Print range versus negative.

[markbarendt]

I like the style of the sketch, a lot.

You know "extra" and "over" can be pushed vertically to make good prints.

Actually no. Moving the curves up would make a very different prints.

The "over" curve could never print the same highlights as the other three could, that detail is simply lost somewhere above the shoulder, just as surely as if it were an underexposure at the other end of the curve.

The "extra" curve, on the other hand, would print different subject matter in each print zone if it were moved up, it would not produce the print we originally visualized/planned.

The "box" and "extra" curves though can both produce good prints with all the zones falling as planned producing nearly identical prints.

 

[markbarendt]

Like this?

View attachment 67350

I'm with Michael. I'm not sure what you are getting at. How is this different from a tone reproduction diagram?

I'm going to sleep on this and see if I can think of a better way to express it.

Was your attachment supposed to be a windmill?

 

[Stephen Benskin]

I'm going to sleep on this and see if I can think of a better way to express it.

Was your attachment supposed to be a windmill?

It's the data from it. You can follow the values from subject to print. How is this different from what you just explained?

 

[Bill Burk]

Actually no. Moving the curves up would make a very different prints.

The "over" curve could never print the same highlights as the other three could, that detail is simply lost somewhere above the shoulder, just as surely as if it were an underexposure at the other end of the curve.

The "extra" curve, on the other hand, would print different subject matter in each print zone if it were moved up, it would not produce the print we originally visualized/planned.

The "box" and "extra" curves though can both produce good prints with all the zones falling as planned producing nearly identical prints.

I'll grant that if you place Zone VIII over the shoulder by overexposing, it will not be recoverable detail.

I am just used to film that gives me Zone XII without shouldering. So my view of where the shoulder is at is skewed, making me comfortable with overexposure. Your diagram should stay simple. Like I said, I like it.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Haist has done it more simply!

PE

 

[falotico]

Kodak film, IMHO, is probably the best photographic medium producing the best negatives. Print paper at the present time ranges in quality so that it might not be possible to find a material adequate to make a corresponding image from a good negative. I've read somewhere that Ansel Adams had to wait a period of years before a print paper was manufactured and sold which had enough gamma for him to make a satisfactory print of "Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico".

 

[Stephen Benskin]

View attachment 67316

How are the Zone reference lines supposed to work? Are they a through line running from a subject luminance to the paper luminance or are they Zone paper references? If they are Zone paper references, I thought there wasn't a correlation between print Zones and specific reflection densities. If they are a through line, the line would be distorted by the camera image, film and paper curve. Also, I might be reading them wrong, but it looks to me like the exposure labels are backwards. The under doesn't have any portion of the curve touching Zone III and over doesn't have any part of the curve touching Zone VIII.

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Haist has done it more simply!

PE

I agree. Kodak and others like Haist, have a simple approach. I like the pproach inthe kodak publication best.


Jed

 

[markbarendt]

How are the Zone reference lines supposed to work? Are they a through line running from a subject luminance to the paper luminance or are they Zone paper references? If they are Zone paper references, I thought there wasn't a correlation between print Zones and specific reflection densities. If they are a through line, the line would be distorted by the camera image, film and paper curve. Also, I might be reading them wrong, but it looks to me like the exposure labels are backwards. The under doesn't have any portion of the curve touching Zone III and over doesn't have any part of the curve touching Zone VIII.

Through lines.

Essentially the same lines as your windmills show between Q1&Q4, I'm moving those two quadrants apart and superimposing possible negative curves between them. There is also one other big difference, the lines are meant to show the photo I want at either end regardless of negative exposure.

Unlike the Dorst diagram I'm not scaling to the density of the medium so there is no funnel effect and unlike windmills no corners to turn, not trying to give that much info. The range shown/defined at each stage: "scene", "film", and "paper"; is simply "1", "a print's worth" or "100%" of the print range.

Regarding the "under" curve I've drawn "it does not get enough camera exposure" to create detail on the negative for my chosen zone III subject matter, it is showing how a failure/operator error/scrimping on exposure might lose detail. The film curve in my diagram remains pegged to where my chosen subject matter falls or in this case fails to fall..

 

[markbarendt]

I agree. Kodak and others like Haist, have a simple approach. I like the pproach inthe kodak publication best.


Jed

Do you have a link or PDF you could share to the Kodak paper?

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Regarding the "under" curve I've drawn "it does not get enough camera exposure" to create detail on the negative for my chosen zone III subject matter, it is showing how a failure/operator error/scrimping on exposure might lose detail. The film curve in my diagram remains pegged to where my chosen subject matter falls or in this case fails to fall..

So, those aren't actual film curves? With underexposure, the film curve will still have a Zone III, just not at the same point on the curve as it would with normal exposure. A sliding gray scale would work better for what you are wanting to illustrate. How are you planning to define print Zones? An overexposed negative can be printed down. Will this be taken into account or will it re-enforce the notion that a specific negative density is required to produce a specific print reflection density?

Essentially the same lines as your windmills show between Q1&Q4, I'm moving those two quadrants apart and superimposing possible negative curves between them. There is also one other big difference, the lines are meant to show the photo I want at either end regardless of negative exposure.

It sounds more like they represent print Zones.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Haist has done it more simply!

Ron, could you upload an example. Modern Photographic Process is one set of books I don't have (too expensive).

 

[markbarendt]

So, those aren't actual film curves? With underexposure, the film curve will still have a Zone III, just not at the same point on the curve as it would with normal exposure. A sliding gray scale would work better for what you are wanting to illustrate. How are you planning to define print Zones? An overexposed negative can be printed down. Will this be taken into account or will it re-enforce the notion that a specific negative density is required to produce a specific print reflection density?

Correct, they are not actual curves, as I said from the start, this is a rough illustration of an idea.

If I pick a specific subject in a scene that I want to print as zone III on paper it is very possible because an underexposure to get a negative with no usable info for that subject, no detail just black. Its a demonstration of the classic advice we all get that with an underexposure detail is truly lost.

With that same subject defining zone III the other three curves have zone III but at different densities.

Defining or pegging print zones in my example is very much done as Adams might have, looking at a scene, deciding what range to pick and picking certain subject matter and saying I want that to fall in such and such zone.

Printing the curves I labled as box and extra would require different enlarger exposures.

The value I see in consistent negative density for a given zone is not addressed by my illustration. That is more a matter of working efficiently.

 

[markbarendt]

I will try to scan an example from Haist today.

I think what Mark is trying for in his sketch is to sort of simplify the tone reproduction illustration by essentially fixing all the variables except negative exposure. Somehow that is all modeled and fixed into the horizontal lines so that you then move the paper curve up and down and the shift directly reflects the change in negative exposure without showing the transitions. I think.

My thought is that this is similar to combining the windmill with a Dorst for the transition between subject and negative. Jones and Dorst diagrams can of course be combined (there is an example in Henry).

Or I may be out in left field.

Close Michael,

What I'd say is that I'm not moving the paper curve, its fixed in relation to the scene. The variable is strictly the negative. The negative doesn't define zones, its just a transfer medium.

 

[markbarendt]

No problem Michael you guys are being a big help in forcing me to think.

 

[Arvee]

Haist has done it more simply!

PE

Ron, I would also be very interested in what Haist had to say!

 

[Photo Engineer]

Graphs from Haist

The verbal discussion of this covers several pages in Haist and in Mees as well. I am going to post 2 examples showing latitude of a print vs the position of the exposure on the negative. The Density Range is what will be captured on the print shown in my earlier post.

PE

 

[markbarendt]

Thanks PE.

Michael you are correct, I'm trying to show end to end.

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Do you have a link or PDF you could share to the Kodak paper?

I have given the reference of the kodak publcation in # 7 of this thread. The kodak publication is used frequently and reprinted, I think, in 1998. I prefer this approach because it is scientifically sound and therefore applicable to our current modern optics. Nethertheless,the writers still use simple language, avoiding MTF ideas, because the average photographer is not interested in that kind of language. No densitometers and that kind of stuff. Just use your eyes. I like this approach, an nunderstanding How films are produced, and how you can get a high quality negative. Beecause that is what counts, as already said in this thread.

I do not know whhether there are PDF versions of th kodak publication,but I expect they can be found in libraries. If not, I could produce a PDF of my own paper version.

Jed

 

[markbarendt]

Jed

I googled with your reference from #7 but it didn't pop.

 

[Jed Freudenthal]

Jed

I googled with your reference from #7 but it didn't pop.

You might look in the catalogue of the US libraries. It is a common kodak publication, even reprinted and sold as a book (but maybe under a different title).I could make a PDF, but my paper version is a xerox copy I got from the Kodak people at the same time I had lot of additional discussions at kodak on this ( and other) subjects. the print quality of the publication is not optimal.

Jed

 

[Shawn Dougherty]

You might look in the catalogue of the US libraries. It is a common kodak publication, even reprinted and sold as a book (but maybe under a different title).I could make a PDF, but my paper version is a xerox copy I got from the Kodak people at the same time I had lot of additional discussions at kodak on this ( and other) subjects. the print quality of the publication is not optimal.

Jed

I would be very interested in reading this. If anyone locates it please let us know where.
Thanks for pointing it out, Jed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't quite how to react to Jed's nonsensical assertion that the Zone System is appropriate for older
lenses but not new. One tailors the System to the parameters at hand. That has always been the case.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Correct, they are not actual curves, as I said from the start, this is a rough illustration of an idea.

If I pick a specific subject in a scene that I want to print as zone III on paper it is very possible because an underexposure to get a negative with no usable info for that subject, no detail just black. Its a demonstration of the classic advice we all get that with an underexposure detail is truly lost.

With that same subject defining zone III the other three curves have zone III but at different densities.

Defining or pegging print zones in my example is very much done as Adams might have, looking at a scene, deciding what range to pick and picking certain subject matter and saying I want that to fall in such and such zone.

Printing the curves I labled as box and extra would require different enlarger exposures.

The value I see in consistent negative density for a given zone is not addressed by my illustration. That is more a matter of working efficiently.

Mark, I'm going to have to wait for more of your idea to come together. Something to keep in mind. Is the perspective derived from any graph worth the effort to graph it? Is it offering a unique insight not obtained by other, easier methods?

On a completely different topic, I started working on having the Kodak tone reproduction scale as part of my program, but when I decided that a tone reproduction program didn't have an audience, I gave up on it. I think it visually conveys tone reproduction effectively, however, it isn't as effective in conveying specific information. I also have something like the Dorst diagram between the quadrants in the Zone System mode that's not quite finished. The example shows the original subject luminance (top) and the print reflection densities (bottom).

 

[Photo Engineer]

The zone system is nothing more than crude densitometry.

PE