Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,554   Posts: 1,545,007   Online: 755
      
Page 15 of 19 FirstFirst ... 5910111213141516171819 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 182
  1. #141
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Ron, that graph is from Jones' paper The Evaluation of Negative Film Speeds in Terms of Print Quality, Journal of the Franklin Institute, April 1939, page 502 and 503. The test is best known as the first excellent print test. Psychophysical testing is the definite way to determine print quality. A simplified version of this would be the so called ring-around test which is a popular class assignment at photographic schools. Michael started a thread recently on the fractional gradient method where the first excellent print test was part of the discussion.
    Stephen, this type of panel test was used for years by Kodak for evaluating prints. My graph was derived from Mees, Revised Edition, page 878, written specifically by J. L. Tupper, in a chapter contributed by L. A. Jones. These works were all contributions from members of the KRL staff. IDK what Jones did at the time you cite, but he was part of the "Mees Team" at the time Mees wrote his book.

    Some excellent treatment of this subject, with examples, is shown in Practical Sensitometry by Wakefield. Example curves and prints are shown from a number of different combinations. Ctein has some very nice examples using modern materials in his book "Post Exposure". I suggest that the contributors to this thread put some of these books on their reading list.

    PE

  2. #142
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Stephen, this type of panel test was used for years by Kodak for evaluating prints. My graph was derived from Mees, Revised Edition, page 878, written specifically by J. L. Tupper, in a chapter contributed by L. A. Jones. These works were all contributions from members of the KRL staff. IDK what Jones did at the time you cite, but he was part of the "Mees Team" at the time Mees wrote his book.

    Some excellent treatment of this subject, with examples, is shown in Practical Sensitometry by Wakefield. Example curves and prints are shown from a number of different combinations. Ctein has some very nice examples using modern materials in his book "Post Exposure". I suggest that the contributors to this thread put some of these books on their reading list.
    Sounds like you are referring to the 2nd edition of Theory of the Photographic Process. If I remember correctly, the first edition was little more than a compilation of recently published papers. I don't remember the 2nd edition. The 3rd edition has it on page 441 by Tupper, in a section where he is summarizing Jones' first excellent print test. Looking at the curve you uploaded more closely, "Negative Material B" is found on page 502 of the paper in the Journal of the Franklin Institute at the bottom half of the page. The same "Negative Material B" was used again on page 94 of Jones and Nelson's 1940 paper "A Study of Various Sensitometric Criteria of Negative Film Speeds." Personally, I like to go to the source material. It avoids some other authors interpretation of the materials.

    I'm sure you used derivative curves all the time at Kodak. I'm just pointing out the origins of this particular one and it was from Jones' work. I have to get a life.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-21-2013 at 09:45 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #143
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    In H&D's original work, you will find an idealized negative curve which has turned out to be the seminal curve for all idealized curves published. Why? Because it is essentially right and is the foundation of all derivative work. Thus, that set of curves can be found (or derived) from very simple work with neg pos materials.

    Mine comes from Mees, Revised Edition. Those articles, contributed by many people at KRL, were published in 2 forms. Or should I say 3 for more accuracy. One, the publications you cite were published internally in a second form with some "classified" content. In the third version, they were massaged and republished in one of the varying editions of Mees work. However, long after these, that work continued to be published internally. As time went on, this work delved more into color.

    On that topic, I reiterate the fact that W. T. Hanson published the 4 part chart you have used, but he related it to the silver criterion (and the unit neutral) of dyes which often distorted each of the 3 color curves considerably. Thus, to get good curve shape we had to either tweak the spectral sensitization, tweak the image dye, or bend the curve shape of one or more layer in order to get a neutral print in a neg-pos color system.

    Hanson has given some of that in his book (Evans, Hanson and Brewer) and it is presented in several other works. I have a copy of his original report.

    PE

  4. #144
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Did H&D title all their graphs as "Negative Material B" and have labels "first excellent prints" and "just acceptable prints"? No. All I'm doing is pointing out the reference material. My god, give it a break.

  5. #145
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    Looking at the curve you uploaded more closely, "Negative Material B" is found on page 502 of the paper in the Journal of the Franklin Institute at the bottom half of the page. The same "Negative Material B" was used again on page 94 of Jones and Nelson's 1940 paper "A Study of Various Sensitometric Criteria of Negative Film Speeds." Personally, I like to go to the source material. It avoids some other authors interpretation of the materials.
    I was referring to the fact that the curve "Negative Material B" was an archetype used by everyone and basically started with H&D. It is a long straight line with a slope of about 0.6 - 0.7. Thats all.

    PE

  6. #146
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,734
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by MattKing View Post
    All of the material in this thread is fascinating, although my understanding of it is far from complete.

    As a visual learner, I would ask if it is possible to illustrate the principles reviewed with example photographs?
    Not photos but see if this helps.

    Remember these are not to scale.

    Without a shoulder the separation on the negative is greater but it falls outside the print range, that detail is lost unless you burn them back in.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	136.1 KB 
ID:	67743

    With shouldering and placement high on the curve the negative should straight print with better highlight detail.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	145.5 KB 
ID:	67744
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  7. #147
    MattKing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Delta, British Columbia, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12,394
    Images
    60
    Thanks Mark.

    Time to print out some graphs and text
    Matt

    “Photography is a complex and fluid medium, and its many factors are not applied in simple sequence. Rather, the process may be likened to the art of the juggler in keeping many balls in the air at one time!”

    Ansel Adams, from the introduction to The Negative - The New Ansel Adams Photography Series / Book 2

  8. #148
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Not photos but see if this helps.

    Remember these are not to scale.

    Without a shoulder the separation on the negative is greater but it falls outside the print range, that detail is lost unless you burn them back in.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	136.1 KB 
ID:	67743

    With shouldering and placement high on the curve the negative should straight print with better highlight detail.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	18 
Size:	145.5 KB 
ID:	67744
    The whole idea of processing is to produce a target negative density range for various subject luminance ranges. If the NDR and print LER match, there is a good likelihood of a quality print. If the highlight exposure falls on the shouldering portion of the curve, the highlight detail will be compressed further than what normally occurs from enlarger flare and the need for high mid-tone contrast.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Film Paper Dev Method.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	141.4 KB 
ID:	67792

    Mark, you've mentioned the negative shoulder a couple of times in this thread. I'm thinking you have some concept in mind.

    Matt, you know what too dark, too light, flat, and contrasty look like. Just apply it to the reproduction curve. Imagine a normal looking picture for the preferred reproduction curve. For any other shape of the curve apply one or more of the four possible choices.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-24-2013 at 08:53 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  9. #149
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,734
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    I actually do have an idea or two that I'm toying with.

    For one, when living with prints for a bit and viewing them from across the room in normal life over a week or two I'm finding that I like them brighter. My darker prints while very enjoyable at close range and bright lighting are tougher to enjoy from across the room. I find that same truth, for me, when out in restaurants and other places when viewing the work of others.

    In my printing the mid-tones are creeping up brighter and pushing some of the highlight detail off the scale on the print. To put this in real terms of subject matter. The whites of a subjects eyes are competing with the bright side of the nose and forehead for room on the paper curve.

    I've been playing with trying retain a bit more detail at the very top, even if its compressed a bit, while retaining good mid-tone snap. I'm trying to find the sweet spot here and see if for example FP4+'s curve fits my needs better than say TMax's or delta's.

    The intent is to make printing easier with less burn and dodge.

    In essence the question I'm asking is "can I use the inherent compression a shoulder imparts to my advantage here?"
    Last edited by markbarendt; 04-25-2013 at 06:05 AM. Click to view previous post history.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  10. #150

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,749
    I'm not sure I'm following. I guess it depends on the relative subject brightness of the whites of the eyes and hot spots on the nose/forehead. If they are very close, they will end up on the same part of the film curve. If they are further apart I suppose you could expose/develop to push only the brightest highlights onto the shoulder.

    To me this still sounds more like it falls under print controls (ie selectively darkening certain highlights relative to other highlights even though they may have similar densities in the negative).

    But I guess what's confusing me a little is when you're talking about using the shoulder but also saying you want to retain more detail at the very top. That's why it ends up sounding more like a printing control issue than a negative issue.

    Regarding the specific films, the three you mention are nearly the same until you get to the extreme highlight densities. TMX 100 for example, tends to shoulder a little more gradually (ie it starts a little earlier) than Delta 100.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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