Dynamic Range of film

[Henning Serger]

I have not shot slides in a long time, but 11 f/stops seems to be too large a range for slides.

Unfortunately you have not attentively read what I've written, and you have not looked at the example I've linked.
I've given different measured and tested values, depending on the testing method. I have differentiated! And that is very important with this topic.
11 stops is possible in certain cases, with the two reversal films with highest DR (Provia 100F and SCALA 50) in combination with a real drum scanner like the Heidelberg Tango. You won't get that high value with E100 or both Velvias. And you won't get that value when you have Provia 100F on the light table (see above).

Tim Parkin runs one of the best professional drum scan services in the world. He is scanning transparencies on a daily basis. He knows what he is talking about. And I know from a former cooperation with him in film tests that he is really very accurately working.

And the example given clearly shows that in the shodows alone you get more than 2 additional stops with the Heidelberg Tango, compared to the original transparency on the light table (see picture one).

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Stephen Benskin]

How the transparency is viewed has a lot to do with how it is perceived under certain conditions.

From The Theory of the Photographic Process, 3rd Edition

And from Jack Holm's paper Exposure-Speed Relations and Tone Reproduction. Here

 

[Henning Serger]

I’m taking Herr Serger’s numbers to be somewhat theoretical and, perhaps, only possible in a laboratory scenario. In practical photography I’ve never seen anything quite like that.

Then just look at the samples and links I've given. Again the old, general forum problem: People refuse to read attentively and don't look at the links and examples given.
Theoretical are these curve discussions here.
I have taken real pictures in my tests, and used just all the normal tools (camera, film, processing, light table, projector, slide loupe, densitometer, enlarger etc.) I use in my daily photography.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Chuck_P]

For some reason applying "dynamic range" onto film makes me uncomfortable, maybe because it's a digital term?

In ZS terms, the "dynamic" range, as put in The Negative, exists on the scale of zones from Zone I through IX..............versus the full range from Zone 0 through X......versus the textural range from Zone II through VIII. I don't particularly think it's a digital term at all. But I understand why one would think so.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What really matters at the practical level, in your case, Alan, is not how to read the curves or figure out the math, but simply to identify what range is acceptable to you with each respective film you choose to use via simple bracketing tests using roll film. Set up a standardized target which includes a neutral gray patch (I use the MacBeth Color Checker Chart). If possible use a spotmeter to read the 18% gray patch; if you don't have one, get a big 18% gray disc, and measure it for your centerpoint setting. Then burn up a roll of 120 film in each instance at 1/2 stop increments. Develop that, examine it on the light box, or scan, whatever, and decide your own practical tolerance range.

There will obviously be a very different acceptable range for TMax, for example, versus Velvia color slide film.

 

[gone]

This will depend on whether the light is strong or weak, and which film in which developer, and at which EI it's shot at. All of those will affect it. Only way to know is to shoot the film(s)in the light you expect to be working with and see.

Filters on the lens will probably affect it too, but that's already too much to try and figure out w/o trial testing things.

 

[DREW WILEY]

One thing I'd partially disagree with Henning about is what a high quality drum scan can or cannot realistically retrieve beyond what can be visually perceived on a light box. For example, it's amazing how much deep down into apparent blackness Velvia actually contains some tonal differentiation capable of being recovered through a high-quality scan. But very little or any of that stuff way down in the basement is high-quality visual content. It trends to blue crossover and blatant graininess, unlike the more realistic real estate this particular film offers, and is a Nosferatu perhaps best lest undisturbed in its coffin.

When it comes to black and white film, I think it's a way smarter strategy to handle extreme contrast scenes with a film with a very long straight line and develop accordingly to begin with, rather than to send a garden variety film to the digital Spanish Inquisition to torture the truth out of it. But apparently a lot of people enjoy being Inquisitors these day; and if so, it makes sense to start with the highest quality scan reasonably available.

But if something can be retrieved in a scan, it can also be done in the darkroom, albeit by methods which were routine for decades in the graphics industry, but are now largely forgotten by most. Curve restructuring itself is entirely possible in an all-film, all-darkroom workflow. But in that case, it's the darkroom itself which constitutes the torture chamber for both the image its handler, and not the modern scan and software route. Still, I personally prefer hands-on methodology, and an outcome of true optical prints.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Thanks, everyone for all that information. So we don't get too far astray, the whole point of this exercise is to determine if we can see the clipping points of film in a digital camera's histogram without or with changing the range of the histogram.

So I'm trying to determine how far off the clipping points and blinkies are in the digital reading from the film I'm using. I just tried spot-metering the histogram on a gray card and adjusted the exposure for 18% so that the spot reading is in the middle of the histogram. Then I increased the exposure by 1/3 stops and found that I can move the center to the rightmost point in the histogram in about +2.5 stops. When I lowered the exposure from the center, I could go way over -3 stops. I couldn't determine how much because the camera stopped moving once it hit -3 stops.

Why would a histogram have more stops on the shadow side? Why only 2 1/2 stops until it would start clipping on the bright end? It could be that you don't want to clip the highlights in digital cameras like reversal film. Once you lose the data, there's no recovering them. However, on the shadow side, you often can get more data, especially from a scan. So they set the camera to show clipping earlier on the bright side. Maybe?

 

[Helge]

Then just look at the samples and links I've given. Again the old, general forum problem: People refuse to read attentively and don't look at the links and examples given.
Theoretical are these curve discussions here.
I have taken real pictures in my tests, and used just all the normal tools (camera, film, processing, light table, projector, slide loupe, densitometer, enlarger etc.) I use in my daily photography.

Best regards,
Henning

Hopefully not seeming too obsequious, but I for one pour over every point in you posts.
When you post, it’s always very very well considered and well researched.
I suggest others do the same.

At those sources who have done proper tests, e.g. me or our member Tim Parkin:

About Us | Professional Drum Scanning

www.drumscanning.co.uk

I know Tim and he is a very trustworthy and reliable source.

A lot depends on the films (and developers with BW) and on the testing methods. And also on your workflow: There are imaging chains which offer a big dynamic range, and others who limit the DR.



Depending on the film up to 11 stops.
E.g. I have done tests in my test lab / studio in which I've created different contrast ranges with lights on a scene.
The transparencies after that were evaluated optically by eye.
On a light table under a slide loupe I could see about 8 stops with Provia 100F.
With new E100 a little bit (0.3 to 0.5stops) less.
Velvia 50 had about 7 stops, and Velvia 100 about 6.5 stops.
ADOX Scala 50 about 9 stops.

Evaluation of these test shots in projection with my 250W projector on my Da-Lite High-Power screen delivered about 0.5 stops higher values (better shadow detail).

Tim Parkin did tests with his drum scanner resulting in a 10 stops DR with Velvia 50, 11 stops with Provia 100F.
Real Drum Scanners with photo-multiplyers are extremely powerful concerning exploiting the full range of DR with film.

Here an example which shows that capability very impressively. It is a shot by me, heavily underexposed by a former connection problem of the metering in the prism finder of my M645 to the body.
Please scroll down to the portrait of the young lady with the hat:

Beispielbilder

Hier ein Vergleich zwischen einem Scan mit einem Nikon Coolscan 9000ED und dem Heidelberg Tango Trommelscanner nach händischer Konversion. Die Schärfe im Scan mit dem Coolscan 9000ED ist sicher nicht optimal. Das Bild wurde ohne Glasbühne gescannt. Dieser Scanner kann das sicher besser...

www.fineartdrumscanning.de

The scan was made with a Heidelberg Tango drumscanner by my friend Sebastian Dziuba. I was totally surprised that he could "save" this underexposed picture. And it shows that there is far more detail on the reversal film and much more DR than expected. Much much more than you would expect if you only look at the official HD curve.



Depending on the film up to 18/19 stops:

Kodak's new Portra 400 film - On Landscape

The messages we hear on forums whenever film is mentioned is that ‘Film is Dead’, no amount of ‘no it just smells funny’ can get people to shut up about it.

www.onlandscape.co.uk

Depending on the film up to 14/16 stops.

Some in my opinion very important general statements about the topic Dynamic Range:
It probably is one of the most overrated topics in the sense of being a big problem in photography.
It isn't a big problem because of two facts:

1. For beautiful and very impressive pictures you don't need a high dynamic range at all. Do you know any famous picture which has become famous because of a high dynamic range?
No, because there isn't any picture.
And if your most important details - which tell the "story" of your picture - are placed in either the deep shadows or the high highlights, then you have made something fundamentally wrong with the Gestaltung (framing, design) of your picture.

There is really no reason to be so "obsessive" with high DR as it has become in recent years especially with the digital influencers.

2. If you are really in a situation in which the DR of the scene is bigger than the capability of your film or sensor, then there are lots of different methods available to manage the high contrast of the scene and adjust it successfully to the DR capabilities of your used capturing medium (film, sensor).
We have
- fill-in light (flash, reflectors, other additional light sources), which is one of the best methods by far, because you can measure for the highlights of the scene, and get all the wanted detail in the shadows by the fill-in light; even extremely high scene contrast can be managed that way. You are doing what photographers should do: "Painting with light" by using light.
- gradual ND filters
- pol filter
- exposure and development according to the Zone System (for BW negative film): N+ and N-.
- dodging and burning in print process
- diffuse pre-exposure / pre-flashing.

My experience in my workshops with the participants:
All have cared much to much about the DR of the "sensor", but much to less about all the above mentioned very effective contrast management options.

DR could only be a problem if you let it be that by ignoring the contrast management options.

Best regards,
Henning

Superb post.
I would however make the teeny tiny point that I can think of some photos that make use of dynamic range for good artistic effect.
The Stimmung (to stay with the often superior german names for artistic and psychological concepts) of a photo can very much depend on the DR and the range you chose to communicate.
Several of Ansel Adams prints make heavy use of DR manipulation.
Film with shorter ranges blowing highlights can also look fantastic. I can think of HR-50 IR shots and Velvia through trees as examples. Completely different from digital quantized ranges combined with CMOS full “bucket” clipping.

Thank you again.
Guten Rutsch!
(Good slide to to pun it up ;-)

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Brad, How do you figure 5 stops?

The exposure range along the bottom is basically Log10, which means 0.3 units is a full doubling or halving of exposure.

So looking at the chart exposure density starts to pick up between 0.0 and 1.0 log, so lets split the difference and say 0.5 log. It reaches max density between -2.0 and -2.5 exposure. OK, so lets be conservative and say -2.2. This gives a total log exposure range from clear film base plus fog to max black of 0.5 - -2.2 = 2.7 log units of exposure. A full stop is 0.3, so 2.7 / 0.3 = 9.0 stops of exposure from clear film base plus fog at full over exposure to max black where the film is no longer registering exposure to light. That is the maximum extreme. The chart shows both a shoulder and toe, so realistically, where the color channels are responding in a linear fashion is quite a bit less.

@Alan Edward Klein to your question, there isn't really any clipping per se... it starts to either shoulder over and toe and eventually stops responding, but there's not really a hard clip or anything like that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The exposure range along the bottom is basically Log10, which means 0.3 units is a full doubling or halving of exposure.

So looking at the chart exposure density starts to pick up between 0.0 and 1.0 log, so lets split the difference and say 0.5 log. It reaches max density between -2.0 and -2.5 exposure. OK, so lets be conservative and say -2.2. This gives a total log exposure range from clear film base plus fog to max black of 0.5 - -2.2 = 2.7 log units of exposure. A full stop is 0.3, so 2.7 / 0.3 = 9.0 stops of exposure from clear film base plus fog at full over exposure to max black where the film is no longer registering exposure to light. That is the maximum extreme. The chart shows both a shoulder and toe, so realistically, where the color channels are responding in a linear fashion is quite a bit less.

@Alan Edward Klein to your question, there isn't really any clipping per se... it starts to either shoulder over and toe and eventually stops responding, but there's not really a hard clip or anything like that.

So what's the practical value of Velvia 50 in stops? 5 or 9 or something else?

 

[Helge]

So what's the practical value of Velvia 50 in stops? 5 or 9 or something else?

Ten if you are willing to drumscan.
I wouldn’t say that is impractical.

Less according to the whims of the alleged Dmax 3.0 of a V700.

Camera scanning with multiple exposures is somewhere in-between. Probably towards the high-end with good technique.
And it pulls out more resolution from the slide than drum scanning.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Ten if you are willing to drumscan.
I wouldn’t say that is impractical.

Less according to the whims of the alleged Dmax 3.0 of a V700.

Camera scanning with multiple exposures is somewhere in-between. Probably towards the high-end with good technique.
And it pulls out more resolution from the slide than drum scanning.

With chromes, I'm more concerned with clipping the bright end. How many stops between the average exposure rating and clipping white?

 

[snusmumriken]

I know even less about digital than I know about film, but aren't highlights a weakness of digital sensors, i.e. the little pixels get blinded by too much light? That might explain why they are clipped more severely in your camera by whatever algorithm controls your histogram display. Surely it would also mean that the histogram cannot be a good guide to what a film might do?

 

[Helge]

With chromes, I'm more concerned with clipping the bright end. How many stops between the average exposure rating and clipping white?

Can’t give you a precise answer of course.
But a good estimate would probably be to just as an outset to cut the given number of stops in half. Then look at the curve. The shoulder is perhaps a bit more abrupt than the foot. So subtract around half to a whole stop from that range.

I always tend to protect the highlights when I shoot slide (or tamp them down with a pol filter, grad filter even a preflash to even out contrast.
If I was only projecting, I’d probably aim for as much of a mid exposure as possible.

 

[Henning Serger]

What really matters at the practical level, in your case, Alan, is not how to read the curves or figure out the math, but simply to identify what range is acceptable to you with each respective film you choose to use via simple bracketing tests using roll film. Set up a standardized target which includes a neutral gray patch (I use the MacBeth Color Checker Chart). If possible use a spotmeter to read the 18% gray patch; if you don't have one, get a big 18% gray disc, and measure it for your centerpoint setting. Then burn up a roll of 120 film in each instance at 1/2 stop increments. Develop that, examine it on the light box, or scan, whatever, and decide your own practical tolerance range.

There will obviously be a very different acceptable range for TMax, for example, versus Velvia color slide film.

+1.

As I've already written in my reply to Alan above:
"The only way to get reasonable / working values for you is doing your own tests with your special workflow."

The only addition I want to make is doing the exposures series with 1/3 stop increments with colour reversal film. 1/3 stop difference often makes a visiual / esthetical difference.

Alan, as none of us has exactly the same equipment and workflow as you have, and our esthetical assessment will probably also differ, the only way for you getting satisfying results is doing your own tests and look what you like and which limits you are willing to accept.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

@Alan Edward Klein to your question, there isn't really any clipping per se... it starts to either shoulder over and toe and eventually stops responding, but there's not really a hard clip or anything like that.

Exactly.
And that is one of the advantages of film in comaprison to digital sensors, the much more "smooth" gradient / progression.
And that is also a reason why it is difficult to talk about exact limits, because of this continous progression personal assessment and "taste" also plays a role: One photographer could be more tolerant than another.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

One thing I'd partially disagree with Henning about is what a high quality drum scan can or cannot realistically retrieve beyond what can be visually perceived on a light box.

Drew, I am really a big enthusiast and user of all direct optical (non-digital) methods in the imaging chain (light-table, projection, optical enlarging). For several very good reasons (have explained it here several times in the past, no need to repeat it again in this thread).
I am using the optical imaging chains really by far most of the time.
But as generally in my life, I am not a "fundamentalist" at all and see different approaches very pragmatically. I am interested in best results.
Well, horses for courses, as the Brits say .
Fortunately I am spoiled by the fact that several friends of mine are running professional drum scan services. Which gave me access to that amazing technology. Used it for my own pictures, and have seen countless examples from the owners of these scanners, which are all also excellent and very experienced photographers. And from that experience I can say that in terms of DR and recovering shadow and highlight detail this photomultiplyer technology is really amazing and offering a real additional value to us film photographers. I've indeed got significant detail in totally underexposed areas by drums scans where it wasn't possible to see such amount of detail on the light box. So it is very good to know having this option if something has went wrong in exposure. I don't need that option in 99.99% of the time because correct exposure isn't a problem at all, but in very rare cases shit happens . And then I don't have to worry as there is a solution with a drum scan.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I know even less about digital than I know about film, but aren't highlights a weakness of digital sensors, i.e. the little pixels get blinded by too much light? That might explain why they are clipped more severely in your camera by whatever algorithm controls your histogram display. Surely it would also mean that the histogram cannot be a good guide to what a film might do?

Chromes are very similar to digital. You want to protect the highlights. You;re right about histograms in a digital camera. This is why I'm studying how to determine where they clip highlights and shadows.

Can’t give you a precise answer of course.
But a good estimate would probably be to just as an outset to cut the given number of stops in half. Then look at the curve. The shoulder is perhaps a bit more abrupt than the foot. So subtract around half to a whole stop from that range.

I always tend to protect the highlights when I shoot slide (or tamp them down with a pol filter, grad filter even a preflash to even out contrast.
If I was only projecting, I’d probably aim for as much of a mid exposure as possible.

Basically I do shoot for mid-exposure. I'm trying to see if the blinkies and histogram can alert me to potential clipping where I burn out the highlights on chrome film. It would be similar to checking the sky with a spot meter to see how many stops over average to determine if you need a GND filter. Blinkies and the histogram might be a way of quickly alerting me beforehand in a similar fashion. So I'm trying to see if I can adjust the histogram to match the film limits.

+1.

As I've already written in my reply to Alan above:
"The only way to get reasonable / working values for you is doing your own tests with your special workflow."

The only addition I want to make is doing the exposures series with 1/3 stop increments with colour reversal film. 1/3 stop difference often makes a visiual / esthetical difference.

Alan, as none of us has exactly the same equipment and workflow as you have, and our esthetical assessment will probably also differ, the only way for you getting satisfying results is doing your own tests and look what you like and which limits you are willing to accept.

Best regards,
Henning

The bigger problem I have is whether I can change the limits in histogram limits. Without that, it won't matter too much where the film limits are.

Exactly.
And that is one of the advantages of film in comaprison to digital sensors, the much more "smooth" gradient / progression.
And that is also a reason why it is difficult to talk about exact limits, because of this continous progression personal assessment and "taste" also plays a role: One photographer could be more tolerant than another.

Best regards,
Henning

I just want to get ballpark figures. For example, if it is true that the histogram has around 2 1/2 stops to the right edge, and there's roughly the same for chormes from average to losing details in the whites, then I may be already in good shape for the alerts. I could adjust the histogram down a little from let;s say 255 to 250 for earlier warning. Of course, I can still use the camera's spot metering to check the sky and other areas to make that determination.

That raises the question of how do others use spot metering or other metering and methods to check they don't clip highlights when shooting chromes? That's what I'm trying to do with the histogram and blinkies.

 

[Henning Serger]

Superb post.

Thank you very much, Helge.

I would however make the teeny tiny point that I can think of some photos that make use of dynamic range for good artistic effect.
The Stimmung (to stay with the often superior german names for artistic and psychological concepts) of a photo can very much depend on the DR and the range you chose to communicate.
Several of Ansel Adams prints make heavy use of DR manipulation.

I see what you are meaning, but I would not describe Adams workflow generally as "heavy use of DR manipulation" at all.
Because:
What you are doing with dodging and burning generally is just that you adjust the detail and DR of the negative to the lower DR of the positive / printing paper.
You make the details (in shadows and highlights) on the negative visible on the positive. I think that is more the opposite of manipulation, as you just show what is really on the negative.
And as Adams had to work with materials with often less DR than modern materials, he had to use it more often.

Of course you can then use these methods also in a more intensive way that not only show what is on the negative, but produce a bit more dramatic effect. But I think Adams has never "overdone" that. At least I don't know a picture of him that I would describe that way.

Film with shorter ranges blowing highlights can also look fantastic. I can think of HR-50 IR shots

Well, Adox HR-50 has an S-shaped curve which is significantly flattening in the highlight Zones from Zone VII to Zone X.
Correctly exposed and developed it is almost impossible to really "blow-out" the highlights with this film.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[BrianShaw]

That raises the question of how do others use spot metering or other metering and methods to check they don't clip highlights when shooting chromes? That's what I'm trying to do with the histogram and blinkies.

1. incident light reading
or
2. meter part of the sky with a general coveage reflected light meter
or
3. include a sky reading as one of the spot readings that get averaged
or
4. base the exposure on a single subject brightness area that is closer to the bright area than the dark area
or
5. meter with a 35mm camera with center-weighted, or bottom-weighted, or matrix metering

The whole goal with transparency film is to base the exposure on protecting highlights and let the shadows go dark if they must. Completely different mindset than shooting eitehr b&w or color negative. Metering with the midset of positive film, maximizing the depths of the dark areas, increases the odds of blowing out highlights with transparency film.

It is for that reason that decades ago I came to my senses and only shoot positive film when I will need to project. In your case, I believe you mentioned many times that you prefer to display on your TV so using positive makes much more sense than for me.

This is an ages-old issue that was discussed many decades ago by photographic exposure luminaries like Dunn in his 1952/1958 Exposure Manual... and many others since. It's just not very difficult or some sort of black magic. If you want a greater assurance it might be much better to use a film camera with matrix metering to suggest an exposure than futz with the digital histograms... seriously.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

1. incident light reading
or
2. meter part of the sky with a general coveage reflected light meter
or
3. include a sky reading as one of the spot readings that get averaged
or
4. base the exposure on a single subject brightness area that is closer to the bright area than the dark area
or
5. meter with a 35mm camera with center-weighted, or bottom-weighted, or matrix metering

The whole goal with transparency film is to base the exposure on protecting highlights and let the shadows go dark if they must. Completely different mindset than shooting eitehr b&w or color negative. Metering with the midset of positive film, maximizing the depths of the dark areas, increases the odds of blowing out highlights with transparency film.

It is for that reason that decades ago I came to my senses and only shoot positive film when I will need to project. In your case, I believe you mentioned many times that you prefer to display on your TV so using positive makes much more sense than for me.

This is an ages-old issue that was discussed many decades ago by photographic exposure luminaries like Dunn in his 1952/1958 Exposure Manual... and many others since. It's just not very difficult or some sort of black magic. If you want a greater assurance it might be much better to use a film camera with matrix metering to suggest an exposure than futz with the digital histograms... seriously.

As a chrome shooter, I've grown to love the blacks and dark shadows in photos even in prints. I think they show great on TV and monitors. Slide projection by another name which I no longer do.

Basically I'm using average readings on my digital camera as a meter by any other name. After all, using an incident meter is reflecting average light. Checking a scene with a dedicated meter using reflective light is also basically checking for average light. So using a camera to meter basically the same thing with the added advantage hopefully of immediately flagging clipping points which a dedicated meter can't do without taking additional readings.

It would be nice if I could trust the blinkies and histogram to flag my clipping points for film. That's what i'm working on.

 

[BrianShaw]

It would be nice if I could trust the blinkies and histogram to flag my clipping points for film. That's what i'm working on.

You probably can... try it... find one scene where your digital camera indicates blocking of highlights and shoot a transparency film with that recommended exposure. If the highlights are indeed blocked, then voila...

Practical experimentation often is easier and just as effective as any other kind of analysis, especially when the question/requirements many not be well/fully expressed and sends folks down rabbit holes other than the ones that are truly applicable.

 

[Helge]

Thank you very much, Helge.



I see what you are meaning, but I would not describe Adams workflow generally as "heavy use of DR manipulation" at all.
Because:
What you are doing with dodging and burning generally is just that you adjust the detail and DR of the negative to the lower DR of the positive / printing paper.
You make the details (in shadows and highlights) on the negative visible on the positive. I think that is more the opposite of manipulation, as you just show what is really on the negative.
And as Adams had to work with materials with often less DR than modern materials, he had to use it more often.

Of course you can then use these methods also in a more intensive way that not only show what is on the negative, but produce a bit more dramatic effect. But I think Adams has never "overdone" that. At least I don't know a picture of him that I would describe that way.



Well, Adox HR-50 has an S-shaped curve which is significantly flattening in the highlight Zones from Zone VII to Zone X.
Correctly exposed and developed it is almost impossible to really "blow-out" the highlights with this film.

Best regards,
Henning

Well, no end medium has as much dynamic range as captured in the carrier medium. With the usual few exceptions of course.
Projection as an exception could be said to be kind of an end medium, and as such capable of (when done well) more contrast than just about any other display method. Almost the same as the slide views directly.

You will almost always have to compress and adjust though.
That goes for analog studio tape to vinyl and cassette, and it goes for cine film to print film. As well as for stills to paper or screen.

The border between manipulation and adjustment is an instance of the Sorites paradox. There is clearly “too much” and there is “adjusting to get a better tonal relationship”.
Look at some of Ansels negatives. They are often very different from the end result on paper.

HR-50 has a shorter range than say TMax 400.
That’s part of what makes it special. The wonderful separation of mid tones.
From miles up and through generous aerial perspective everything is mid tones.
That’s what the emulsion was made for.
If you want good mid tones and it’s sunny you should expect to get into the shoulder at some spots.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You probably can... try it... find one scene where your digital camera indicates blocking of highlights and shoot a transparency film with that recommended exposure. If the highlights are indeed blocked, then voila...

Practical experimentation often is easier and just as effective as any other kind of analysis, especially when the question/requirements many not be well/fully expressed and sends folks down rabbit holes other than the ones that are truly applicable.

Good advice. Drew suggested a 35 mm camera which I have and the shutter is extremely accurate. So maybe I'll load that up with some chromes and negative film too and try it using manual setting against the digital cameras meter.