Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,205   Posts: 1,531,736   Online: 994
      
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 151

Thread: Zone Placement

  1. #11
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    46
    I'm guessing the left hand is the perfectly spaced theoretical or planned Zones superimposed on actual film curve, while the right hand is the result where the predictions landed. There is compression in the shadows, which could lead to disappointment if you were counting on them being where you wanted.

    A better system might be one where Zones are "wider" in the shadows.

  2. #12
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    One represents a relatively "thin" negative, the other a relatively "thick" or dense one.
    The two film curves are identical. The luminance ranges for each example is from Zone I to Zone VIII or seven stops. Both exposures are keyed to Zone I. Seems to me that if the film in the two examples is processed to the same contrast index, has the same exposure placement, and is shooting the same scene, the results should be the same. Since they don't seem to be, there's something else at work here.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Aren't the "zone" differnces just the result of paper choice? CI is the same, it's the paper LER that's changed.

    If the two papers are similar in curve shape and don't have big differences in toe and shoulder, the two "negs" should print very similarly.
    Kirk

    For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!

  4. #14
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,649
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    But zones don't equal stops. The reason they are called zones is to differentiate them from stops.

    So how are the zones being defined?

    Hey, what about condenser versus diffuser.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  5. #15
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,649
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes View Post
    Aren't the "zone" differnces just the result of paper choice? CI is the same, it's the paper LER that's changed.

    If the two papers are similar in curve shape and don't have big differences in toe and shoulder, the two "negs" should print very similarly.
    I was thinking similarly but zone V falls at different points on the two curves.

    I wonder per chance if they are different film's?
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,268
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    But zones don't equal stops. The reason they are called zones is to differentiate them from stops.

    So how are the zones being defined?

    Hey, what about condenser versus diffuser.
    Zones don't have to equal stops - look at situations of N-plus and N-minus developments. The zones are how the tones are percieved in the print.

    And condenser vs diffuser question will have similar effect as printing with different papers.

    As long as what you call zone V prints at what you decide zone V in your print will be, then you have a match.

    If your CI stays the same, and your subject brightness range varies, then the paper LER must change to match.
    Kirk

    For up from the ashes, up from the ashes, grow the roses of success!

  7. #17
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes View Post
    Aren't the "zone" differnces just the result of paper choice? CI is the same, it's the paper LER that's changed.
    You can of course adjust the paper LER to fit the negative density ranges, but that's assuming that the both the negative density ranges in the examples are realistic.

    All the conditions on the subject and film/processing side are identical. Shouldn't the values in both examples then be the same?

    Doesn't this only leave the possibility that one of the interpretations of the exposure scenarios are in error? Remember what I said earlier, "the key is in the interpretation of the data, and a large part of that is having a good grasp of certain principles and asking the right questions." What principle is missing? I also hinted to focus on what the x-axis represents. Bill has it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I'm guessing the left hand is the perfectly spaced theoretical or planned Zones superimposed on actual film curve, while the right hand is the result where the predictions landed. There is compression in the shadows, which could lead to disappointment if you were counting on them being where you wanted.
    That is exactly the difference between the two, although I wouldn't use the term "perfectly spaced" as it implies an ideal. The film curve is produced by contacting a step tablet made up of equally space densities. This produces a graphic depiction of how the film will respond to specific exposure values. The problem comes when interpreting how the values from a scene will interact with the curve. Any optical system will change the relationship between the tones of the original scene and the exposure values of its optical camera image through the mechanism of flare. Flare compresses the apparent scene luminance range. For a one stop flare factor, an original scene with a luminance range of seven stops will become an illuminance range of six stops at the film plane. As flare affects the shadows more than the upper tones, the distribution of the exposure values in the reduced exposure is irregular compressing the lower values and having little affect on the higher values.

    So, which one of the examples do you think is the best representative of the actual exposure process?

    How would not factoring in the influence of flare affect the interpretation of the contrast of the negative using the method of determining the negative density range? What about the two different aim values for the negative density range? They can't possibly be both be right for the same paper grade? Can they?

    Does this example tend to strengthen or diminish the validity of the negative density range method of contrast determination?

    Let's consider a typical Zone III printing test. The idea is to expose the paper where Fb+b is paper black, then see where Zone III falls. In the test, the exposure range between the Zone I exposure and the Zone III exposure is two stops. According to Curve A example, Zone III under a zero flare condition will have a density of 0.43. There is virtually no flare when shooting single toned subjects. In the field under flare conditions, Zone III falls only one stop to the right of the Zone I exposure and according to Curve B will have a density of 0.29. What is the purpose of a test that doesn't reflect use?

    Here's a funny little saving grace. Since the Zone System doesn't factor in flare with it's speed testing, it tends to produce film speeds 1/2 to one stop below the ISO speed rating. This will shift all the exposures to the right on the curve effectively bringing the Zone III density up to or above the density used in the test. There will almost always be accent black and the change in the lower shadow placement from the lower EI setting will not be noticed.

    And why do you suppose example A represents the most prevalent approach to curve interpretation in the photographic community when the results are less than representative?

    I believe a large part of the problem is caused by the tendency to isolate the film curve away from the camera image/flare curve and the paper curve. Most of the time, we aren't see the whole picture. Add the camera image quadrant and now it's possible to see how the original image changes inside the camera and how the exposure values shift as they move from the subject through the camera to the film. Add the paper curve, and it's now possible to compare how the original tonal values are represented in the final product.

    I'm going to work on some examples to illustrate some of this and will hopefully have something to show tomorrow.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 09-07-2011 at 11:32 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #18
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,191
    Images
    46
    OK it's getting late, but with all the clues, I have to take one more stab... The one on the left is a subject with a majority in shadow, "low-key". The one on the right, exhibiting more flare, is a "high-key" scene with more light subject matter. Both subjects were selected to have all zones, just not equally represented.

    ... not the right answer...
    Last edited by Bill Burk; 09-07-2011 at 11:58 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Not the right answer...

  9. #19
    joh
    joh is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Trier, Germany
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    34
    I would say A is the right one for a N development,
    N has a difference from 7 Zones ( 7 f-stops) between Zone VIII and Zone I.
    One f-stop has 0,30 log.D ....0,30 * 7 = 2,10.
    The B graph has a difference from 1,78 log.H this would mean 6 f-stops
    0,30 log.D * 6 = 1,8.
    In my opinion it show's a N+1 development, not implicitly from the result
    but from the exposure.

  10. #20
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Keyes View Post
    Zones don't have to equal stops - look at situations of N-plus and N-minus developments. The zones are how the tones are percieved in the print.
    You'd think that something that has been around for over 70 years would have been better defined by now. In sensitometry, 0.30 is always a stop. With Zones, I see it as a change from one Zone to the next with the original subject is one stop. There has to be a unit of measurement or else it's just gibberish. With the print, I've always thought there was too much of a coincidence between the 10 steps of the Zone System and the 10 steps of Munsell's scale. As the Munsell scale is psychophysically based, the spacing between the steps are visually equal, but not equal in reflection density. However, as the average subject luminance range is 2.2 logs and the RD range for glossy paper is around 2.2, there can be (excluding specular reflections) a one to one tonal relationship with the original subject. That is except then the print would appear dark to the view under normal viewing conditions.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567812 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin