I've been trying to create an example to illustrate why combining flare and the film curve can be misleading. Flare increases the exposure coming from the subject. The x-axis is concerned with log exposure (log-H). Increasing exposure moves the placement to the right. Flare simply moves the shadow exposure to the right where it falls slightly higher on the curve.
What a flare-film curve combination does is project the density from the point where the flare exposure falls to the non-flare subject position. In the example, the exposure from flare is shown using the three colored vertical lines. Everything to the left of those lines actually received no exposure.
I thought everything to the left of those lines simply could not be measured because lesser exposures were wiped out by flare.
Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin
That's the part which is the construct. It doesn't really exist. What actually happens is flare adds to the shadow exposure. This moves it to the left. In the example for a 2.5 flare factor, the shadow exposure shifts from relative log-H 0 to point A. A 5 filter factor shifts the shadow exposure to B and a filter factor of 10 shifts it to point C. The shadow exposure no longer reaches down to relative log-H 0.
Originally Posted by Bill Burk
To me, combining flare and the film curve only works if it is clear the x-axis represents the expected exposure.
Stephen I think that having the dual legend with density and zone both defining the x axis is a problem.