Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,650   Online: 929
      
Page 21 of 23 FirstFirst ... 11151617181920212223 LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 228
  1. #201

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,879
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Why not just print through any density created by excessive flare.
    Exactly!


    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Fun fact about flare and shadow compression. Ever wonder why Tri-X professional, with it's long toe, is considered a "studio" film? There's less flare with interiors and the ability to control lighting. In theory, regular Tri-X shot in daylight would have similar tonal distribution in the toe as Tri-X Pro shot in the studio.
    Funny - In The Negative, Adams indeed says films with longer toes could be useful under low flare conditions. But all those years ago when I first got into his books this statement initially puzzled me because he doesn't really explain the effects of flare in the book.

  2. #202
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,432
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I'm just challenging the notion giving less exposure than one normally would, improves anything. If anything it puts more of the subject into the part of the curve that is compressed.
    Now here is where I want to point out that you both can be right, and keep plugging away at what you like.

    Michael R 1974, I am in the camp where I don't change EI based on conditions. So for simplicity, I would NOT lower my exposure when faced with a scene that is buzzing with flare.

    CPorter, I totally support your idea to reduce exposure slightly in such a scene. Maybe you are holding your highlights off the shoulder? Maybe you see the shadows are badly compressed anyway so you aren't making things (much) worse than they already are.

    But after staring at this flare-included camera step wedge test family of curves (thanks Rafal Lukawiecki for the data), I think Michael R 1974 is right. You are well-advised to get up out of the very flat toe. I would keep Zone I above the little diamonds (0.1 speed point) or at least above the little 'c' marks (they happen to be what I used as Contrast Index measurement endpoints, meaningless on their own, especially meaningless because of the flare, but I have a hunch these little 'c' marks are a good place for Zone I exposures).




  3. #203
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    I'm just challenging the notion giving less exposure than one normally would, improves anything. If anything it puts more of the subject into the part of the curve that is compressed.
    My scientific wild ass guess is that in a situation where there is a bunch of flare in a given shot for whatever reason, there is a sweet spot somewhere; but we are between a rock and a hard spot.

    On one side we have the toe that will compress important tones if we let placement fall too low, on the other when we add exposure excessive flare adds more and more generalized exposure that flattens the toe and reduces the the overall contrast of the image especially in the low tones.

    For me, given my metering and shooting techniques, I normally have enough latitude to reduce my exposure by a stop in almost any situation without losing important detail. In a high flare situation I could give that latitude away to get better overall contrast. I peg my shots to the middle somewhere and very much live by what Stephan expresses here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Attachment 63292

    This shows the density ranges of negatives, that were judged to produce prints with excellent print quality, superimposed over the paper curve which they were printed on. Notice the diversity of NDRs. They all produced great prints. How precise does anyone actually have to be? Could this be the reason why good images are made regardless of the approach? The way I see it. Aim for the center. Even with all the potential variables and variances, you'll still hit the target.
    Your system may not have the same latitude. That's not a detriment, it just means that you may already be at the sweet spot I might move to, to minimize flare.
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

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

  4. #204
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    No. Increased exposure in the shadow increases the shadow density and the speed point is reached with less exposure. This equals more speed.
    Sorry I have to get back to this, if the shadows are more flat beacause of a pre-exposure the rise in the film is more gentle and surely you would have to travel more down the curve to the right to reach the speed point.
    You have more density and theoretical speed increase over the unexposed film where there is no additional light.
    Now if you want soft shadows like mentioned before thats fine but if I want to keep the contrast in the shadows I would have to eventually expose more.

  5. #205
    CPorter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    West KY
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,662
    Images
    24
    I've never reduced exposure more than 2/3 of a stop in an effort to counteract flare density in the low zones (nothing earth shattering), the notion that it causes problems is simply not realized in my experience. The very few times I have done it, only necessitated a quick re-evaluation of the important high value and planned developmet time.

    Stephen points out that flare is always present to some degree, I simply do print through it as suggested, it's precisely why I rarely have ever made any attempt at compensation for it. But in the case of "excessive" flare possibilities, I have reduced exposure to no apparent problems----I would rather have a negative that minimizes it to some degree (which I believe that it does), while also printing through what remians. So, if after the shadow placement is made, it is believed that there is added density to it due to flare, then reduce exposure slightly to counteract it, re-evaluate the important high value, maybe adjust the planned development time, maybe not, make the exposure and move on. Some point of theory may suggest that this is detrimental, but I have some instances of photographing that suggests it is not.

    Anyway, good or bad, that' how I do it, off to work now.
    Chuck

  6. #206
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Also, let's not forget the loss of local contrast and reduced log-H range can be compensated by printing on a higher grade of paper. The increased slope of the higher grade of paper should help restore the local shadow contrast to a pleasing level.

  7. #207
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Sorry I have to get back to this, if the shadows are more flat beacause of a pre-exposure the rise in the film is more gentle and surely you would have to travel more down the curve to the right to reach the speed point.
    You have more density and theoretical speed increase over the unexposed film where there is no additional light.
    Now if you want soft shadows like mentioned before thats fine but if I want to keep the contrast in the shadows I would have to eventually expose more.
    There's a difference between film speed and EI or personal taste. Different interpretation of terms plays a major roll in much of the miscommunication on these threads.

    The ISO film speed standard incorporates a stop flare into the equation. The contrast parameters for development is to make the fixed density method correspond to the results from the fractional gradient method which bases speed on the shadow gradient. So gradient is a factor with ISO film speed. I'm not really sure what effect additional flare would have on the ratio between the fractional gradient point and the fixed density point of 0.10. Increased processing will reduce the ratio, which is why the fractional gradient method and Delta-X Criterion have effective film speeds that tend not to move with increased processing (a likely action with excessive flare).
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-30-2013 at 11:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #208

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,879
    The frightening thing for me is the more I think about flare as pre-exposure, the more my view (expressed in the "challenge" to Chuck's reduced exposure with high flare) seems consistent with Barnbaum's take on pre-exposure of the negative (ie that it doesn't really help)

    Perhaps a decent way to think about it is consider paper flashing. This effectively increases the "speed" of the paper in the highlights (analogous to what happens in the shadows when exposing the negative under flare conditions), so that it takes less image-forming exposure to get some highlight detail onto the paper. But while it is easier to get that first hint of highlight tone, local contrast in the highlights is compressed, which can end up looking a little muddy. When exposing the negative this is what we have in the shadows. The effective "speed" is increased which means less image-forming exposure is required to get the first hint of density above FB+f, but local contrast in the shadows is reduced.

    So I suppose I can summarize my view by saying that an increase in "effective" film speed due to non-image forming light should generally be ignored. This is because for me speed (or exposure index) is little more than a means to an end - ie getting contrast in the shadows as close as I can to the contrast of the rest of the curve. If the extra speed caused by flare/pre-exposure decreases shadow contrast, I'd argue it isn't "effective" speed at all.

  9. #209
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    There's another factor that hasn't been address and that is the perception of the scene. The viewer expects a certain look from a backlit scene and that usually includes a flattening of the shadows. If the object of the photograph is to be natural looking, then snappy shadow contrast may not be appropriate. Personally, one of my favorate photographic approaches is to play against these kind of conventions.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 01-30-2013 at 01:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #210
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Beaverton, OR, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,773
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    There's another factor that hasn't been address and that is the perception of the scene. The viewer expects a certain look from a backlit scene and that usually includes a flattening of the shadows. If the object of the photograph is to be natural looking, then snappy shadow contrast may not be appropriate. Personally, one of my favorate photographic approaches is to play against these kind of conventions.
    Yep.

    There are also the considerations of imparting mood. The compression in the low end can impart an old time look or a boudoir look or in color photography a pastel look....
    Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR

    "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