I noticed this same problem when I tried a deep red on my Lumix G1. Then I tried the polarizer, and found that it works very well, here's an example:
Ralph, my comments below are just my opinion so I'm not saying that it's wrong as I realize I may be missing something from your post, but this is my thinking as it relates to your graph. I have my own simple graphs to illustrate my point, right or wrong.
I believe the discussion of a film's exposure latitude ends when we have to resort to development modification to keep the highend luminance values of the subject to within printable densities on the negative. IMO, at that point, we have exceeded the latitude of the film, that is why we have to modify it's development to maintain printable densities. Your graph indicates that latitude extends to beyond Zone XII (Log E 3.6). IMO, a film's exposure latitude is strictly within the context of how much exposure variation can be given the film (in low contrast subjects) and still keep the high end values easily manageable given normal development.
High contrast scenes do not allow much, if any, exposure latitude. I can make use of my film's latitude with important densities that lie between Zone I and Zone V, because I know that I may also provide exposure from between II to VI; III to VII; IV to VIII, an V to IX for that same subject, provide normal development, and have printable densities through IX (IX being just like I in that it has tonality but no real texture). I may provide plus development in a low contrast scene which is a development modification, but that modification itself has its results still within easily printable high end densities.
As soon as I have to resort to modification in development just to be able to print Zone X densities or higher, latitude is a mute point it seems to me. There has to be a limit to latitude and to me, your graph does not indicate one. You obviously know what you're doing and you have some awesome photographs, perhaps my thinking on film's exposure latitude needs a make over.
Very much agree.
Chuck
Chuck
Nothing wrong with what you're saying, but overexposure latitude was not the point of discussion. Let me rephrase my statement to include it:
There is NO underexposure latitude. Overexposure latitude depends on the subject brightness range but can be modified through development.
I noticed this same problem when I tried a deep red on my Lumix G1. Then I tried the polarizer, and found that it works very well, here's an example:
Back in the dark ages when as a young photographer, I couldn't accept any result that wasn't over dramatized, I started using a red filter and was very disappointed that even with the three stop factor, I still lost detail drastically in the shadows.
I think your question is a very important one. I think that we can safely presume that the manufacturer uses a neutral gray, not just a mid value, but also one with no deviation in hue from neutral. Beyond that, I wouldn't guess.
It's more complicated than that, I think, which makes it harder to apply in individual circumstances. My loss of shadow detail puzzled me, but to compensate I began to give four stops filter factor, and alter the development accordingly. Worked much better.
Here's what I came up with:
Shadows are shadows because direct sunlight is blocked by a solid object. The filter darkens anything blue/cyan/green. The sky is blue (didn't you know?) or may tend somewhat toward cyan. Anything illuminated exclusively by skylight, then, is lit with blue/blue-cyan light. So, as the filter darkens the sky, it also darkens the shadows, which are lit with only the light coming from the sky. As landscape painters discovered long ago, shadows don't look right if they aren't a bit on the blue side.
Film doesn't extend into the IR band at all.
My SFX, Tech Pan, and Rollei IR film would beg to differ.
Ok, so IR film goes up to 890 nm, and infrared looks to start around 1000 nm.. maybe we are both correct?
My SFX, Tech Pan, and Rollei IR film would beg to differ.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?