.

Jorge · Apr 18, 2005

jdef said:
No Jorge, you're wrong again. When Donald challenged me to post my data, I included the paper ES, and that was long before you posted Davis' response. In the context of the discussion of subject ranges, I simply stated that SBR can be considered a function of development, with which you disagreed and wrote:

You were so eager to defend Donald, and tell me that I was wrong that you didn't think about the problem rationally. I responded by writing:

Which is basically what Davis said, adding the obvious point that paper ES is constant. My explanation apparently annoyed you and you wrote:

That last line is especially ironic. Why do you always have to get so nasty? What did I write to piss you off? When I posted an excerpt from BTZS fourth edition to support my point, you responded with:

That was uncalled for, especially considering the fact that you have been using BTZS for about two years, right? From that point on you limited your remarks to baiting and insults, so I won't bother with those. So when did I insult you? Was it after you insuted me, or before? What is the difference between "insinuating expertise", and having an opinion or understanding counter to yours? Does "Unlike you, what I know, I know well, but I am not an expert on everything.." qualify as "insinuating expertise?

I wish you would post my offending remarks so that I can see myself from your perspective, because when I read my posts, I see myself doing my best to convey my point of view and support my arguments without getting personal or angry. It seems that you are incapable of posting without including a personal jab like...

What does that mean? Are you talking about Davis' point that the paper ES must be constant to target SBR for development? Isn't that obvious? I know I'm new to this, but come on. And it's not as if you qualified your remarks by saying that I can target SBR as long as my paper scale is consant. You wrote "SBR is not a value you can target, IOW you cannot say I am going to develop for an SBR of 6.". I'm not always right, but I'm not always wrong either, and if I treat someone unfairly, I appologize beacause that's what mature adults do, and as far as "keeping score" is concerned, I think you've cornered that market. How many threads have you participated in that don't end in you challenging someone to some feat of photographic skill? If you want to ignore me, fine, but if you don't, must you continually bait and insult me? I could live without that. Until next time,

Jay

LOL.....you are nuts if you think I am going to read all of that. As to your last paragraphs...in as many threads you have participated doing the same...in the end, you were challanged to show your work.... we are still waiting.

Claire Senft · Apr 18, 2005

Take your frustrations out on film and chemicals. This thread has turned into a huge pile of dung from the posterior of a male bovine.

They only way to learn and grow ..In my opinion the purpose of these posts...is to have an open mind. The "I am righ tyou are wrong" is just so f'ing stupid.

Jdef I am sitting on the sidelines but you come across as being closeminded and petty and not particularly well informed. Of course you have company that is also capable of being petty and closeminded but much more well informed.

Kirk Keyes · Apr 18, 2005

Jorge said:
As to your last paragraphs...in as many threads you have participated doing the same...in the end, you were challanged to show your work.... we are still waiting.

So is anyone going to start that thread on artistic ability vs. technical knowledge?

Donald Miller · Apr 18, 2005

Kirk Keyes said:
So is anyone going to start that thread on artistic ability vs. technical knowledge?

I guess that I am entitled to an opinion here...and assuming that I do then my opinion is that this is probably one of the most ill informed suggestions for a thread that I could ever imagine. That is akin to suggesting that we should discuss the relative sweetness of sugar versus the the ultimate salinity of salt...

I don't think that my intellect will indicate that I would want to engage in anything that innane.

However, please feel free to engage someone to start that thread or start in on your own...should that occur, I assure you that I will immediately put the entire thread on my ignore list.

Kirk Keyes · Apr 18, 2005

Donald Miller said:
I don't think that my intellect will indicate that I would want to engage in anything that innane.

Didn't this last post just engage you in that discussion, even if it wasn't in another thread?

Dealing with luminance ranges

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency