Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,536   Posts: 1,544,098   Online: 999
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 45
  1. #11
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,732
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Working with them and writing the program made the theory tangible. It really clarified things.
    I've had that experience with various subjects, one of the most fun was programming a TI calculator to do spherical trigonometry for flight planning.

    I'm actually trying to write a concise piece on using light meters, even though I understand the use quite well, trying to explain it clearly to a general audience is a a challenge and helping me refine my understanding even more.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  2. #12
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    OK, ok, I am going to work through this. Concerning abbreviations what do you mean by LSLR? LER is the paper contrast value?
    LSLR and LER are the correct terms. Davis uses IDmax and SI. Scale is no longer used. Davis only kept these terms because he didn't want to make changes to the plotting program. There's even a disclaimer in the fourth edition. Some of the terms are dated and some he made up. It's frustrating when referencing BTZS with other material.

    He mentions a small flare amount of 0,02 as a starting standard. What you (Stephen) say is much more.
    Another problem with systems. If I remember correctly, Davis is referring to the density difference to the film curve as caused by flare. One, he applies the effects of flare to the film curve. This is an old approach which is more of a construct than reality. Flare affects the optical image and not the film curve. Two, his calculation is more of an approximation of the influence of flare. He doesn't use the flare equation. Or in other words a system.

    If you really want to understand sensitometry, you need to read something more academic. Photographic Materials and Processes would be an excellent start. Theory of the Photographic Process 3rd edition is a little more advanced.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 02-12-2013 at 01:07 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #13
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I'm actually trying to write a concise piece on using light meters, even though I understand the use quite well, trying to explain it clearly to a general audience is a a challenge and helping me refine my understanding even more.
    From what I understand, this is what teachers go through. It's also one of the reasons why I participate in these forums.

  4. #14
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Working with them and writing the program made the theory tangible. It really clarified things.
    What programm?

  5. #15
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post

    If you really want to understand sensitometry, you need to read something more academic. Photographic Materials and Processes would be an excellent start. Theory of the Photographic Process 3rd edition is a little more advanced.
    What bothers me about a lot of this is the explanation in many books and articles. They are sometimes difficult to follow. Ansel Adams I found labourous especially when trying it out for the first time. Personally for me the best method of explanation I have read is "Way Beyond Monochrom"
    Phil Davis I read after WBN and he jumped around too much with his explanations.
    I have been reading up a bit today of Phil Davis and I think some of the fog is starting to lift understanding his method. I have been using the "Way Beyond Monochrom" method for years and it worked, resulting in me reading BTZS less thorough.
    Anyway Stephen I will be reading up on some of yours posts as well, you cover this subjegt a bit.

  6. #16
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    What programm?
    The four quadrant reproduction curve example from a few posts back is from a program I wrote.

  7. #17
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    I envy people who can do that.

  8. #18
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    ...... One, he applies the effects of flare to the film curve. This is an old approach which is more of a construct than reality. Flare affects the optical image and not the film curve. Two, his calculation is more of an approximation of the influence of flare. He doesn't use the flare equation. Or in other words a system.
    Even though it is a construct won`t it work. At least in part. I see your Practical Flare Model is very close to the Way Beyond Monochrom numbers as well as The Zone System number.
    Flare always seems to just get a footnote.
    I have the BTZS PLotter programm by the by. Have been playing around with it today, with the flare part and I think I am getting the hang of it.
    However those flare numbers are difficult to swallow seeing how high they are.

  9. #19
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,732
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    ...If I remember correctly, Davis is referring to the density difference to the film curve as caused by flare. One, he applies the effects of flare to the film curve. This is an old approach which is more of a construct than reality. Flare affects the optical image and not the film curve.
    Interesting. So thinking out loud here... If I get the concept here, flare actually compresses the shadows on the original line of the curve. Even though we are moving into steeper parts of the curve flare is still compressing the tones.

    It seems to me then that essentially the construct you speak of is that the normal log exposure vs density curve is replaced by a scene zone placement vs density scale. Even if not perfect is that a reasonable understanding?

    If true that almost seems like a better way to visualize what is going to print. It becomes a labeling issue instead of a technical flaw. Seems to me that the log exposure vs density model hides flare's effect.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  10. #20
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by AndreasT View Post
    Even though it is a construct won`t it work. At least in part.
    Of course if works. That's not what is in question. It can lead to a misinterpretation of how the process works. Anyone viewing such a curve is required to be aware what it represents.

    I see your Practical Flare Model is very close to the Way Beyond Monochrom numbers as well as The Zone System number.
    Flare always seems to just get a footnote.
    The results are close, but the variables are different. Only one of the three models use variables that describe reality. Both the Zone System and WBM basically use what Davis calls the effective density range. Problem is, neither explains this is what they are doing. My Practical Flare Model is derived by averaging the values from the fixed flare model and variable flare model. While the variable flare model has the potential to be the most accurate. Matching the NDR to the paper LER is less an indication of quality as the luminance ranges progressively increase or decrease. I believe my approach tempers the extreme ranges and tends to fit the preferred NDR to LER relationships.

    However those flare numbers are difficult to swallow seeing how high they are.
    That's the funny thing about facts, they don't care if you believe them or not. Seriously, before you judge, study up on the subject. What I believe you are referring to when you said 0.02 density increase is from the black box test described in BTZS. You appear to be confusing density increase from flare and the amount of flare. Also, I can't see the black box test as more of an exercise to create an impression of flare's effects and not an actual measurement. I did a similar black box test. Around the opening of the box, I place various targets, black, gray, checkerboard, and white. Below are the results. While there is a difference in density of 0.09 between the black target and the white target, the difference in exposure is 0.39 of 1 1/3 stops.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Flare target comparisons.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	96.4 KB 
ID:	64062

    On page 94 of BTZS, Davis recommends adjusting the SI by 10% for the effective DR in order to compensate for flare. For a NDR of 1.05, 1.05 * 1.10 = 1.15. The gradient for a log 2.20 luminance range would then be 1.15 / 2.20 = 0.52. If we take the unadjusted NDR of 1.05 and apply it to a log 2.20 luminance range minus flare, how much flare would it take to to equal 0.52? 1.05 / (2.20 - 0.20) = 0.52 or 2/3 stop flare.

    This is how flare really works.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	2 Quad flare example.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	122.0 KB 
ID:	64063

    And for the Zone inclined:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Zone Exposure - 2 Quad 1.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	44.5 KB 
ID:	64064

    Here's an example of the effect on both the shadow exposure and the effective luminance range over a range of flare. In this example the no flare curve produces an effective luminance range of 2.20.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Two Quad - Multi flare.jpg 
Views:	15 
Size:	464.0 KB 
ID:	64065
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 02-12-2013 at 07:47 PM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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