Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,546   Posts: 1,572,923   Online: 979
      
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    Well you could do what I do. Pick a flare value that you believe applies to your system. I say 0.4 Log Exposure Units.

    At an appropriate part of the curve (and this is where I just throw darts and start where the curve crosses 0.1 density on the non-flare test plots), identify the exposure. Now identify the exposure at 0.4 Log Exposure Units to the right.

    Take the difference*. Add that amount (call it flare exposure) to the exposure for each plotted point. Look at the original graph to see what density you get for the summed exposure (original plus flare exposure*). Plot that density point directly above the original plotted point.

    As you move to the right, the flare exposure becomes logarithmically less significant, so the new curve will taper.

    Sounds awful, maybe someone can explain it better than me.

    *Get the antilogs so you are summing arithmetic values and then get the log of that sum
    I think I get this explanation.
    Now for the lazy and wanting to get quick results (getting deeply involved needs to come later since I want to carry on Photographing, and learning by doing) if I continue plotting my curves and using the WBM method everything should be fine again.
    I am going to replot my data concidering flare to see what I get.
    I used to plot on paper now I use computer spreadsheets since it is clean in the optic.
    I also have the BTZS plotter programm, this is what got me confused, I added flair in the programm which resulted in really weird curves and nothing seemed right. I changed the paper ES from 1,05 to 1,20 which as I understand is the ZS way and I seem to get "normal" results.

  2. #32
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,713
    Images
    1
    i wondere about that for years, and after asking phil about it, i had to disagree with his arithmatic. to me, the average gradient is the SBR/ NDR, which is 1.2@ grade 2. consequently, a 'normal gradient is7*0.3/1.05 or 1.2/2.1=0.57. i know fred newman thinks this is too contrasty, but i can't see a flaw in my logic.(see the attached for details)
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  3. #33
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    i wondere about that for years, and after asking phil about it, i had to disagree with his arithmatic. to me, the average gradient is the SBR/ NDR, which is 1.2@ grade 2. consequently, a 'normal gradient is7*0.3/1.05 or 1.2/2.1=0.57. i know fred newman thinks this is too contrasty, but i can't see a flaw in my logic.(see the attached for details)
    Ralph, you know where I stand on this issue.

  4. #34
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,713
    Images
    1
    i do, and i don't have the strength for another detailed conversation. there is too much flare around here, but do you know fred newman came to his conclusion0.57 being too contrasty?
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  5. #35
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Yes Ralph I had a short Email exchange with him wondering about this and he said that 0,57 is too contrasty. It was short and blunt!

  6. #36
    AndreasT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Berlin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    355
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    i do, and i don't have the strength for another detailed conversation. there is too much flare around here, but do you know fred newman came to his conclusion0.57 being too contrasty?
    I would love to read this discussion, where can I find it??

  7. #37
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    i do, and i don't have the strength for another detailed conversation. there is too much flare around here, but do you know fred newman came to his conclusion0.57 being too contrasty?
    Well, I've found that understanding flare answers many of the outstanding questions in photography. Flare is the answer to Andreas' gradient question.

    As for 0.57 being too contrasty, I'm always interested in a well reasoned argument, but I really can't see how there can be one with this.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 02-13-2013 at 09:51 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #38
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    fred newman came to his conclusion0.57 being too contrasty?
    It's probably a misinterpretation of flare.

  9. #39
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Central florida,USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,713
    Images
    1
    he must be ounder estimating flarethen.
    Regards

    Ralph W. Lambrecht
    www.darkroomagic.comrorrlambrec@ymail.com[/URL]
    www.waybeyondmonochrome.com

  10. #40
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,221
    Quote Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht View Post
    he must be ounder estimating flarethen.
    That's my first thought. Another possibility is a change in the LER or gradient parameters, or a different value for the average luminance range.

Page 4 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