PDA

View Full Version : Photo System Engineering I, the fundamentals



Pages : [1] 2

Photo Engineer
01-24-2008, 09:54 AM
I am going to address this in very simplified terms rather than go into really technical details. I will also have to make some assumptions about what you know already about the eye and about emulsions, but it will be a rather simple set of assumptions. This is the first in a planned series. Responses will be integrated into the text to be published on emulsion making and coating if this is feasible.


The human eye is assumed to have a response to intensity and exposure of 1:1. In other words, the response of the eye here is assumed to have a sensitivity to illuminant intensity vs LogE of 1, or a gamma of 1. Unfortunately, two things differentiate it from film already. The first is that the scale is a sliding scale due to the ability of the eye to stop itself down in a rather linear fashion as a function of bright light and it can iris open and dark adapt under low light conditions. These two capabilities allow the eye to sense scenes with what amounts to no toe or shoulder whatsoever. We will see that this is very important.

In a print, if we built the gamma or contrast of a print to be equal to the response of the eye, it would have a slope of 1.0, but unfortunately, due to the laws of physics and chemistry, all photo materials that exist reproduce a scene with a toe and shoulder. This toe and shoulder represent failure in reproducing the image at a slope of 1.0, but rather they reproduce the scene at a slope of less than 1.0. In fact, at Dmax and Dmin in a print, the slope decreases to zero. This is unfortunate, as the eye has one other capacity. It integrates the entire scene before it and thus a print with a toe and shoulder will be perceived as having a slope of far less than 1.0 and will appear dull and lifeless. Over many years of observation and comparison of gamma to perceived scene quality, it has been found that prints appear “normal” to the human eye if they have a mid scale slope of about 1.5 with a maximum value of about 1.7. This bump upwards in contrast by 0.5 units or change in density / change in loge combined with normal toe and shoulder cause the eye to think that the print has a normal tone scale. Variations in toe and shoulder reproduce the ability to see detail in highlights or see detail in shadows. This changes the ‘snap’ or ‘openness’ of a print. These terms and many others are used to describe the wide variety of tone scales that manufacturers try to build into their print materials.

So, we know that a print material, whatever it may be, must yield a final print with a contrast (or gamma) of about 1.5, and playing with the details in toe and shoulder will change some aspect of perceived quality.

It can also be added, that due to laws of physics, no matter how much silver is coated, the Dmax of a print will always be between about 1.9 and 2.2 depending on the nature of the surface. Matte surfaces are generally at the low end, and glossy surfaces are generally at the high end. There is some detail in this Dmax area, but it can only be revealed with very high intensity light which overcomes the problem. The problem is that due to multiple internal reflections of light from silver grains, the light is attenuated and cannot go over about 2.2 without this ultra high intensity light.

Now we come to the positive film.

It seems that a positive film behaves just like the print with two exceptions. The first is that the average contrast can be higher without sacrifice of perceived quality, and the second is that the Dmax is not limited by internal reflections. Therefore a positive film can have a gamma or contrast from 1.6 – 1.9 and a Dmax of 3.0 or even higher.

With this, we have established the design parameters of viewable materials. This was not a ‘real’ science until the early part of this last century. Before that, the manufacturers were relatively clueless on this subject and products were designed by trial and error.

Ok, we have a print or a slide. Let’s go back and design the negative.

It is known that the contrast of a print = contrast of negative X contrast of print material. Above, we showed that a good print had a contrast of about 1.5 and a good transparency had a contrast of about 1.8 on average. It can be shown easily (and most of us have done it) that the transparency material had very poor exposure latitude even though the picture might look good. We had to nail the exposure correctly though because the latitude was rather short. Well, it can also be shown that if you make a positive print of a positive transparency, you lose detail. Early on, it was found by observation that positive-positive printing yielded loss of detail in highlights and shadows. This is directly related to the fact that contrasts of the starting materials multiply and so in the toe, both the original and print material may have a contrast of 0.6 in the toe, but will reproduce the scene at a contrast of 0.36 (0.6 X 0.6) and thus the contrast of one or the other had to be manipulated to give the most viewable result. Well, this task has proven impossible even today and thus pos-pos printing is not a preferred method of printing photos. It works, it just does not work optimally.

Knowing this, it was further obvious that the best way to achieve a good viewable print was to start with a negative, with a Log E response that was linear and longer than the latitude of the desired print. This had two beneficial results. It allowed the print to be made from a straight line response curve rather than one that had a toe and shoulder, and in addition, it allowed for a very long exposure latitude. Further, by knowing the Dmax should be 3.0 just as in reversal films, and that Dmin is close to base density, a curve could be drawn for this negative material. It had a slope of about 0.5 – 0.8. The best results were about 0.6 – 0.7 with the higher value selected at that time due to the flare in old cameras. Today the values range from 0.5 – 0.65 due to the lower flare and higher quality lenses.

Working backwards then, we find that the contrast of today’s print papers is about 2.5 to give the right print or 1.5 = 0.6 X 2.5 using the equation above.

Well, manufacturers didn’t know this 100 years ago but here it is, nearly a century later. We have learned the details behind what was derived empirically by old experimenters. These are the basic rules governing the design of photographic materials. The major item to be covered is the design of a negative material.

The attached diagram shows the approximate relationships between the curves of negatives, print material and print. The horizontal displacement of the curves and the toe and shoulder values of the positive print are not exact representations. They are only simulations.

Positive curves have Dmax on the left and negative curves have Dmax on the right.

PE

richard ide
01-25-2008, 09:53 PM
PE
You have challenged my thinking which I really appreciate. I had a business for 20 years doing everything from autopositives on Kodak's version of TP to producing fine art prints. I just wish I could have had you as a mentor then rather than now.
I look forward to future chapters to what will be very valuable additions to the knowledge base here on APUG

Regards

Michel Hardy-Vallée
01-25-2008, 10:44 PM
One of my favourite articles in the Kodak Encyclopedia of Practical Photography is the one called "Tone control." It explains, using quadrant diagrams, the relationship between the various components of a photographic system: subject, lens, film, paper.

I urge anybody in proximity of a public library to look for that article (and read the whole encyclopedia as well!). It is a great complement to PE's article, and will help in providing you with a good vulgarized background on image tone management.

Of course, Kodak's article is just about explaining how things work. I think PE will go to the point at which we will understand also how to design them...

Neanderman
01-25-2008, 11:00 PM
That 0.65 number above is eerily familiar. Is this the familiar "contrast index" that replaced the earlier "gamma" (i.e., the slope of the straight line section of the characteristic curve)?

Ed

Photo Engineer
01-26-2008, 08:56 AM
Ed;

Yes, this value of 0.6 is the contrast index, or gamma of the straight line portion of the characteristic curve of a negative film. It can be seen in the chart in my OP.

I decided to edit this to add that the characteristic curve of a film is comprised of 21 horizontal data points, each one being 0.15 log E apart as you can see in that chart. The zone system is just a tiny center cut of that chart. The general subject of study of these curves is called Sensitometry or the measurement of sensitometric curves.

For mathematicians out there, the curve generated by all photographic materials is a cubic spline.

The curve was originally called an H&D curve for the originators of this measurement early in the history of photography.

PE

jgjbowen
01-26-2008, 02:42 PM
Ron,

Thanks. I look forward to the rest of this series.

AgX
01-26-2008, 06:55 PM
On positives.
Should an image, to yield a normal appearance, in the form of a transparency aimed at being viewed at an illuminator in a normal lit room have a different gamma than in the form of a slide aimed at being seen in the dark on a screen?

Photo Engineer
01-26-2008, 07:21 PM
A print and a transparency can have the same mid scale contrast, but much depends on the toe and shoulder. Usually though a normal print is about 1.5 and a normal slide is about 1.7

A good while after I wrote the above, I realized that my post may have been vague. Here is more information. Reversal color print materials are usually built quite differently than negative materials. The gamma of a negative print material of normal contrast is about 2.5 to 'adjust' the final print to about 1.5, but a reversal print material has a contrast more on the order of 0.9 - 1.1 to achieve a good print from a slide.

If you have a slide with a gamma of about 1.7 and print it with a print material with a gamma of 1.0, the resultant print has a gamma of 1.7. The contrasts still multiply and so 1.7 x 1.0 = 1.7 in the final print.

PE

Craig
01-26-2008, 11:24 PM
Knowing this, it was further obvious that the best way to achieve a good viewable print was to start with a negative,


Out of curosity then, why was Kodak's first colour material (Kodachrome) a positive material? Why was positive material even developed at all? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have made a negative film only?

Kirk Keyes
01-27-2008, 12:03 AM
One of my favourite articles in the Kodak Encyclopedia of Practical Photography is the one called "Tone control." It explains, using quadrant diagrams, the relationship between the various components of a photographic system: subject, lens, film, paper.

I love quadrant diagrams. They really make it easier to visualize how the lens, the film, and the print all compress and expand the relationships that exist between all the tones in the original scene to the final print.

I wish there was some software out there that could do this kind of diagram. I'd buy it.

Photo Engineer
01-27-2008, 09:32 AM
Out of curosity then, why was Kodak's first colour material (Kodachrome) a positive material? Why was positive material even developed at all? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have made a negative film only?

There are many factors in this to consider.

First off, the drive was on for a color motion picture film. Second, reversal such as Kodachrome was the only way to get color in the early days. The problem of placing the image forming materials into the emulsion had not been solved yet.

However, Kodak and Agfa both produced negative color films as soon as possible along with print materials and these became the norm for both still prints and for motion picture as well due to the ease of reproduction. Positive to positive printing degrades image quality very rapidly and the images take on what is called in the trade "a dupey look".

The color negative films were produced just a few years after the introduction of Kodachrome, as soon as the problems of incorporating the color image formation materials into the emulsion were solved. At this point, both Hollywood and the amateur quickly abandoned reversal imaging materials. The exception was Technicolor which came and went over the years. Even so, it was duped using a negative material.

PE

Krockmitaine
01-27-2008, 10:05 AM
I urge anybody in proximity of a public library to look for that article (and read the whole encyclopedia as well!). It is a great complement to PE's article, and will help in providing you with a good vulgarized background on image tone management.


Hummm, we don't have it here :(
Let's hope for a donation, we received a Kodak book not too long ago.
(Yes, I tried to add it into my collection but it was too late as it was cataloged)

Marc

AgX
01-27-2008, 02:19 PM
Out of curosity then, why was Kodak's first colour material (Kodachrome) a positive material? Why was positive material even developed at all? Wouldn't it have made more sense to have made a negative film only?

Also Agfa who solved first the `Fischer-problem´ of incorporating couplers into the very layers, and who were quite surprised when Kodak presented their Kodachrome film while they were still working on a solution of the problem, started with a reversal film.
-) One driving force for them was surely motion film for cinema use. As a lot was worked on that topic then. And the most practicable way of doing would have been a neg/pos-system. (Though even a single reversal film would reduce hassle in the camera and could be copied into any other system for cine-projection.)
-) The coming of Kodachrome put them under even more pressure and as furthermore they got the impression that Kodachrome patents would block them the reversal way it was decided to go the neg/pos-way.
-) However a few months later this was revised as one thought to show up with something as soon as possible. That meant 35mm film for still-photography.
-) It took about two further years to establish a working neg/pos-system (still film/film, no paper yet).
-) It took even longer to decide the Agfacolor neg/pos system to be the future Cine standard.

From the Agfa perspective the decision between reversal and neg/pos was less a principle one but rather one of resources and time.

Photo Engineer
01-27-2008, 02:29 PM
Agfa neg-pos with a print paper was a goal of Agfa from the earliest days, as the paper print could be handled and shown. The earliest formulas for paper show that it was merely a diluted form of the film coating.

I'll try to cover more of this when I get to color though.

PE

monkeykoder
09-21-2008, 02:35 PM
For mathematicians out there, the curve generated by all photographic materials is a cubic spline.

PE

Not that it really relates to the topic at hand but a cubic spline is a method of approximating functions is this what you meant or was it that the curve was in the form of a cubic function?

Photo Engineer
09-21-2008, 02:45 PM
The curve is not a cubic function AFAIK. It is more that the spline is used to fit, or approximate, the functions of photomaterials which include toe, mid scale and shoulder.

The first derivative is, of course the slope, and when you multiply the instantaneous slope of a film curve by the instantaneous slope of the paper curve gotten at a given exposure, then you have the instantaneous slope of the print you obtain.

This is only approximately true for B&W materials, but deviates in color unless you read analytical rather than analog densities. Then you need to add in to the mix, a 3x3 matrix of the dyes.

You can easily see how complex this becomes and why we used so much computation power in our work. Probably more than you wanted to know. But, I hope it helps.

PE

monkeykoder
09-21-2008, 03:08 PM
More than I want to know does not exist...

Photo Engineer
09-21-2008, 03:31 PM
More than I want to know does not exist...

Ask then.

PE

monkeykoder
09-21-2008, 04:31 PM
I think I'm going to have to pick up a Gen. Chem. book before I have any more questions...

totalamateur
10-21-2008, 05:09 PM
I think I'm going to have to pick up a Gen. Chem. book before I have any more questions...

No joke, I'm starting to seriously regret failing out of Organic.

As a side - first post to APUG, I plan on staying in this forum, I have an Eastman No.1 8X10 Nearly converted for glass plates and hope to try out my first emulsion soon. I've never developed a negative in my life, so it oughtta be an experience.

Thanks to all those here for sharing they're knowledge.