Members: 77,758   Posts: 1,717,706   Online: 653

# Thread: Comparison of Reflectance from 18% and 12% Zone Models

1. ## Comparison of Reflectance from 18% and 12% Zone Models

This is kind of interesting. I've put together three exposure models comparing the subject reflection densities and Reflectances for Zone V = 18%, Zone V = 12%, and the standard model of exposure. As anyone familiar with the Zone System knows, Zone VIII falls three stops above the metered exposure point (Zone V). Zone I falls four stops under the metered exposure point for a total subject luminance range of 7 stops (2.10 logs). The standard model of exposure is slightly different as it doesn't base exposure from the metered exposure point but from 100% Reflectance with a 7 1/3 stop (2.20 logs) subject luminance range.

If Zone V equals 18% Reflectance, what would Zone VIII equal? How about when Zone V equals 12%? And there are other implications depending on the model used.

A little fun and a little food for thought.

2. The numbers at 18% are not pretty - but that's what Ansel Adams wanted.

At 12%, the percent reflectances are convenient and percentages progress through sensible numbers, like 95% for the white side of the card.

The standard model seems to have a clean series of relative densities.

3. So, you don't have a problem with a Zone VIII as having a Reflectance of 144%? Doesn't that sound somewhat unrealistic to you?

4. I'm 150% sure zone VIII doesn't have a 144% reflectance

5. I don't have a problem with it because it might assume a long range subject - reflectances of a part of the scene in shadow plus another part of the scene in open daylight - so a natural scene could exceed 100%

6. Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
I'm 150% sure zone VIII doesn't have a 144% reflectance
I know you are just being funny, but think about it. It's the math. 18% is a reflection density of 0.74. Add three stops and that equals an RD of -0.18 or 144% Reflectance for Zone VIII.

This is simply putting numbers to the Zones. If not 144% then what?

From Bill Burke
I don't have a problem with it because it might assume a long range subject
This is for a normal 7 stop scene when Zone V is at 18%.

7. I just measured, in bright daylight, from top-hat black hole to white wall is 7 2/3 stops.

A reflection grayscale I made only measures about 4 stops. It has "less than ideal" characteristics.

But I believe even a reflective target with ideal characteristics, from 0 - 100% would be less than 7 stops.

8. Originally Posted by Bill Burk
But I believe even a reflective target with ideal characteristics, from 0 - 100% would be less than 7 stops.
From 100% - 0.8% Reflectance is seven stops. I guess technically the range could be infinite as you would never reach zero if you are always dividing by 2.

Remember, the use of Reflectance in relation to luminance usually involves a Lambertain surface which is a perfect diffuser. 100% Reflectance doesn't mean 100% reflection - (illuminance x reflectance) / pi = luminance.

Scenes with Reflectances of 100% and above incorporate non Lambertain surfaces and specular reflections. There's also relative Reflectance like when shooting a scene with multiple lighting conditions, like the cave and the beach. You have a a normal scene in bright sunlight and then a normal scene in dark shadows. If you are shooting the inside of the cave, the exterior scene will appear to have Reflectances easily over 100%.

However, that still doesn't answer of Zone VIII being at 144% when Zone V is considered to be metered at 18% gray.

9. Well... isn't Zone V 12% gray? After all... Zone V is what the meter reads and that's supposedly 12-13%

10. Originally Posted by Bill Burk
Well... isn't Zone V 12% gray? After all... Zone V is what the meter reads and that's supposedly 12-13%
Yes it is!!! Nice catch. This is just one way to prove it's not 18% using very little math. Zone VIII isn't supposed to have specular reflections. So, it shouldn't be over 100%. As Zone VIII is three stops over Zone V and if the meter "reads" 18%, then Zone VIII is over 100%; therefore, the meter can't be reading 18%. Another photographic myth bites the dust.

I almost worked myself into a corner as exposure meters don't "see" Reflectance, but it's possible to extrapolate an equivalent number based on the reflection meter's and incident meter's calibration. This is also the beginning of a more precise way to determine exactly what a meter "sees". Apply the average illuminance of Daylight to the different reflection densities (basically log Reflectance), plug them into the camera exposure equation, and see which one produces the correct exposure at the metered exposure point for a given EI.

And for the record, it's 12%.

Page 1 of 5 12345 Last

 APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY: