Print range versus negative.

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Photo Engineer said:
The zone system is nothing more than crude densitometry.
Click to expand...

Ron, don't you mean crude sensitometry?

Changing the subject again, I would like to go back to the idea of comparing overexposure examples. In the attachment, the data is from four tests. One with TX CI 0.56, exposed normally and overexposed. Printed for best print. The second two tests are with Del400, CI 0.57, also exposed normally and overexposed the same amount as the TX. The difference is that the DEL400 is beginning to shoulder off. The DEL400 is the film shown in Quad 2. The Gradient Guideline Comparison is set to show the resulting print RD. The two Guideline and Gradient Comparisons are a further breakdown Quad 3 results with the two Del400 tests. The use of the tone reproduction diagram gives me information that isn't obtainable from using the curves in isolation.

 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,389
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Crud densitometry or Crud sensitometry
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
I think you are both right. It is crude sensitometry and crude densitometry. You are taking very few points which you call zones and making them work for you in your exposures, but the curve has many many more points to measure and which can be very revealing to/for you.

PE
 

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Michael R 1974 said:
Whenever you have referred to your program I always pictured a series of spreadsheets, not an actual program. Impressive. This could be a powerful teaching tool (if more people were interested in learning about these things).
Click to expand...

Visual Basic. Not that impressive.

Here's a screenshot of the main part. .

Have you been able to track down those Haist examples?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Just found something interesting. In Kodak's publication G-1, Quality Enlarging with Kodak B/W Papers, they have a Dorst type reproduction diagram, but with a few changes from the one found in Kodak Professional Black-and-White Films. This one isn't fudged. It uses the statistically average luminance range. A luminance range of 2.20, not 2.10. Flare is 1 stop and is listed as "Moderate Flare Level Lens." The camera image has a illuminance range of 1.90. In Professional Films, the illuminance range is 1.85 and the flare was a little over 2/3 stop. They needed to do this to have the 2.10 subject luminance range calculate down to the CI 0.56, which both examples use.



I know this doesn't exactly belong here, but also found this in Quality Enlarging. It appears that I'm not the only one who thinks the visual response to luminance levels is important.



And to finish it off a Subjective Tone Reproduction diagram.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
We used to use these in 3 colors to get an understanding of color reproduction. This is an old tool. Grant Haist showed monochrome reproduction (as did Mees). I have posted Haist's method above and Mees is in his Revised Edition for those interested.

PE
 

Jed Freudenthal

Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2004
Messages
226
Location
Bilthoven, T
Format
4x5 Format

This very right. In 'The theory of the photographic process, 4 th edition' T.H.James this subject has been treated in detail. Nrelson in the tone reproduction , clarifies that zones are an approximation only ( crude). Elsewhere in the same book it has been shown that a tone as perceived by the human eye is not a simple thing like a zone; it will depend on the microstructure. A microstructure that will seen in modern photographic optics. But the human eye fails to see that. This called: ' Do not believe your eye'. The eye is misleading. A modern lens is not misleading. PE uses crude for this difference.
All this is nothing new. Leonardo da Vinci knew already that de 'invisible' details are important. His brushstroke inthe Mona Lisa are hairthin and 2mm at a maximum.

Jed
 

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
Jed Freudenthal said:
In 'The theory of the photographic process, 4 th edition' T.H.James this subject has been treated in detail. Nrelson in the tone reproduction , clarifies that zones are an approximation only ( crude).
Click to expand...

Exactly, Zones are non specific. They are referrences which makes their use in quantifiable testing questionable. There's this line from Doctor Who where he's attempting to describe time travel, "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff." How does one plot an "ish" with any precision?

Seriously, I've always thought the using Munsell values to define the print Zones would be a good idea. Jack Holm has linked zones to he defines as
Preferred Reproduction Density" for a print (reflection hardcopy).



Notice Holm has two different columns for preferred reproduction densities for transparencies. That's because densities are perceived differently under different viewing conditions. The same as with prints. There's that subjective reproduction again.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
I agree Michael.

The drawing I started this thread with was meant to illustrate a simple concept & show a conceptual truth not necessarily a mathematically perfect model.

It is an expression of Adams ZS, visualization of print idea, with alternative film exposure options, it is a way for me to visualize how I might or can make a negative to get me from a to b.

Adams basic visualization concept is really strong in an artistic sense and easy for most to grasp, the details and measurements drag it around and beat it up because the more rigidly a system or idea gets defined, the more it becomes a one trick pony. Even Adams falls prey to this because of the subject matter he chose. If Karsh had written those books instead the world's perceptions of ZS principles might be very different.

I try to remember that personally I'm not a machine taking pictures of documents or laboratory cultures, I'm a human taking pictures of humans and of emotions and of ideas
 

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
I think this could make for a very interesting discussion some other time and in a different thread.

Mark, that creative vs technical argument is the same one that people who find the Zone System too technical use against the Zone System, and I don't think you'd agree with them. It's simply a matter of degrees. Yes, ultimately it's about creativity and personal expression. I don't think anyone path to art is intrinsically better than another, however, if the intention is to communicate technical information to others, certain methods don't measure up as well as the more scientific ones. They are all just tools.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
My answer would be the quote from my boss "we sell pictures not curves". He meant that we got hard data via curves which were then compared to pictures so that we could optimize a product with some scientific basis.

One of the basic methods is shown by Mees in his chart on "first acceptable print" compared to a sensitometric curve.

Boo Hooooo, my EG&G Sensitometer failed last night.

PE
 

Bill Burk

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
9,318
Format
4x5 Format

I understand how you feel. Once mine failed and I was gut-wrenched until I realized the plug had come out of the socket on my extension cord.

Just so you know, this discussion has practical applications. I have a picture I am discussing on LFF that I can analyze in light of this discussion.

I rated TMY-2 at EI 64 for this exposure, which places the negative well into the "Over" category. Because TMY-2 has a very long straight-line, I am still at least three stops camera exposure below the shoulder on the negative. Sensitometrically, this is a printable pictorial negative. This is why I say markbarendt could push the "Over" vertically on the print. That's what I did. But as I said before, the idea is interesting and the graphic simplicity still illustrates what might happen 5 stops over what I did (If I actually did hit the shoulder)... Or maybe homebrewed emulsion will shoulder easily.

Just based on Stephen's recent preferred rendering chart I can see that my idea to reprint on Grade 3 might be valid. Grade 2, here, gives me preferred 0.28 for Zone VII (sky) and 0.11 for Zone VIII (Mammoth Mtn. in back, right) but too light rendering of 0.67 for Zone IV (Red Cone). So I will try printing on Grade 3 to bring down the Red Cone. I have a darker print where Red Cone looks great, is 1.09, and that is correct for Zone IV. In other words, this picture validates the chart and the chart is useful to suggest possible improvements to the picture.

 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
But then, no matter what you do, you are limited visually to a density range of about 0.1 to 2.2. The data is there above 2.2, but you cannot see it without having a backlit print or by using a very high illumination for viewing.

PE
 

AndreasT

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
326
Location
Berlin
Format
Multi Format
Photo Engineer said:
My answer would be the quote from my boss "we sell pictures not curves". He meant that we got hard data via curves which were then compared to pictures so that we could optimize a product with some scientific basis.


PE
Click to expand...
I just had to smile, didn't you guys say something on the line, "push the button we do the rest".
 

Shawn Dougherty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,129
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format

I did a rather extensive search online and couldn't find it... But I did find a copy on Amazon for .27 cents + $3.99 shipping so it's on the way. =)
 

DREW WILEY

Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2011
Messages
13,985
Format
8x10 Format
When I want to be technical I pull out the densitometer, make the curves, and file that in the back of
my head. Out in the field everything has to be intuitive. A few spotmeters readings, often under shifting
light conditions. No time for some calculator nonsense. No time to read Minor White's theories of religion or voodoo or whatever. No time to figure out what Ansel "really" meant. And yeah, I do have
the characteristic curve in my head and how I plan to use it, and not some cardboard zone zombie.
But then it's label the shot N, or N+, whatever.... good enough. Proper exposure, reasonably close development. If I'm doing something like color separations in the lab, then I get nitpicky. Developer temp within 1/10 degree on a thousand buck thermoregulator. Very precise monitoring of everything.
All that gets silly in the field. And I generally expose TMY-2 at 400 just like the box says, because it
has a nice steep toe and cleanly separates the shadows at least two "zones" below what Ansel taught,
or rather the stereotype of what he allegedly taught. But I don't think the Rochester people ever
particularly liked the guru "rocks and trees". I just do what works for me. I gave away all the AA how-to
books. Someone else can make the barefoot pilgrimage to that shrine.
 

Shawn Dougherty

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2004
Messages
4,129
Location
Pittsburgh
Format
Multi Format
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format

PE's boss's words "we sell pictures not curves", shows great wisdom.

I think you might be a bit surprised. I really have no issue with not knowing certain things.

In the field I'm much more interested in concepts I can visualize rather than math I have to do.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Mark;

Thanks. If you look in my gallery, you will see photos taken at 600 or more MPH, upside down! I was not worried about curves then. It is clear that using a film is different than designing one. This discussion is too over the top technical by those that do not have the background for the technical aspect.

I have seen both sides and used them both to get good results IMHO.

PE
 
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Bill Burk said:
I rated TMY-2 at EI 64 for this exposure, which places the negative well into the "Over" category. Because TMY-2 has a very long straight-line, I am still at least three stops camera exposure below the shoulder on the negative.
Click to expand...

By my definition, you are only in the "extra" category; you haven't lost any detail. "Over", IMO, comes only when some of the subject matter/detail you actually visualized to print is truly off the scale and unrecoverable. Your negative though still has 3 stops of latitude you can play with.

Another way to think of this is that "box" might be considered somewhere close to where the first high quality print can be made and the limit of the "extra" category would be where the last high quality print can be made.

There are real reasons to consider these alternate placements.

Exposing for the last HQ print point might eliminate the need for carrying an ND filter.

Exposing extra somewhere between the limits could also give you consistently longer print times, making complicated burn and dodge work more manageable.

An example of the use of truly over is a high-key technique I used in studio, the subject is lit to provide proper placement for easy printing at the desired level. The background is then lit to truly overexpose well beyond where detail could be recovered. Creates a stunning white that leaves the subject beautifully isolated.
 

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format
markbarendt said:
In the field I'm much more interested in concepts I can visualize rather than math I have to do.
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been discussing the concept of communicating ideas and information in a graph, which I believe is the topic of this thread, not about whether photographic knowledge is a determent when shooting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Stephen Benskin

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
2,616
Location
Los Angeles
Format
4x5 Format

If it was truly beyond where detail could be recovered, wouldn't it just be blown out white? What it sounds like you are describing is shooting multiple subjects at different levels of illuminace in a single shot. Like shooting indoors looking out through a window and exposing for the interior levels. I agree, it's a nice effect. How to graph it? I don't think this situation could be properly conveyed in a single conventional plot. Strictly from the perspective of luminance, it's just a long luminance range which can be graphed in a single diagram. But in order to communicate the effect Mark is describing in a graph, I believe there would have to be two sets of curves treating the different illuminance levels as separate subjects.

The example below would be how it would look using a single set of curves. This is the maximum Luminance range my program can do and I think pushing everything into the toe of the paper curve has freaked out the tone reproduction reference line.



But what you have is one scene with a normal luminance range normally exposed and printed and another scene overexposed and printed for high key like in the next example.



As compared to a typical high key approach. The scene has a slightly shorter than normal luminance range. The main difference here is that it falls under 100% reflectance (the subject is shifted to the left in Quad 1). The exposure is placed higher on the curve. Development is reduced some, and the subject is printed in in the toe of the paper curve.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OP
OP

markbarendt

Member
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
9,422
Location
Beaverton, OR
Format
Multi Format
Stephen the single example below expresses my whole high-key placement idea, 2 lines and 2 squiggles in the sand with my finger.



Everything I need, to explain my idea to a companion on the beach with me is there.

It can even explain why I might want to use a highlight or mid-tone to peg exposure instead of a shadow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…