As usual when you are asked to explain or give proof you refuse. I didn't ask for other peoples papers which are peer reviewed, I asked for yours and with your usual eavasive response you have tried to fob me off by quoting someone elses peer reviwed work.
And not only someone elses but as I 've already pointed out, they are very very old. i.e. the data used is out of date with regard to flare in modern lenses and you are now trying to obfuscate that which is your standard way of trying hide what you don't know. Mees and Jones work is at least 75 years old and you are quoting it as your reference data.
You have not found a single error in what I've said but once again are trying to start an argument about it and presenting your own out of date findings about it. You haven't given a single reposnse worth reading.
Once again, explain how it is that there is no flare adjustment when the film speed and K factor are equal.
And please present references to peer reviews of your own work. Failure to give satisfactory answers will tell us all we need to know.
And in your ignorance you have once again missed the whole point which is that if you have calibrated your exposure, dev and printing you don't need to know any of the crap you keep posting about ancient and out of date scientific derivations.
A practical evaluation trumps everything your plagiarised scientific formula are trying to prove.
All I've done is start a topic providing the instructions on how a kodak grey card should be used, or at least how it was with the card I have.
And yes I have put some numbers into the standard reflection meter formula to see what is really happening and you have a problem with that. Anyone with an ounce of sense trying to understand a problem would do exactly what I've done and you want to infer its meaningless. That tells us a lot about you.
I know exactly what I get on film becasue I've calibrated to my own standard which I'm not forcing on anyone like you are trying to do. I know if I meter anything I can place it on any zone and it works because I've tested it. I'm not in the slightest bit interested in disappearing up my own anal tract by trying to convert my meter readings into log values that you want me to give you so that you can tell me they don't match yours. Why would I waste my life on doing something so purile. I use my own standard calibration which I've repeated often on the forum so it should be blindingly obvious to you that it wouldn't mean anything to you since you are so blinkered and it would be pointless comparing to your numbers.
You know I'm not interested in hearing what you have to say but you can't help yourself from trying to force it on me. I'm not interested. I hope that has registered.
I've read it all before from the people who actually did the original research and I know enough about it to know things have changed in the last 75 years since the research was done, especially with regard to lens flare. I think you are stuck in 1940s and the previous 50 years research.
I have an idea, why don't you please do us both a favour and put me on your ignore list instead of inventing meaningless diversions to try and hide what you can't explain.
I present this to illustrate my point about the pragmatic application (yes, they are digitally taken, but they illustrate my point about abandonment of too much theory). For the curve compulsive, shot 2 is with linear response, shot 3 is 'moderate contrast S curve', shot [4] is with an exaggerated high contrast S curve...
the formula for a reflected meter is:
2Ev = (B*S)/K
EV = Exposure Value
B = luminance in cd/m2
S = ISO Film Speed
K = K factor = 12.5 (using 12.5 equates to multiplying by 8% (0.08) hence B*S*0.08)
So
0.5 * 100 * 0.08 = 4 = EV2
4 = 2Ev so to convert from that to EV you must take the log2 of 4 which = 2
so you get
0.5 * 100 * 0.08 = 4 = EV2
16 * 100 * 0.08 = 128 = EV7
a difference of 5 stops
My reaction to a lot these equations kicked about, and somewhat vitriolic debates...
...The aeronautical engineer has all of the equations and proofs that the bumblebee cannot possibly fly. What does the theory prove?...
- about C and K values,
- about considerations for lens flare,
- about these various analytical means of having the conflicting claims proven
We only need to look at a bumblebee to see that it is engineers' theories are what are NOT FLYING!
Meanwhile the pragmatic bumblebee nevertheless flies, pollinates flowers, gets food to take home, and the colony is happy.
Curves are great and densitometry readings are one way to assure your exposure and your processing are delivering what you should be getting for results. But they do not always seem to agree...Bumblebee theory demonstrated. Sometimes we need to set aside the theory and apply the theory to practical benefits, the enjoyment of our hobby/craft, because the theory gets in the way of enjoyment and causes too much angst.
I am a photographic pragmatist, I want to recreate the bumblebee's ability to fly (in spite of what the engineer's equations seem to prove). Photographically, I seek a consistent means of putting the middle tone 'in between apparent white and apparent black', and sometimes I do need tonal fidelity across the range of tonal steps, but at other times I am more artistically driven and I care not about full fidelity but only enough fidelity for a viewer to figure things out simply with a glance at the photo.
I present this to illustrate my point about the pragmatic application (yes, they are digitally taken, but they illustrate my point about abandonment of too much theory). For the curve compulsive, shot 2 is with linear response, shot 3 is 'moderate contrast S curve', shot 3 is with an exaggerated high contrast S curve...and yet the first four shots have placement of 18% reflectivity square of the Macbeth card at 50% tonal value. Shot 5 has 18% reflectivity square of the Macbeth card darker than we expect ('underexposed)'.
Photo 1, an ordinary color 'snapshot'. Photos 2, 3, and 4 illustrate pragmatism that middle grey is 'in the middle' between perceived black and perceived white. Difference in contrast (perhaps different S curves for different contrast emulsions) make the portayal of 'white' and 'black' and other tones fit or not fit expectations of where the 'real' tone is vs. where the film/print paper portrays them. But we all agree that middle tone is somewhere in between the tonal extremes.
Photo 5 has some pretty dramatic alterations not only to the S shape of the curve but also where 'middle grey' shows up, it is 'underexposed' or 'too dark' and we no longer can agree upon where is the 'middle tone' in the shot (unless we count squares with our familiarity with the MacBeth card). So photos 1-4 all succeed in conveying to viewers correctly what we intend, in spite of the presentation of the toe and shoulder messing with some of the tones. But for me, the pragmatist, photo 5 falls flat on its face. that is, my use of the grey card did not achieve my goal in photo 5 because I fail to know what, if anything, is tonally reasonable in its accuracy...I can see what I believe to be white, I can see what I believe to be black, but my tonal perception of the scene is confused with uncertainty
Diapositivo, here is a quick answer for you.
The speed of B&W negative and color reversal film are determined at critical points. With B&W negative film it has to do with the limiting gradient of the film curve. This defines the minimum exposure which can yield a quality print. When the contrast parameters of the ISO standard are maintained, this point falls approximately one stop to the left of the exposure for the fixed density speed point (Hm where the density equals 0.10 over Fb+f). To calculate B&W film speed Hm is plugged into the equation S = 0.80/Hm where 0.80 is known as the speed constant. Using this equation, the value of S is 1/3 stops slower than what Hm would otherwise indicate. This is difference is to adjust for the color temperature of the sensitometric exposure; however, the idea that the film speed value can be different from the speed point is important. To calculate what the Hm should be for any speed, the equation is 0.80 / film speed = Hm.
View attachment 153312
With reversal color film, the speed point is found in the “middle” of the curve. Please refer to the example. Point HF is located on the curve 0.2 above the minimum density. The exposure value HR is the geometric mean between HF and HS. The speed equation is S = 10 / HR. Please note that the nomenclature in this example is outdated.
Sometime in the 70s or early 80s the speed equation changed from 8/HR to 10/HR thus increasing the speed of reversal film by 1/3 stop. The way the speed point was determined didn’t change, just the speed constant. It’s all about the relationship between the speed point and Hg. In this example, we know where HR was determined and we know where Hg should fall. At one time this was the same point with reversal color film, but it was decided to reduce the overall exposure. Now Hg falls 1/3 stop below HR.
The exposure meter wants to place the exposure at Hg. This relationship can be determined with the equations Hg/Hm for B&W film and Hg/HR for reversal color film. For B&W this value is 10. For color reversal it’s 0.8. In the previous incarnation it was 1 which means the speed point for reversal color film was the same point as where the exposure wanted to place Hg. The equation can also use the speed constants and the value for Eg.
Eg can be thought of as the value of exposure striking the film plane if the shutter speed is at one second. From this Hg can be determined with the equation Eg * 1/ISO = Hg. Eg as a constant is referred to as K1 in the exposure meter standard or in some papers as P. So the equation can be reduced to Hg = 8/ISO.
8/100 = 0.080 lxs 8/125 = 0.064 lxs 8/400 = 0.020 lxs
If it’s determined there needs to be a change where Hg should fall on the film plane, the meter doesn’t need to be adjusted, nor the method of determination the speed point. All that needs to be changed is the speed constant. This will change the speed number and consequently placement of Hg by the exposure meter.
View attachment 153313
If I read correctly Jeff Conrad, Exposure Metering - Relating Subject Lighting to Film Exposure, 1998, 2003, Page 12, the density created by a light meter exposure on a slide developed according to the manufacturer directions should always be 0.91. That is the "middle grey point" on the slide.
Sorry Diapositivo but that's not what 0.91 is referring to. His b is the same as q. q takes into consideration the light transmission characteristics of the camera's optical system. He is also using a slightly different value of b which is legitimate for depending on the lens and how it is being used, the value of q can differ. In this case he is using a different value for the angle of the image point from the axis of the lens. The standard uses 12%. Conrad uses unity or directly on the center axis of the lens. Hand held meters need to come up with an basic value of q that as Connelly writes, "because the objective is to assess the exposure required for an average scene it has been found that in practice the variations of q due to the causes mentioned can be allowed for by allocating specific values to the given parameters which give a single value of q satisfactory for the exposure determination of a large majority of scenes."
If you refer to my post on film speed and speed constants, you will notice that the relationship of the speed point to Hg for reversal color film is 0.80. Because Conrad is using a different value for b (q), his relationship is 0.91*Hg. That's all it means.
Please read one of Connelly papers found at http://64.165.113.140/content/benskin/ or you're just going to go round in circles. Calibration Levels of Films and Exposure Devices is a good place to start but as you are more interested in incident exposure meters, his The Incident Light Method of Exposure Determination might be the one you'd me more interested in.
So taking some sensible numbers we can start with a cd/m2 value of 16 which by itself would be EV4
...
Now lets try 32 as the value of cd/m2 read, which by itself would be EV5.
You are talking about luminance, Bv ... and it's not too hard to find notes which explain that Bv includes K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/APEX_system
http://www.dougkerr.net/Pumpkin/articles/APEX.pdf
So for you to be able to take 16 and arrive at 4 K has to be 3.3333
16 cd/m2 = Bv 4 when K=3.3333
16 cd/m2 = Bv 2 when K=12.5
32 cd/m2 = Bv 5 when K=3.3333
32 cd/m2 = Bv 3 when K=12.5
This doesn't invalidate the other Ev numbers you were using in your illustration, because later when you multiply by 0.08 you establish K=12.5 so those Ev are correct. You might need to revisit your differences and conclusions.
My favorite formula that relates to this is: Ev = Av + Tv = Bv + Sv
I put in a few sensible values to that formula and noticed the discrepancy in Bv
f/1.4, 1/60 second, ISO 100...
Ev 7 = Av 1 + Tv 6 = Bv + Sv 5 ... and noticed Bv has to be 2
What's even more fun, if you enjoy working with the APEX system... you have a direct way to relate K to changes in Ev
To those trying to follow along, you need a Log2 calculator.
Here's one: http://logbase2.blogspot.com/2008/08/log-calculator.html
My favorite formula that relates to this is: Ev = Av + Tv = Bv + Sv
Exactly!using it perpendicular to lens axis is half the sequence of doing a lighting ratio test but I haven't bothered to read all of that.
If you have done proper film,dev, print claibration then you can just use your spot meter directly to get lighting ratios and placement of tones.
Can I ask where figure B1 in post #205 above originates?
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?