Octal Roman numerals would be just too weird.
Anyone here still have their HP 16c?
Anyone here still have their HP 16c?
Yet another post about the Zone System
-
A
- Thread starter Sirius Glass
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy Mamiya Sekor 145mm Soft Focus 645 Lens
- Started by GDI
-
For Sale Nikon 400mm 5.6 ED Ai
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Two Durst L184 colorhead enlargers with motorized focus and negative carriers
- Started by Early Riser
-
For Sale Kodak HIE BW Infrared film
- Started by romosoho
Forum statistics
onlyonein10people understand binary.theother one doesn't
That's funny!Fifty cents.
OP
OP
The zone system define zones in a way that moving a certain brightness in the subject one zone higher on the film is equal to a stop more of light and a zone lower is equal to a stop less of light (stop meaning double or half= base2). So isn´t the zone system still in base 2 (considering the amount of light needed to reproduce the zones)? The fact that they are numbered from 1 to 10 is just a convention. You could number them anyway you like but there is no unit in zones, whereas light intensity itself can be measured (for instance candles per sq.ft). This is how I understood it.
OP
OP
Yes as you stated it is base 2.
However the numbering is not 1 to 10, it is 0 to 10 making it eleven steps. Hence 211 which I am proposing could be handled better by a hexadecimal schema or even an octal schema. Also noted that paper has seven levels of tone and that would be a candidate for an octal schema.
Sorry I meant to write 0 to 10. The reason why there are 11 zones is because any other zone (higher or lower) would be indistinguishable from pure white (zone X) or pure black (zero). If we were to change the scale, we would end up with differences from one zone to another that are not 2 in relative amount of light. Maybe I didn´t understand completely your idea, but a numerical example of what you mean would help.
Zones 0 through 10 are still arbitrary, or better stated, "relative". A very poor paper with minimal Dmax and lesser bright Dmin and different contrast will have a different-looking scale than a paper of the very best quality with very deep Dmax and ultra-bright whites. And that's only a small piece of the equation.
When I calibrated my film developing I standardized everything and was meticulous regarding mixing, age of chemicals, processing temps, etc. I finally settled on only three films, one film developer and one paper/developer combination. I did things the CHEAP/EASY way because I was a poor fifteen-year-old kid. First I found exposure indexes and processing times that gave me results I liked with the paper I was using. Then I exposed some film (blank gray wall with the camera focus at infinity) and had a lad find .1 over FB+fog for all three films, both in full shade and in bright sunlight. Yes, I kept track of actual shutter speeds. Then I adjusted my "guide" exposure indexes accordingly. I never stuck stringently to the ZS because I considered it a "guide" rather than being set in stone. I've stated my methods before and didn't get responses but suffice it to say I think my results were quite good even though I was just a dumb kid.
When I calibrated my film developing I standardized everything and was meticulous regarding mixing, age of chemicals, processing temps, etc. I finally settled on only three films, one film developer and one paper/developer combination. I did things the CHEAP/EASY way because I was a poor fifteen-year-old kid. First I found exposure indexes and processing times that gave me results I liked with the paper I was using. Then I exposed some film (blank gray wall with the camera focus at infinity) and had a lad find .1 over FB+fog for all three films, both in full shade and in bright sunlight. Yes, I kept track of actual shutter speeds. Then I adjusted my "guide" exposure indexes accordingly. I never stuck stringently to the ZS because I considered it a "guide" rather than being set in stone. I've stated my methods before and didn't get responses but suffice it to say I think my results were quite good even though I was just a dumb kid.
I still use Octal number because one of the PLC (programmable controller) I work with uses octal addressing scheme. I read Adams biography and found that he was home school. I don't think he had very advanced mathematics.
Actually, it is a 21 step system and AA dumbed it down. IDK why.
PE
PE
Yep! But be careful with that a+rwx!
And Sirius I still administer solaris 10 today!
Back the zone step system...
OP
OP
Thank you. I see that my step wedges have 21 steps.
10 is better than 42.
OP
OP
Old timer, not sure about that. The 21 step shows the entire curve which is very helpful.
Sirius, I do base 2, 8, 10 and 16 but not as often since I retired from EK. I don't do base 42 as there will be no common app using it until the end of the world. And, I don't want to live and hear all of that awful poetry.
PE
Sirius, I do base 2, 8, 10 and 16 but not as often since I retired from EK. I don't do base 42 as there will be no common app using it until the end of the world. And, I don't want to live and hear all of that awful poetry.
PE
May be Ansel couldn't count that high?
I can count to 20 with my shoes off but 21 requires a more drastic attire change.
I think this is interesting;
http://medical.nema.org/dicom/2006/06_14pu.pdf
Seems that the best way to fit the luminance levels that the human eye can perceive onto a graph is good old log base 10.
http://medical.nema.org/dicom/2006/06_14pu.pdf
Seems that the best way to fit the luminance levels that the human eye can perceive onto a graph is good old log base 10.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |