Dynamic Range of film

Alan Edward Klein said:

So, maybe I should have started with this question. How do you chrome shooters set the exposure?

Click to expand...

It's extremely simple:
When using 35mm I use one of my Nikons with Matrix Metering. As Craig already said above, that is extremely accurate and has an almost 100% hit rate, especially with my Nikon F6 and its most advanced and sophisticated Matrix Metering.
When using MF I use my Mamiya 645 Pro TL, which has an also very good centre weigthed meter which is very precise (plus spot metering option).

If the scene contrast is very high I am doing an additional spot metering with the in-built spot meter (in my Nikons and the Mamiya), and if the result is that the scene contrast is higher than the max. contrast range of the film, then I am just using one of the several methods to manage the contrast and capture all the detail I want (see my posting above about these very helpful methods).
In landscape photography often a pol-filter is already enough to darken and intensify the sky and reducing the scene contrast by 1-2 stops so that all fits into the contrast range of the film.
If more is needed, I just use gradual ND filters. Problem solved again.
Sometimes I am using a fill-in flash in landscapes for the foregrounds (works up to 20 meters with my flashes).

I am doing quite a lot of portrait and fashion photography outdoors on colour reversal film. As generations of professional photographers have done for decades (reversal film has been the main used film type for advertizing, magazines, catalogs etc.).
If the scene contrast is higher than the max. contrast range of the film, I am just using fill-in flash (often in HSS mode) or reflectors for fill-in light. By that you can manage even very high contrast scenes perfectly.

High scene contrast is not a problem at all, you just have to use the for decades very well proven methods to manage and adjust that contrast.
Period.
It is as simple as that. That is why experienced prof. photographers are using these methods for decades.

Best regards,
Henning

Henning, just to clarify present circumstances, there is a serious disjunct between what Fujifilm.USA shows on their website as the Crystal Archive lineup, versus the selection they actually stock here, often under different labels, and which is identified only on their current product numbering and price list not accessible to the public. There are several reasons for this discrepancy, one being their need to sell out older stock of similar papers under different labels first. Second, everything has been in terribly short supply due to severe recent manufacture and distribution issues, covid-related. And the complete collapse of Kodak-branded paper has overwhelmed Fuji, trying to keep up with all that added demand. The situation is slowly but distinctly improving. And last, Fuji's US Customer Service and Web Dept can be very out of touch and remarkably unhelpful at times. But that's a flaw inherent to many major marketing corporations; instead of putting their best foot forward, the put the worst foot out front. Pandemic understaffing has only made things worse.

And so far, I've found it impossible to acquire any Maxima at all, or even get straight answers from anyone, other than rumors; and it's now evident that certain sizes of it are in fact being marketed under a different label here. Maxima also requires direct Fuji Rep involvement here, and can't be attained through the normal Fuji paper distributors or photo supply houses. It's amazing that I still have a workaround to get Supergloss. They don't make things easy. Most, if not all, RC paper now seems to be made in the Netherlands, while Supergloss still comes from Japan.

What also seems apparent to me from studying the tech info, is that Maxima appears to be the same emulsion as in second-generation Supergloss, but applied to an RC instead of PET base. This means, at least as they claim, it needs a slightly souped-up or more active
version of RA4 developer to attain the same deep DMax as Supergloss. And that combination is ONLY being sold to dedicated major labs with direct accounts, undoubtedly in relation to high-volume automated workflow : dedicated scanner to laser printer, XY cutter to linked RA4 processor thru-put. But I don't know if that specuak developer stipulaton is relative only to laser-printers, and not an issue in optical enlarging at all. Most of their CA papers have been re-tweaked a bit for a steeper DMax curve required by lasers devices to equal past optical performance in that respect, hence their re-labeling as "Digital Printing" (DP) papers, plus a little more sensitivity to green, which lasers are also slightly weak toward.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I don't have and never used a 1 degree spot meter. My light meter does have a 10 degree which is basically averaging the area it's viewing. Since my digital camera has a 2-3 degree spot, I could feasibly use it. As I asked, how do others use their spot meter with chrome film? How do they verify they're not clipping important parts of the image?

Click to expand...

The only reasonable answer here is: personal preference. You always have a choice. Consider a simple use case: you measure the darkest area and the lightest area of a scene and you discover that the difference is a measly 4EV. A simple average will do.

But if you discover that the difference exceeds what your film of choice is capable of capturing, you will have to either compress that contrast by using traditional approaches Henning is talking about (filters, fill-in flash, etc) or - if that's not an option for some reason [1], you have to sacrifice something.

To speed up the process of sacrificing, my Minolta has HI and LO buttons that compute the exposure needed to preserve the highlights or the shadows. You can do this manually by offsetting the min/max readings by 2-3EV, i.e. if you want to preserve highlights, you spot-read them and subtract 3EV, and if you want to preserve the shadows you spot-read them and add 2EV. And then, of course, if your subject is around zone V and that's all you need, you simply spot-read it and use that exposure. And 50+ different landscape photographers will offer 50+ more sophisticated ways of spot metering.

[1] I kind of agree with @Henning Serger here. If you have enough time to fuck around with spot metering, you may as well just eliminate the excessive contrast to begin with.

alanrockwood said:

I must admit that I haven't read the whole thread, so I may have missed something relevant to what I post below, but anyway, here goes.

My suggestion is that dynamic range could be estimated based on slopes picked off from the characteristic curve. The idea is to look at the slopes in the toe and shoulder regions of the curve compared to the maximum slope of the curve. Dynamic range could be defined as those two points on the curve where the slopes are a certain fraction of the maximum slope. A reasonable guess could be a slope of 1/3 of the maximum slope, or perhaps even 1/4 of the maximum slope.

This is similar in spirit to the old fractional gradient way of determining determining film speed, except that in what I suggested above it is based on maximum slope rather than an average slope. I think that what I am suggesting would be a slightly more conservative estimate compared to using 1/3 of an average slope. In fact, one could adapt the method to use average slope instead of maximum slope, though in practice it is likely to make only a small difference in the dynamic range estimate.

Click to expand...

Another possibility would be to base dynamic range on signal-to-noise ratio. As a rule of thumb, specifying dynamic range in terms of the range over which signal-to-noise ratio exceeds 3 is probably not a bad approach.

This can be somewhat tricky because signal-to-noise ratio depends on the area over which one does the calculation. If the spot size for the signal-to-noise determination is small then the signal-to-noise ratio will be larger than if the spot size for the determination is large. As a default choice one might choose a spot size of 48 micron, which is the spot size traditionally used to calculate the graininess of a film. (I'm not sure if I have the terminology rigorously, but I am using the term "gaininess" here, hoping that people will at least understand what I mean, at least in a rough conceptual way.) There may be some other subtleties to consider as well, such as whether the signal is considered on a linear or a logarithmic scale, which could influence the calculation somewhat.

Or, one might use a combination of a slope-based method and a signal-to-noise ratio method, making the most conservative choice in the shadows and the highlights. In other words, in the shadows (the toe for a negative film) for example one of the two methods would give a point at higher exposure than the other. The one producing the higher exposure would be the point to use. Conversely, the point in the highlights (the shoulder for a negative film) would be chosen as the one that produces the lowest exposure. The dynamic range would be the range encompassed between those to most-conservative points.

Alan, fwiw I think your approach and question are quite reasonable and I'm scratching my head about why many knowledgeable people keep trying to convince you to use a spot meter rather than answering your question about "where to place", in zs speak, the highest highlights with velvia. I don't know the answer but those who use spot meters and Velvia should. But you could bracket just the one more time and find answers for yourself.

grain elevator said:

Alan, fwiw I think your approach and question are quite reasonable and I'm scratching my head about why many knowledgeable people keep trying to convince you to use a spot meter rather than answering your question about "where to place", in zs speak, the highest highlights with velvia.

Click to expand...

But this question has been answered several times correctly by several members:
As film has a "shoulder" in highlights, there is a transition zone, and not a "clipping point". And in between this zone it is up
- to your personal taste
- your workflow and equipment (optical viewing or scan, and with scan very important which scanner and software is used)
how you expose, and where your personal limit is.
Alan just has to do some simple tests with his personal equipment, and then he knows the answer which is working for him.
And this completely correct recommendation was already made at page 1 of this thread.

grain elevator said:

Alan, fwiw I think your approach and question are quite reasonable and I'm scratching my head about why many knowledgeable people keep trying to convince you to use a spot meter rather than answering your question about "where to place", in zs speak, the highest highlights with velvia. I don't know the answer but those who use spot meters and Velvia should. But you could bracket just the one more time and find answers for yourself.

Click to expand...

You're pretty much on the mark. Everyone tells me it's up to me to decide where and what to do and I should be able to figure it out. But I'd like to know how do they do it with the dedicated light meter?

By the way, I have no problems using a spot meter if that's how they determine it. My digital camera has spot normal, spot-High, and spot-Shadow as well as center and matrix. Just tell me how they're doing it and what exposure settings they use to make adjustments.

Film-Niko said:

But this question has been answered several times correctly by several members:
As film has a "shoulder" in highlights, there is a transition zone, and not a "clipping point". And in between this zone it is up
- to your personal taste
- your workflow and equipment (optical viewing or scan, and with scan very important which scanner and software is used)
how you expose, and where your personal limit is.
Alan just has to do some simple tests with his personal equipment, and then he knows the answer which is working for him.
And this completely correct recommendation was already made at page 1 of this thread.

Click to expand...

How do you do it? What benchmarks do you use?

Alan Edward Klein said:

How do you do it? What benchmarks do you use?

Click to expand...

Most people use their light meter and take the photograph. No benchmarks were taken or used. Nor were benchmarks injured or killed in the making of this thread or taking any photographs.

Sirius Glass said:

Most people use their light meter and take the photograph. No benchmarks were taken or used. Nor were benchmarks injured or killed in the making of this thread or taking any photographs.

Click to expand...

Thanks for a non answer.

Alan Edward Klein said:

How do you do it? What benchmarks do you use?

Click to expand...

I have done it just the way as it has been explained here several times in this thread by other photographers, see e.g. the posts of Henning Serger and Drew Wiley.
I used a standard color chart and made an exposure series from complete underexposure to correct exposure (Zone V) to complete overexposure in 1/3 stops difference.
And that for every color reversal film type I am using (or have tested in the past).
The results were evaluated on a light table under a loupe and in projection, because that is what I use most. So that results have been my "benchmarks", not scan results.
By the way, from my tests I can agree to H. Serger what he had reported on his test results in his first post. And also to his recommemdation to use the powerful, well proven tools to adjust the contrast. I am doing that, too, for decades, with best results. Therefore I don't worry about high subject contrast.

Film-Niko said:

I have done it just the way as it has been explained here several times in this thread by other photographers, see e.g. the posts of Henning Serger and Drew Wiley.
I used a standard color chart and made an exposure series from complete underexposure to correct exposure (Zone V) to complete overexposure in 1/3 stops difference.
And that for every color reversal film type I am using (or have tested in the past).
The results were evaluated on a light table under a loupe and in projection, because that is what I use most. So that results have been my "benchmarks", not scan results.
By the way, from my tests I can agree to H. Serger what he had reported on his test results in his first post. And also to his recommemdation to use the powerful, well proven tools to adjust the contrast. I am doing that, too, for decades, with best results. Therefore I don't worry about high subject contrast.

Click to expand...

Now that you have benchmarks on all these chrome films, how do you apply that knowledge when shooting? How do you meter the scene to obtain the right exposure? Do you check to see if you're going to lose details in the bright portions? If so, what do you do? How do you eliminate problems with high contrast?

Alan Edward Klein said:

Now that you have benchmarks on all these chrome films, how do you apply that knowledge when shooting?

Click to expand...

When the subject contrast is higher than the film's contrast range, I am reducing the subject contrast by using one of the above mentioned tools (filters, fill-in light tools).

Alan Edward Klein said:

How do you meter the scene to obtain the right exposure?

Click to expand...

Depending on the camera used, multi-segment metering (matrix metering) or centre weigthed metering. In high contrast scenes I measure the max. subject contrast by using spot metering, measuring the darkest and brightest detail in the scene.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Do you check to see if you're going to lose details in the bright portions?

Click to expand...

That is only needed in high contrast scenes. And then I see it by the measured values of the spot metering (my cameras have a spot meter built in as a feature).

Alan Edward Klein said:

If so, what do you do? How do you eliminate problems with high contrast?

Click to expand...

See above, I am reducing the subject contrast by using one of the above mentioned tools (filters, fill-in light tools). By that the problem is completely eliminated.

As I mentioned, I typically use either a F4 or F6 Nikon and use the matrix meter. I think using a spot meter will just add to your confusion.

Depending on the situation, if there is high contrast you have to decide what you want to sacrifice - shadows or highlights and expose accordingly. To give an example, I photograph lots of trains. If I expose to be able to get lots of detail in the wheels and undercarriage, the sky will be totally blown out. If I expose to get a nice sky and the body of the locomotive, the details of the wheels is lost in shadow. The latter usually what I choose, especially if it's a "train in a landscape" sort of photo. There is really nothing you can do about the contrast range that is present in that sort of situation.

Added: you could also use an averaging meter in camera just being a bit more careful to ensure it isn't too influenced by the sky, or other large areas of bright or shadow that are not important to your composition.

If you have a 35mm film camera, maybe run a roll of slide film through it, while taking notes the the brightnesses of the elements in the scene? Even make rough sketches in a notebook of the scene with notations of the readings for matrix, average and then spot meter the bright and dark elements. I can't remember if you have an incident meter, but if you do, note the exposure of that too. Finally expose at the matrix setting, the incident setting and a spot meter reading of the important part you wanted to capture. When the slides come back see how they look and if they are correctly exposed for what you wanted to preserve, and then see what metering method achieved the results you wanted. In a single roll of 36 you should have a good idea of how to meter for the best results.

Craig said:

As I mentioned, I typically use either a F4 or F6 Nikon and use the matrix meter. I think using a spot meter will just add to your confusion.

Depending on the situation, if there is high contrast you have to decide what you want to sacrifice - shadows or highlights and expose accordingly. To give an example, I photograph lots of trains. If I expose to be able to get lots of detail in the wheels and undercarriage, the sky will be totally blown out. If I expose to get a nice sky and the body of the locomotive, the details of the wheels is lost in shadow. The latter usually what I choose, especially if it's a "train in a landscape" sort of photo. There is really nothing you can do about the contrast range that is present in that sort of situation.

Click to expand...

I have found matrix metering for Minoltas and Nikons does the job very well for slides, but metering without the sky, that is the subject only, helps insure that the composition is properly captured on slide film.

Film-Niko said:

When the subject contrast is higher than the film's contrast range, I am reducing the subject contrast by using one of the above mentioned tools (filters, fill-in light tools).



Depending on the camera used, multi-segment metering (matrix metering) or centre weigthed metering. In high contrast scenes I measure the max. subject contrast by using spot metering, measuring the darkest and brightest detail in the scene.



That is only needed in high contrast scenes. And then I see it by the measured values of the spot metering (my cameras have a spot meter built in as a feature).



See above, I am reducing the subject contrast by using one of the above mentioned tools (filters, fill-in light tools). By that the problem is completely eliminated.

Click to expand...

When do you feel you overexposure the highlight with chrome when you're checking with your spot meter? How many stops spot metering the darks and the whites? Or how many stops above average that you selected to shoot would you feel you're going to blow out the highlights? Does this change depending on the chrome film you're using? (do you use different criteria depending on the chrome film type)?

Craig said:

As I mentioned, I typically use either a F4 or F6 Nikon and use the matrix meter. I think using a spot meter will just add to your confusion.

Depending on the situation, if there is high contrast you have to decide what you want to sacrifice - shadows or highlights and expose accordingly. To give an example, I photograph lots of trains. If I expose to be able to get lots of detail in the wheels and undercarriage, the sky will be totally blown out. If I expose to get a nice sky and the body of the locomotive, the details of the wheels is lost in shadow. The latter usually what I choose, especially if it's a "train in a landscape" sort of photo. There is really nothing you can do about the contrast range that is present in that sort of situation.

Added: you could also use an averaging meter in camera just being a bit more careful to ensure it isn't too influenced by the sky, or other large areas of bright or shadow that are not important to your composition.

If you have a 35mm film camera, maybe run a roll of slide film through it, while taking notes the the brightnesses of the elements in the scene? Even make rough sketches in a notebook of the scene with notations of the readings for matrix, average and then spot meter the bright and dark elements. I can't remember if you have an incident meter, but if you do, note the exposure of that too. Finally expose at the matrix setting, the incident setting and a spot meter reading of the important part you wanted to capture. When the slides come back see how they look and if they are correctly exposed for what you wanted to preserve, and then see what metering method achieved the results you wanted. In a single roll of 36 you should have a good idea of how to meter for the best results.

Click to expand...

Craig: Do you use your digital camera to determine the scene is too contrasty? How? Thanks.

Sirius Glass said:

I have found matrix metering for Minoltas and Nikons does the job very well for slides, but metering without the sky, that is the subject only, helps insure that the composition is properly captured on slide film.

Click to expand...

I understand getting the ground reading is important so it's exposed correctly. However, how do you check you're not going to blow out the sky when you recompose to include it? If you're shooting let's say late in the day, the ground can be much darker yet the sky is still fully lit. You'll overexpose the sky losing all detail. So you'll either need to eliminate it from the picture or add a GND.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Does this change depending on the chrome film you're using? (do you use different criteria depending on the chrome film type)?

Click to expand...

Yes of course it does:
Provia 100F has the widest max. contrast range of the current reversal films. For me personally with my main usage projection I am fine with a 8-stop contrast range, with a bit more range on the toe / shadow side compared to the highlights.
E100 is about 7.5 stops, but I much prefer Provia, which is the better film.
With Velvia 50 I am working with a 7-stop range. Velvia 100 6.5 stops.
In general I've found that slide projection gives a very nice and smooth transition in the shadow and highlight areas (offering a bit more latitude). I (probably that is subjective) find the results very esthetical and pleasing for my eye, and much prefer it to the harsh rendition on computer monitors.

Film-Niko said:

Yes of course it does:
Provia 100F has the widest max. contrast range of the current reversal films. For me personally with my main usage projection I am fine with a 8-stop contrast range, with a bit more range on the toe / shadow side compared to the highlights.
E100 is about 7.5 stops, but I much prefer Provia, which is the better film.
With Velvia 50 I am working with a 7-stop range. Velvia 100 6.5 stops.
In general I've found that slide projection gives a very nice and smooth transition in the shadow and highlight areas (offering a bit more latitude). I (probably that is subjective) find the results very esthetical and pleasing for my eye, and much prefer it to the harsh rendition on computer monitors.

Click to expand...

I've found that the blinkies flash at about 2 1/2 stops above the "right" setting for the picture. I can reduce that to about 2 stops if I change the histogram settings from 255 to 245. That's less than the range you have selected for all your chromes. So I should get flagged from blinkies and the histogram before I overexpose the film in those bright areas. At least I have some guidelines to work with. Thanks for the info.

Film-Niko said:

Yes of course it does:
Provia 100F has the widest max. contrast range of the current reversal films. For me personally with my main usage projection I am fine with a 8-stop contrast range, with a bit more range on the toe / shadow side compared to the highlights.
E100 is about 7.5 stops, but I much prefer Provia, which is the better film.
With Velvia 50 I am working with a 7-stop range. Velvia 100 6.5 stops.
In general I've found that slide projection gives a very nice and smooth transition in the shadow and highlight areas (offering a bit more latitude). I (probably that is subjective) find the results very esthetical and pleasing for my eye, and much prefer it to the harsh rendition on computer monitors.

Click to expand...

Also, why do you feel Provia is better film than Ektachrome? I've shot both and found that E100 shows the greens more green and the reds redder. Provia tends to show the reds more orangey.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I understand getting the ground reading is important so it's exposed correctly. However, how do you check you're not going to blow out the sky when you recompose to include it? If you're shooting let's say late in the day, the ground can be much darker yet the sky is still fully lit. You'll overexpose the sky losing all detail. So you'll either need to eliminate it from the picture or add a GND.

Click to expand...

With b&w negative film, the "placement" exposure is the best exposure for the ground and/or other important low value areas.......meter the sky/clouds to see where it "falls", make development decision to control the sky/cloud values.

With chrome, make the best placement decision for the cloud/sky values......I wouldn't know how to develop chrome to manipulate the low values. I'm certain that you can use basic Zone System principles to at least make the proper high value placement for your chromes.

And, If you ask, but how do you know you won't blow out the sky/cloud values with the placement.......well, seems to me, you're going to have to burn some chromes and evaluate how your dslr spot meter is treating those high value placement decisions. Do +1,+2,+3 placements, maybe divide a little further with 1/3 stop increment exposures......burn some film, evaluate......

I don't believe there's a magical, fix all, panacea answer for you via a histogram .....if there were, imo, you would have it by now in this thread.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I've found that the blinkies flash at about 2 1/2 stops above the "right" setting for the picture. I can reduce that to about 2 stops if I change the histogram settings from 255 to 245. That's less than the range you have selected for all your chromes. So I should get flagged from blinkies and the histogram before I overexpose the film in those bright areas. At least I have some guidelines to work with. Thanks for the info.

Click to expand...

Good morning Alan. It seems that you've heard enough testimonials, and criteria, and experiences that are saying about the same, perhaps in slightly different ways. It might be in your best interest to synthesize your research! If you really want to use your digital camera and use "blinkies" for assistance you really need to just try it and verify. Asking the same question repeatedly probably isn't going to get you any additional information. Just a suggestion from someone who is like-minded about research. I found out a long time ago that the secret to being a life-long researcher is knowing when to stop the research and turn it into practical experience.

Alan Edward Klein said:

Craig: Do you use your digital camera to determine the scene is too contrasty? How? Thanks.

Click to expand...

No. I usually never worry about the scene contrast. For the things I shoot, like mountain landscapes, there is nothing I can do to change the scene contrast anways; so I don't worry about it. I'll generally meter to get my highlights where I want them (if they are important to retain), and the rest is what it is.

Alan Edward Klein said:

At least I have some guidelines to work with. Thanks for the info.

Click to expand...

Honestly, you have got exactly that right at the beginning on page 1 by Henning Serger (see post 21). As I said in one of my post above, I can confirm his test results.