Dynamic Range of film

[lxdude]

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.

I get what you're after. What I want to mention is that film doesn't really "clip", not the way digital does. The point in digital is distinct, can be represented numerically, and the histogram can show it. The point of absolute loss of detail from too much or too little light with film is going to be beyond what you would determine to be blown out or blocked using normal methods of observation. It is of course going to vary with the specific film.
I think you would have to test and determine the equivalent points for yourself. There is a significant degree of subjectivity. Henning has shown that detail can be pulled out of film beyond what can even be seen on a light box. So at what point does it clip? The least point that a drum scanner can reveal detail, or that a print can show? How you produce the final image influences the final "clipping" point that you will find suits you.
I would say that starting out, the histogram would serve as a rough guide, and as you acquire feedback and gain experience it would become a more effective tool.

 

[DREW WILEY]

What's my strategy with chromes and handling highlight issues, that is, outdoors? Simple. I seek out settings or subject matter which already match the realistic limited scale of the film itself. Or else, compositionally, either the shadows or highlights simply have to be sacrificed in some intelligent manner, like using black in a graphic sense. All of this becomes intuitive with experience. In a studio or architectural shot setup, lighting ratios can be artificially controlled.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Just a brief reply to Henning. Yes, thank you, I'm quite aware of certain workflow conveniences of scanning. But once you go down that rabbit hole, you're forced into digital printing too, which is not to my taste. I stopped shooting chromes once the handwriting was on the wall concerning the demise of Cibachrome, and switched to color neg film right around the time it was significantly improving, along with RA4 papers themselves. But I still sometimes make precision internegs from chromes - yeah, that's a headache to do well in traditional darkroom workflow - but the results are superior in my opinion. Of course, it helps that most of my originals involved are large format film (8X10 and 4X5), so there's very little actual qualitative loss in the print, pretty much as good as it gets. No, not for everyone; and maybe not for me much longer either. Using multiple sheets of LF film for each image done that way is getting pretty expensive these days.

 

[Henning Serger]

What's my strategy with chromes and handling highlight issues, that is, outdoors? Simple. I seek out settings or subject matter which already match the realistic limited scale of the film itself.

One possible approach.
I don't need to care much about a high contrast scene because I am using the contrast management options I have mentioned in my posting above.
About 90% of my colour work is done on colour reversal film.
With my outdoor portrait and fashion work I use fill-in techniques like reflectors and fill-in flash. Works perfectly even in (very) high contrast scenes.
For my landscape photography I control the scene contrast by using pol or gradual ND filters. Or also fill-in flash, as it can be easily used for the foreground up to 20 meters.

Therefore high(er) contrast cannot limit me significantly in my artistic preferences .

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Just a brief reply to Henning. Yes, thank you, I'm quite aware of certain workflow conveniences of scanning. But once you go down that rabbit hole, you're forced into digital printing too, which is not to my taste.

Well, here in Germany there are lots of excellent prof. labs who are offering prints on real silver-halide photo paper from your scans.
And a drum-scan printed on Fujifilm Maxima premium paper is really outstanding and satisfying the highest standards.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[DREW WILEY]

Henning, Fuji papers are marketed a little different here - slightly different selection, or simply different names for the same products. I don't print color in the winter, but last printed on Fujiflex Supergloss, their very highest offering in terms of hue gamut and overall permanence, but pricey, available only on wide rolls, and obviously too shiny for certain subject matter. Much like the Cibachrome look. And I'm confident that if it can be printed well using pro laser printers, it can be done at least as well optically using an enlarger, or in my opinion, even better. But that's what I'm well equipped to do anyway. No sense changing this late in the game. There are plenty of others who offer laser as well as inkjet printing in this area, and even higher quality proprietary printing methods based on scans for those few who can afford that kind of service. I don't do commercial printing, just my own work, so deadlines are nowhere near as important for me as optimal quality, even if that involves a tortoise rather than hare speedometer.

Keep in mind, that by "standards", I have my own standards, and they tend to exceed acceptable commercial standards. Makes no difference if everyone hypothetically optimized everything. If it was "my painting" instead, why would I want anyone else handling the paint brush? In other words, I'm a printmaker, and not just a photographer.

 

[BrianShaw]

… if prints are the goal.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I get what you're after. What I want to mention is that film doesn't really "clip", not the way digital does. The point in digital is distinct, can be represented numerically, and the histogram can show it. The point of absolute loss of detail from too much or too little light with film is going to be beyond what you would determine to be blown out or blocked using normal methods of observation. It is of course going to vary with the specific film.
I think you would have to test and determine the equivalent points for yourself. There is a significant degree of subjectivity. Henning has shown that detail can be pulled out of film beyond what can even be seen on a light box. So at what point does it clip? The least point that a drum scanner can reveal detail, or that a print can show? How you produce the final image influences the final "clipping" point that you will find suits you.
I would say that starting out, the histogram would serve as a rough guide, and as you acquire feedback and gain experience it would become a more effective tool.

Are you referring to chromes where you're concerned with highlight loss to the point of no image? How do you and others shooting chromes make that determination when using a light meter?

What's my strategy with chromes and handling highlight issues, that is, outdoors? Simple. I seek out settings or subject matter which already match the realistic limited scale of the film itself. Or else, compositionally, either the shadows or highlights simply have to be sacrificed in some intelligent manner, like using black in a graphic sense. All of this becomes intuitive with experience. In a studio or architectural shot setup, lighting ratios can be artificially controlled.

Same question. Being able to verify it with a meter is better for me than my intuition.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Alan, metering is one thing, and specific. But hunting for appropriate subject matter and illumination range for a particular film is generic. For instance, with your preferred Velvia, I early on recognized to look for softer lighting. Just a few days ago, I noticed a scene in the fog which made me think of how appropriate Veliva would be for that, but not my current color neg films. On the other hand, there are things my current favorite color film Ektar handles well, which would be hopelessly too contrasty for Velvia. Regardless, it's still a good idea to meter in each instance.

With the Pentax Digital Spotmeter, there is an IRE scale intended for movie sets and television studios, which is fairly well matched to the contrast range of most chrome films (Velvia has a slightly narrower range); and those specific marked IRE endpoints give a good clue on one end where shadows are likely to be irrecoverably black, and on the other end, where the highlights will get entirely washed out. One should follow up on that with specific color print testing of course, or color halftone results in publication; so that is also key factor.

But the entire reading range capacity of the Pentax meter itself, and its dial, go considerably beyond the IRE scale, so serves well for the much longer capacity typical of black and white film, Zone System methodology, etc. It's a very well thought-out, fast, and intuitive meter to use.

 

[BrianShaw]

With the Pentax Digital Spotmeter, there is an IRE scale

Alternatively, with a Sekonic L-558 (and later), one can take multiple measures and save them to memory. The meter's display will show the range of subject brightness visually. One can then either average or pick an alternate exposure. I like Pendtax Digital Spotmeter but have come to love the memory and visual display capabilities of the Sekonic. More often than not, though, for "normal scenes", I find all of that spot metering amounts to not much more exposure fidelity than a smartly-applied general coverage reflected or an incident light reading. I'd rather take the easy way out and spend more of my attention on the subject, composition, and mechanics of the camera.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alan, metering is one thing, and specific. But hunting for appropriate subject matter and illumination range for a particular film is generic. For instance, with your preferred Velvia, I early on recognized to look for softer lighting. Just a few days ago, I noticed a scene in the fog which made me think of how appropriate Veliva would be for that, but not my current color neg films. On the other hand, there are things my current favorite color film Ektar handles well, which would be hopelessly too contrasty for Velvia. Regardless, it's still a good idea to meter in each instance.

With the Pentax Digital Spotmeter, there is an IRE scale intended for movie sets and television studios, which is fairly well matched to the contrast range of most chrome films (Velvia has a slightly narrower range); and those specific marked IRE endpoints give a good clue on one end where shadows are likely to be irrecoverably black, and on the other end, where the highlights will get entirely washed out. One should follow up on that with specific color print testing of course, or color halftone results in publication; so that is also key factor.

But the entire reading range capacity of the Pentax meter itself, and its dial, go considerably beyond the IRE scale, so serves well for the much longer capacity typical of black and white film, Zone System methodology, etc. It's a very well thought-out, fast, and intuitive meter to use.

I looked up IRE procedures and equipment. Very interesting. A lot like a histogram that defines which areas of the image is clipping at each end. Of course, the Pentax spot meter couldn't do that because it's only looking at a spot while a digital camera's sensor looks at the entire scene. Also, a histogram only tells you you are clipping but doesn't show the area.

So just like IRE in a Pentax Digital Spotmeter seems to be similar to histogram, I want to use blinkies to accomplish the same thing plus show the area of clipping. It;s quicker than looking at a histogram as well. With blinkies, all white areas clipped show as red flashing and all black areas clipped show as blue flashing. Very convenient.

An Introduction to Waveforms, Scopes, and Exposure

Before the rise of the anarchy of digital video, analog video was ruled by engineers at virtually every step of production, post production, and delivery. There were rules that had to be adhered to very strictly to ensure that your footage met the technical requirements of broadcasters...

www.bhphotovideo.com

Blinkies in Photography

Technically known as overexposure highlight warnings or highlight alerts, blinkies perform a basic function. They indicate the areas in an image where the highlights have been clipped. Steve Perry explains how your understanding of blinkies can improve your photography: Most modern day cameras...

www.picturecorrect.com

 

[DREW WILEY]

NO, the IRE scale is NOT like a histogram, Alan. It's way more versatile in some ways, but doesn't show you an illumination distribution within that set range. What's important with color film is not the amount of luminance per se at any set point, like with black and white film, but where and how within those parameters the chroma of specific key scene hues saturate, and therefore reproduce best. That's an extremely important variable which often gets overlooked when discussions of both b&w and color film overlap on the same thread. In fact, its a very important feature of color exposure few photographers understand sufficiently, except pro cinematographers and their skilled lighting crews.

Yes, there are other meters which are capable of the same thing using a pushbutton memory function, like the excellent Minolta Spotmeter F. But I find the far simpler manual-reading rotating collar of the Pentax the fastest and most intuitive to use.

Conceptually, metering for color works best center-out from the midpoint marking - how much realistic latitude you get either side of that. That's why averaging and incident meters often work so well for color. But in black and white work, especially for Zonies, its more important to establish critical shadow and highlight textural threshold readings, and then expose and develop accordingly.

But yeah, if you simply get so acquainted with the performance of a particular histogram program that it seems to work for you, why not?
But that's certainly not the shortest distance between Point A and Point B, in terms of a learning curve.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

NO, the IRE scale is NOT like a histogram, Alan. It's way more versatile in some ways, but doesn't show you an illumination distribution within that set range. What's important with color film is not the amount of luminance per se at any set point, like with black and white film, but where and how within those parameters the chroma of specific key scene hues saturate, and therefore reproduce best. That is an extremely important variable which often gets overlooked when discussions of both b&w and color film overlap on the same thread.

OK, an interesting detail. But I want to use blinkies and histograms to accomplish similar things that actually improve on a digital meter.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Alternatively, with a Sekonic L-558 (and later), one can take multiple measures and save them to memory. The meter's display will show the range of subject brightness visually. One can then either average or pick an alternate exposure. I like Pendtax Digital Spotmeter but have come to love the memory and visual display capabilities of the Sekonic. More often than not, though, for "normal scenes", I find all of that spot metering amounts to not much more exposure fidelity than a smartly-applied general coverage reflected or an incident light reading. I'd rather take the easy way out and spend more of my attention on the subject, composition, and mechanics of the camera.

I agree Bryan an incident meter is quicker. I often use that myself if the light is fairly "normal". But since it tells me only averages, as does a center reading reflective meter or digital camera, I've had scenes where some clouds are blowing out at that setting that I won't notice until I look at the chrome on a lightbox or scan it. Wouldn't it be neat if a blinkie would quickly tell us that when shooting for film as it does now for the digital camera? In any case, wouldn't that also be where using your spot meter would be better? Then you could check the sky.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Well, spotmeters are indeed the best for deciding critical parts of the scene, provided you aren't aiming directly into the sun and getting flare. No need for a "blinkie", though that might be a handy amenity to some metering styles. You just look right at the dial ring marking relative to your set point with a Pentax spotmeter. It's relatively simple optical system is also a lot more versatile and foolproof than all the hoops TTL meter or DLSR light has to go through before achieving a readout.

I've often done comparisons with these different metering styles. And while the most important thing is to simply gain full familiarity with you own preferred method, in statistical terms, getting reliable critical results, a true handheld spotmeter seems the most successful approach. And it makes no difference whether you're shooting 35mm or 8x10 film in a view camera. Once you learn how to properly use a spotmeter, you can use it for almost anything. Of course, there is no law stipulating you are forbidden to carry both a spot and incident meter, or a combined version, should you choose to do so.

 

[BrianShaw]

If one wants to meter the brightness of the sky, that can be done with any light meter. Meters measure whatever they are pointed at.

 

[BrianShaw]

Here’s an example, Alan. Doesn’t matter which spot meter… Drew uses his memory and I use my memory button. LOL

It’s a dull day, overcast but two readings in my backyard: deepest dark shadow and cloudy sky, plus the average computed by the meter.

You can see the scene brightness range, and count it if you’d like. Seven stops,,, no problem for most negative films but one might want to think a bit harder about using that average with positive film.

And then a general-coverage reflected metering with meter aimed so a bit of sky is being measured, as one might do to protect the sky from blowing out on chrome film.

Nearly identical EVs… that’s why I don’t spot meter until I encounter a “not normal” scene.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Well, spotmeters are indeed the best for deciding critical parts of the scene, provided you aren't aiming directly into the sun and getting flare. No need for a "blinkie", though that might be a handy amenity to some metering styles. You just look right at the dial ring marking relative to your set point with a Pentax spotmeter. It's relatively simple optical system is also a lot more versatile and foolproof than all the hoops TTL meter or DLSR light has to go through before achieving a readout.

I've often done comparisons with these different metering styles. And while the most important thing is to simply gain full familiarity with you own preferred method, in statistical terms, getting reliable critical results, a true handheld spotmeter seems the most successful approach. And it makes no difference whether you're shooting 35mm or 8x10 film in a view camera. Once you learn how to properly use a spotmeter, you can use it for almost anything. Of course, there is no law stipulating you are forbidden to carry both a spot and incident meter, or a combined version, should you choose to do so.

My spot meter is 10 degrees and I don;t want to spend $500 on a new meter when my camera already has matrix, center average and 2-3 degree spot. Histograms and blinkies are a bonus. It's of no help to me when you said in an earlier post that your decades of experience tell you where to set the exposure. I don't have that much time left.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If one wants to meter the brightness of the sky, that can be done with any light meter. Meters measure whatever they are pointed at.

Yes. I could use the digital camera's spot meter to do that just as other photographers use their spot meters to check if they might clip the sky. But I'm not familiar with spot metering, mine is 10 degrees, and besides, blinkies hopefully could tell me immediately exactly which areas are clipping and how much. It's a great tool for digital photographers to check exposure and could be for film photographers as well, especially those using chromes.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, you just as easily could use your digital camera or 10-degree spotmeter to do the same. If you promise to not get offended I think I know the “problem “… you want the blinkers to make a decision. Maybe they can and maybe not. That experiment discussed here or on the other site will help immensely in gaining an appreciation for the capabilities of your blinkirs.

When I have nothing better to do I do scene analysis so I can better see SBR and determine potentially difficult photographic scenes. Maybe I mentioned a phone app before, ZoneView. It’s about $7 and helps me immensely. Here is an example:

The blue square represents parts of the image that exceed my arbitrarily set limits of 3stops over or under average. Aren’t these functionally somewhat like your blinkies?

P.S. this isn’t exactly the scene I measured in the previous post where I indicated a 7-stop range. This scene doesn’t have the same level of deep dark.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Here’s an example, Alan. Doesn’t matter which spot meter… Drew uses his memory and I use my memory button. LOL

It’s a dull day, overcast but two readings in my backyard: deepest dark shadow and cloudy sky, plus the average computed by the meter.

View attachment 325602

You can see the scene brightness range, and count it if you’d like. Seven stops,,, no problem for most negative films but one might want to think a bit harder about using that average with positive film.

And then a general-coverage reflected metering with meter aimed so a bit of sky is being measured, as one might do to protect the sky from blowing out on chrome film.

View attachment 325604

Nearly identical EVs… that’s why I don’t spot meter until I encounter a “not normal” scene.

Thanks for the examples, Brian. My meter also memorizes three and can average. Your examples range of 7 stops probably means you're going to clip chromes as there are 3 1/2 stops above average setting, assuming you use that setting. So you have to take that into account.

However, what if your sky was mostly blue with only two small white clouds? Your reading of the sky would be close to average, and it would appear you wouldn't clip. So then you shoot the shot and find the white clouds did clip. Too late to correct. Blinkies could tell you immediately by flashing those two little clouds red. Of course, you could have used your spot meter to read the clouds as well.

 

[BrianShaw]

For anyone who objects to EV, here is the Zone version. LOL

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, you just as easily could use your digital camera or 10-degree spotmeter to do the same. If you promise to not get offended I think I know the “problem “… you want the blinkers to make a decision. Maybe they can and maybe not. That experiment discussed here or on the other site will help immensely in gaining an appreciation for the capabilities of your blinkirs.

When I have nothing better to do I do scene analysis so I can better see SBR and determine potentially difficult photographic scenes. Maybe I mentioned a phone app before, ZoneView. It’s about $7 and helps me immensely. Here is an example:

View attachment 325605

The blue square represents parts of the image that exceed my arbitrarily set limits of 3stops over or under average. Aren’t these functionally somewhat like your blinkies?

P.S. this isn’t exactly the scene I measured in the previous post where I indicated a 7-stop range. This scene doesn’t have the same level of deep dark.

Yes. Exactly. You've been a secret admirer of blinkies all along. Now if I could confirm or set my blinkies to match the chrome film I'm using, I would have what you have. Actually, I think coloring the areas that clip is a better way. I'm surprised the developer didn't do that unless there's some sort of copyright or patent on them. Maybe he'll do it in a future version.

 

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for the examples, Brian. My meter also memorizes three and can average. Your examples range of 7 stops probably means you're going to clip chromes as there are 3 1/2 stops above average setting, assuming you use that setting. So you have to take that into account.

However, what if your sky was mostly blue with only two small white clouds? Your reading of the sky would be close to average, and it would appear you wouldn't clip. So then you shoot the shot and find the white clouds did clip. Too late to correct. Blinkies could tell you immediately by flashing those two little clouds red. Of course, you could have used your spot meter to read the clouds as well.

Yes, in that example I’d set my exposure a bit higher than the average and accept the loss in the dark areas.

I metered the blue sky with puffy clouds yesterday. About 1stop between blue and cloud, using a 1-degree spotmeter. That was just intellectual curious it’s. I’d measure sky with another meter that measures broader coverage area normally.

I’m not opposed to blinkies or blue boxes. I just refuse to let them tell me what to do. I’m hardheaded, perhaps.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, in that example I’d set my exposure a bit higher than the average and accept the loss in the dark areas.

I metered the blue sky with puffy clouds yesterday. About 1stop between blue and cloud, using a 1-degree spotmeter. That was just intellectual curious it’s. I’d measure sky with another meter that measures broader coverage area normally.

I’m not opposed to blinkies or blue boxes. I just refuse to let them tell me what to do. I’m hardheaded, perhaps.

That's what I'm doing now even if the blinkies are not blinking because I;m not sure if the digital camera range matches the film. However, there appear to be 2 1/2 stops above average on the histogram to the clipping point. Isn;t 2 1/2 fairly close to clipping in chrome film?