Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,714   Posts: 1,483,032   Online: 773
      
Page 18 of 23 FirstFirst ... 8121314151617181920212223 LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 228
  1. #171
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Let me ask you this - why a 1/3 to 2/3 stop reduction in exposure when you suspect significant flare effects?

    Because flare introduces some amount of unwanted density.

  2. #172

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,265
    But the effect of flare is increasing compression below say Zone V. So doesn't reducing exposure simply move more of the image values into the area where local contrast is compressed?

  3. #173
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    346
    Who is this Henry you guys are talking about? I couldn't find where he is first mentioned in this long thread.

  4. #174
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by David Allen View Post
    "be sure to use the same camera, shutter and lens throughout" - the reason for this is that the testing procedure automatically compensates for flare.
    We've discussed this point on a number of occasions. In fact, this was the topic of Michael's question. Long story short. It doesn't compensate for flare. Flare is caused by higher luminances affecting lower illuminances within an optical system. Traditional ZS testing uses a middle gray target of a single tone. Even if flare existed, the influence of flare diminishes as you move up the curve. The metering of the target and stopping down may produce the shadow exposure but it's still the middle tone luminance where even in normal flare conditions, there is little influence. And this is completely separate issue from the question of introducing such a variable into a test.

    This is a good example of my earlier topic about the helpfulness of understanding theory. Helpful not so much as part of achieve precision testing. That's not necessary for most photographers. It's helpful in knowing the limitations of the tests.

    "any variations introduced by a change of equipment (such as the possible difference in aperture calibration or flare introduced by changing lenses) should be quite apparent if they are significant." - i.e if you have calibrated with one camera, one lens, one meter, one developer, one thermometer, etc introducing a variable such as a different lens will immediately show if flare, for example, is a significant factor. If it is, you then know that you need to re-calibrate for that particular lens by redoing the testing sequence.
    This can only be true if the photographer shoots with the same lens at the same f/Stop and shutter speed. And this is a good example of my other point about good testing and bad testing. My contention is that speed testing isn't necessary for most and the only testing really needed is for contrast (and that only applies to maybe 10% of photographers). In order to achieve knowable, quantifiable results, the variables and testing conditions must be known and controlled. In other words, scientific testing. Many of the disagreements about testing come from people arguing from different perspectives. It isn't a question of which is more accurate. But there's a big difference between testing for film speed (scientific) and testing for EI. They are different things and have different purposes.

    Sorry, ran out of time.

  5. #175
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,294
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I know the effects on the curve. I'm challenging the notion reduced exposure can provide better separations. To me it seems like if anything it would have the opposite effect since it shifts more of the exposure values into the part of the curve where compression is taking place.

    Regarding the sources of flare in testing etc, again, I'm refering mostly to flare caused by the subject/test target, not the lens. The kind of "veiling" lens flare Adams refers to is likely a relatively minor issue with most contemporary lenses.
    Regarding the separation: My impression is that flare works very much like pre-flashing, the greatest effect is on the lowest values. The more you pre-flash the flatter the toe gets. Less pre-flash/flare exposure as a result of less total exposure means a steeper toe.

    As to source, uhhh.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  6. #176
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I know the effects on the curve. I'm challenging the notion reduced exposure can provide better separations. To me it seems like if anything it would have the opposite effect since it shifts more of the exposure values into the part of the curve where compression is taking place.
    Agreed.

    Regarding the sources of flare in testing etc, again, I'm refering mostly to flare caused by the subject/test target, not the lens. The kind of "veiling" lens flare Adams refers to is likely a relatively minor issue with most contemporary lenses.
    About 80% of flare originates with the subject, but it only exists when there's an optical system involved. There are a couple of different types of flare, veiling has to do with the optical system and camera creating an evenly distributed level of exposure. Another type is ghost which produces an image of the aperture.

    While flare plays a factor in the determination of film speed, for me it's more about the effect it has on the illuminance range. Kodak's contrast index for normal processing contains a value for flare. Their numbers won't work without it.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-28-2013 at 01:46 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #177

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Regarding the separation: My impression is that flare works very much like pre-flashing, the greatest effect is on the lowest values. The more you pre-flash the flatter the toe gets. Less pre-flash/flare exposure as a result of less total exposure means a steeper toe.

    As to source, uhhh.
    Agree with the first part, but reducing the exposure doesn't change the amount of flare, or the shape of the curve. It just moves the entire exposure range further down the same curve so all other things being equal, underexposing is actually worse than doing nothing. It leads to more compression, particularly in the shadows.

  8. #178

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Nebraska
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    273
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Who is this Henry you guys are talking about? I couldn't find where he is first mentioned in this long thread.
    My guess is it's this guy Andreas:

    http://www.amazon.com/Controls-Black...ry+photography
    --
    Kenton Brede
    http://kentonbrede.com/

  9. #179

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,265
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Who is this Henry you guys are talking about? I couldn't find where he is first mentioned in this long thread.
    Andreas - we're referring to Dr. Richard Henry. He was a clinical chemist, but also a photographer. As a scientist he was frustrated by how in magazines, books etc., photographers would present things about materials and technique as fact without any evidence, and often without even a reasonable basis.

    When he retired, he decided to equip himself with the appropriate tools and set about testing for the validity of many of the claims made by notable photographers, Zone System writers etc. He published the results in a book called Controls in Black and White Photography.

    While the materials he used are mostly outdated, perhaps the most important takeaway is that just because a well respected photographer says something about exposure, development, contrast, chemicals etc doesn't mean we should simply accept it as fact, especially in cases where no evidence, or a proper description of the experiment is given. And the description of the experimental method is very important. Even when presented with data (a characteristic curve for example), if we don't know how the test was done, it is often difficult to conclude anything.

  10. #180
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,294
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I don't think that under exposing is being suggested, minimizing might be a better description, or maybe giving up the safety factors.

    Flare, like flashing, essential raises the lowest values significantly, easily doubling the density, without moving the highest values much at all, maybe 1%ish, you knew that though I'd bet.

    Flare, I theorize, like flashing needs to surpass a threshold point to have a significant effect. Less general exposure can help keep flare/flash exposure under the required threshold and therefore affect the image less.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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