Using Digital camera histograms to determine exposure for film.

Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I've been using my digital camera for the last year as a light meter. It seems to be working generally. I check to see what looks right on the histogram and display. Then adjust for white clipping on the right if I'm shooting chromes and on the left black areas if I'm shooting negative film. But I want to understand better what the histogram is telling me.

The basic question is how would you relate the clipping point on the histogram to where the film clips? Obviously, for negative film you're looking at black clipping, and for chromes your checking the white clipping. However, digital DR ranges are different than film and vary in stops depending on the digital camera. So how would you relate the clip points on the histogram back to the film?
 

4season

Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
1,981
Format
Plastic Cameras
It's always going to be an approximation at best because unlike digital sensors, negative film in particular isn't linear throughout it's response range, and tonal values of over- and underexposed regions become compressed long before they actually "clip".
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,297
Format
Multi Format
I have at times used a digital camera to use as a meter or as electronic Polaroid. A histogram just shows the number pixels that have a specific brightness value in a graphical format. The more pixels the higher the bar as you know. I think digital sensors have less dynamic range than film. I think if the brightness of a pixel(s) on a sensor is above 255, it's blown out and highlight recovery is difficult. While with negative film, the part of the film gets denser and highlight recovery is more likely possible. In the darkroom, you could burn in highlight detail. Pixels on a sensor is different than grain on film so I don't know if they'll translate. Maybe someone knows how to use the data from the histogram for film exposure.
 
Joined
Dec 10, 2009
Messages
6,297
Format
Multi Format
Modern sensors have much more dynamic range than film. They capture light values way above 255. Think 16,000 or higher, that's about 14 stops. D850 is rated at almost 15.
My information may be out of date. But it's pretty amazing with the progress of digital sensors.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Let's discuss what that means. Regardless of the range of the digital camera, whether it's 10 stops or 15 stops, its automatic exposure control puts the scene to 18% gray of whatever it's looking at. So if you're using a center-weighted or viewing the entire view like Nikon's matrix metering, the metering should be in the "center". So how would that be different than looking at a handheld meter doing the same thing?
 

C-130 Nav

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
46
Location
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Format
35mm
Alan, I too use my digital camera (Nikon D750) as a scene metering tool for my film work (Nikon F6 with Kodak Tri-X usually). I am very interested in this histogram thread because, as you, I don’t fully understand the correlation between the digital histogram and the scene light values. I’ve had excellent results taking a digital image and looking at the results in camera to get an idea of where the shadow and highlight details fall. Additionally, the F6 has a great metering system and Tri-X has decent exposure latitude, thus, I’d say my results are generally great and most of the time using the histogram isn’t necessary.

Recently, I shot some snow scenes and this is where the digital and film responses were wider apart. Obviously, in digital we expose for the highlights and film for the shadows. With the limitations in dynamic range and film exposure latitude, this situation drove different camera settings (normally identical settings will give acceptable results). Histogram data may have helped here.

In short, I don’t have any histogram revelations to add to this thread with the exception of this: if you can obtain the film performance curve and (here’s the tricky part) your camera’s histogram/sensor performance data, then a correlation of reasonable values might be obtained. However, I don’t know if any camera manufacturers release that performance data due to proprietary concerns.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Glad you joined the discussion. You just got me thinking. I don't use the zone system. But I just thought they it works on ten or eleven stops. Does that mean that all film have the same number of stops? If they don't, wouldn't film users of the zone system have the same issue as we are describing: that the range of digital cameras are different and meter readings then have to be taken into consideration of those ranges. Yes? No?
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
In other words, using film and spot metering the shadow area for determining exposure depends on the range of stops of each particular film. Does the zone system change depending on the film???

Related to that and your point, stop ranges of sensors for digital cameras are published data. Can we use that range to offset the range of stops of film? MAybe we can correlate it.

By the way, do you favor shadow sides with your digital camera and move the exposure to account for it when using it for film shooting?
 

C-130 Nav

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
46
Location
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Format
35mm
Alan, I loosely use the Zone System (Ansel would probably shame me for not adhering to the rigor he did). The Zone System is irrespective of the film or paper used to produce the final image. It's a convenient way of representing relative tonalities in the image. Therefore, film (or digital cameras) with a wider response (dynamic range) may have more subtle gradations in each particular zone than a less sensitive film/camera but the system is universal and still applicable. Here's a excerpt from Ansel Adams "The Negative" (pg.19) listing the relative meanings of the Zones:

Only a few areas in a scene need to be metered. Most photographs need a total black (Zone 0) or total white (Zone IX) to "key" the image. Additionally, the central part of the composition should have tonalities that are related appropriately to other portions of the background. Normally, you can't meter on Zone 0 (no light at all) or Zone IX (too bright) effectively. Therefore a middle tone or tones in your image must be metered. Usually a dark "something" in Zones II or III, something in the middle range (Zones IV, V, VI) and maybe a high value area (Zone VII or VIII) would be good to meter. For film, I feel Zones II & III are important as you need enough light from those areas to actually activate the emulsion. Also, the middle values are important so you render your scene appropriately. Surprisingly, you'll find that if you properly expose for shadows and your key zone(s), all the other zones will fall into place naturally. The exception is where the scene's brightness values exceed the dynamic range of your film/camera. That's where creative post-processing fits in.

My technique is:
1) Set my camera to full frame metering first
2) Set the camera to the general average settings obtained in 1)
3) Reset camera to spot metering
4) Look at the exposure meter for several key areas in the scene (some dark/shadow areas, my key subject, maybe a high value area)
5) Adjust the camera settings based on this assessment

My experience (what little I have):
Normal scenes: I've found that if the dark zones are within 2 stops of the middle zones, I set the camera for that middle zone exposure. Printing these images is fairly straight forward.
Dark scenes: I tend to set the camera on the Zone II or III exposure settings. Printing might be more difficult but generally the emulsion is exposed everywhere you need detail.
Extreme dynamic range scenes: (e.g. snow scenes, high altitude landscapes, etc.) These are tough. I tend to favor middle zone balance here. Sometimes this gives whites or shadows that lose detail. Bracketing your exposure values and burning through a series of frames is the only workaround I've found effective. Even then, it might be hard to print and require burning/dodging in some areas.

To answer your second post questions,
Does the Zone System change depending on film/camera sensor? No, I think the above description shows it to be independent.

I wasn't aware the stop ranges of sensors for digital cameras were published and not having seen what's available, I couldn't say whether it's enough to correlate to the Zone System or to a particular film. My guess would be that you could.

If using my digital camera to assist metering of my film camera, yes I favor shadow detail over highlights. If I take a picture, I know I'm likely to have blown out highlights. However, if I want a digital image of the same scene, I'll make sure to adjust and take another frame - no film wasted there!
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,935
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Don't forget that the Zones in the Zone System mostly refer to tones in prints!
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I just checked and found out that my Olympus E-PL1 digital that I use as a meter has a DR of around 10.2. Does anyone know what Tmax film range would have? (7 stops??) I also shoot Velvia 50 chromes which supposedly has a range of around 5 stops. How would I equate the histogram on the E-PL1 to 5 stops considering you don't want to clip on the white side?
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,935
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Does anyone know what Tmax film range would have? (7 stops??)
Considerably more than that.
It is the print range that is the limiting factor. The film is matched to that, and printing maps the much wider film range on to the narrower range print material.
Slide film, which is its own presentation medium, is the one where dynamic range is determined by the film.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
1. If the range of my digital camera is let's say 10 stops, which is less than BW film, then I don't have anything to worry about if the histogram does not clip at either side. Does that make sense?

2. However, since Velvia 50 is I believe five stops, what would I do differently when checking the histogram and display on the digital camera with 10 stops?
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,816
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
You will have to do a test but without that I think you can treat the slides and digital the same. I think the point is about 2.7EV more exposure than the meter indicated.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
You will have to do a test but without that I think you can treat the slides and digital the same. I think the point is about 2.7EV more exposure than the meter indicated.
That's pretty much what I do. I make sure the histogram fits without clipping and then just back off a little about 1/3 stop from the white side if I'm pushing it. I haven't shot enough though using this method to verify if my procedure works and is consistent. That's why I'm asking others for their experience.

Could you clarify what you mean by 2.7EV more exposure than the meter?
 

C-130 Nav

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2020
Messages
46
Location
Wichita, Kansas, USA
Format
35mm
Alan, All my Kodak data doesn't mention a dynamic range value for TMax. Online searches indicate it could be as high as 20 stops. Obviously, that's not terribly useful as you could never print 20 stops on paper. Also, the actual dynamic range is dependent on how you expose the film, how and what chemicals are used to process it, etc.

Don't forget that the Zones in the Zone System mostly refer to tones in prints!

Matt, thanks for clarifying...I left a whole lot of other important details out in my effort to simplify it for the discussion here. I didn't talk about visualization of the final print which is what supposed to drive your choices during negative exposure and development when using the Zone System, etc., etc., etc.

General disclaimer to all the other readers, if you're interested in the Zone System, please look to several of the detailed sources out there vice my brief relation of the concept above.
 

Chan Tran

Subscriber
Joined
May 10, 2006
Messages
6,816
Location
Sachse, TX
Format
35mm
.
Oh if you use the spot meter to measure the brightest part of the scene. Add 2.7 stops to this for most cameras and slide film this area is about to blow out or clip. I said this in general. For specific you need to test with each film and camera.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,935
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Dynamic range is shown in the characteristic curve in the data sheet. It's about 10EV for T-Max 400 and considerably less for other B&W emulsions that hover around 7-8.
The Kodak data sheets truncate the characteristic curve, to the portion that is easily transferred to photographic paper with a straight print. There is a lot more dynamic range available, out past the range shown in them.
 

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,685
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
I've used digital cameras as light meters, on and off for several years, I find that I get best results from my old Pentax K 200 with CDC sensor or Sigma SD 10 with Faveon sensor, matrix mode has done a surprisingly good job with roll film. When I shoot 4X5 or 21/4 X 31/4 sheet film I use a hand held.
 
OP
OP
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,456
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format

Why not with 4x5?
 

gone

Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2009
Messages
5,504
Location
gone
Format
Medium Format
I wouldn't use a histogram, I'd use a light meter. Horses for courses.

Film has a much greater exposure latitude than digital. The "gotcha" is that film has a greater USABLE exposure latitude than digital. What digital camera manufacturers say about their sensor specs is similar to what car manufacturers say about their car's gas mileage. Too many times I've seen digital blow out highlights and muddy shadows in situations where film could easily have captured the full exposure range of the scene. With film, you can be a stop or two off and still get great prints.

Years ago I went w/ a neighbor to shoot LF landscapes in New Mexico. He had a Pentax spotmeter, I had a cheap Sekonic L 188. My friend made multiple readings of our mountain subject, making sure he got the shadows properly metered. Then he made some calculations and set his shutter and aperture. I went w/ Walker Evans idea of looking around to find a middle value, set my meter to that (the grass is often good) and came up w/ exactly the same exposure as my friend. We shot 4x5 slides and sent them to the same lab. When we got the developed slides back there was no distinguishable difference between his and mine.

The real magic comes in the darkroom where a lot of exposure related areas can be manipulated and addressed on the actual print.
 
Last edited:

Paul Howell

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2004
Messages
9,685
Location
Scottsdale Az
Format
Multi Format
Why not with 4x5?

I don't shoot roll film using zone system, but I do with sheet film, I could use a DSLR with a long lens in spot meter zone, but I have tested my film, currently Foma 200 with my trusty Soilgoar spot meter and Gossen SBC and don't want to retest with an DSLR, if I did would be the K2000. Someday I need to test my Sony A77II, should work. Although I have not shot 4X5 color in a very long time, I would not use the zone, a gray card and indecent reading light meter has been my approach.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
52,935
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
a gray card and indecent reading light meter has been my approach
Better be careful with that - it can get you in real trouble .
(Isn't auto spell check wonderful)
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…