Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,772   Posts: 1,484,344   Online: 1196
      
Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 182
  1. #91
    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 disagree with PE - I don't find these tone reproduction discussions over the top technical. In fact they are quite straight forward.

    One thing I'd throw into the mix as far as over/extra and latitude goes is a consideration of image structure characteristics such as granularity, resolution etc. which may or may not contribute to the total subjective sense of print quality in addition to "macro" tone reproduction. As we know these characteristics are influenced to some extent by exposure.
    If the Zone System is too crude and tone reproduction is too technical, I wonder where the Goldilock's spot falls.

    I'm getting ready for work and don't have time to upload it, but there's an excellent example in Theory of the Photographic Process. I'll do it after work. Truthfully, I'm not exactly sure how to read it.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-19-2013 at 08:04 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #92
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    The negative and print orientation are normally reversed from each other and those look like curves to me so until you actually define what they are I am assuming they are curves and so would anyone else looking at this. Now the upper part of the negative is the highlights and the upper part of the print are the shadows. I would read this as the highlights are somewhere over the film curve, and at the same time are beyond the paper D-max. So far none of this is making any sense to me. It would be helpful if you explain exactly what those curves are if they aren't film and paper curves.

    If you look at my example, you will notice nothing falls off a curve. High key is just supposed to lighten the tones not to blow them out, which is what it appears to do in your example.
    My intent is truly to blow out the background, it creates a perfect white, its a choice.

    As to my squiggles looking like curves, they are mockups of curves yes. In my illustrations though conceptually highlights are at the top shadows at the bottom, so consider the print curve flipped. I don't necessarily care where the density is, I want to understand how the subjects carry through.

    The intent of my illustrations is as a visualization tool.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  3. #93

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    If the Zone System is too crude and tone reproduction is too technical, I wonder where the Goldilock's spot falls.

    I'm getting ready for work and don't have time to upload it, but there's an excellent example in Theory of the Photographic Process. I'll do it after work. Truthfully, I'm not exactly sure how to read it.
    I do not understand that tone reproduction is too technical, at least not in the kodak publication 'kodak professional black and white films'., I referred to before in this thread. I would say: it is very simple and written for the practical photographer. It is far more simple than the zone system books. In this thread, it was oted that the book is not available. However, I see that it can be obtained via Amazon. There is ieven a choice from different editions. I have the 1976 edition. I do not know whether the later reprints are different.

    Jed

  4. #94
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    My intent is truly to blow out the background, it creates a perfect white, its a choice.

    As to my squiggles looking like curves, they are mockups of curves yes. In my illustrations though conceptually highlights are at the top shadows at the bottom, so consider the print curve flipped. I don't necessarily care where the density is, I want to understand how the subjects carry through.

    The intent of my illustrations is as a visualization tool.
    That helps. Thanks. Something conceptually similar is the gray scale comparison that Phil Davis uses in this program. It's basically the Dorst diagram but with colored in tones. From my perspecitve, you can get all that information and more from a tone reproduction diagram.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-19-2013 at 10:16 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  5. #95
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,723
    Images
    65
    All right. Too technical? Maybe and maybe not. Go back and look at the graphs I posted from Haist. There is nothing technical about that. Just simple logic and looking at a graph. Much simpler than other posts here, and no disrespect to those people, i am merely saying that the posts may go over some people's heads, thats all. Grant Haist has shown it with no math or fiddling. Just a simple film curve with "zones" showing print reproduction.

    And, btw, negative films are shown increasing in density from left to right, as are paper densities. Print densities are shown decreasing in density from left to right. This convention is used throughout the photographic industry including "gasp" digital.

    PE

  6. #96
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,196
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    All right. Too technical? Maybe and maybe not. Go back and look at the graphs I posted from Haist. There is nothing technical about that. Just simple logic and looking at a graph. Much simpler than other posts here, and no disrespect to those people, i am merely saying that the posts may go over some people's heads, thats all. Grant Haist has shown it with no math or fiddling. Just a simple film curve with "zones" showing print reproduction.

    And, btw, negative films are shown increasing in density from left to right, as are paper densities. Print densities are shown decreasing in density from left to right. This convention is used throughout the photographic industry including "gasp" digital.
    Ron, the Haist curve examples are only film curves and not tone reproduction diagrams. Different uses. And yes the print goes from left to right in decreasing density or at least did. I believe the convention is changing in stand a lone paper curves, and the convention is a left to right increasing density for the paper curve when used in tone reproduction diagrams.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-19-2013 at 11:27 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #97

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Bilthoven, The Netherlands
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,858
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    All right. Too technical? Maybe and maybe not. Go back and look at the graphs I posted from Haist. There is nothing technical about that. Just simple logic and looking at a graph. Much simpler than other posts here, and no disrespect to those people, i am merely saying that the posts may go over some people's heads, thats all. Grant Haist has shown it with no math or fiddling. Just a simple film curve with "zones" showing print reproduction.

    And, btw, negative films are shown increasing in density from left to right, as are paper densities. Print densities are shown decreasing in density from left to right. This convention is used throughout the photographic industry including "gasp" digital.

    PE
    Too technical? Maybe and maybe not, that is the question. I am a physicist/ chemist and I like the Haist publication. But, I know that it is not the case for the average photographer. The text of the kodak publication is made for the practical photographer. They ( kodak people) told me that the text in the first edition has been modified in such a way that it was better to understand for the non scientific photographer. That was the second edition of 1976.

    Jed

  8. #98
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,302
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Is this better?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	74.2 KB 
ID:	67470
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  9. #99
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    2,920
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Is this better?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	17 
Size:	74.2 KB 
ID:	67470
    Yes, with one change suggested...

    Say "Neg", "Print"

  10. #100

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,289
    The direction the curves goes depends on which side of the Greenwich Meridian you're own, so whether
    it's more convenient to look left or right. The shape of the curve is straightest near the equator, but is
    curved by the coreolis force the closer you get to the poles.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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