Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,881   Posts: 1,520,510   Online: 827
      
Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 182
  1. #81
    Shawn Dougherty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,131
    Images
    284
    Thank you, Michael. I've downloaded them and will dive in as soon as I can.


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
    Shawn I suggest starting with these two publications. In the first one you can skip the film characteristics if you want. The second one gets into a little more detail specifically on sensitometry.

    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...cs_of_Film.pdf

    http://motion.kodak.com/motion/uploa...y_workbook.pdf

  2. #82
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,592
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    I think this could make for a very interesting discussion some other time and in a different thread.

    Mark, that creative vs technical argument is the same one that people who find the Zone System too technical use against the Zone System, and I don't think you'd agree with them. It's simply a matter of degrees. Yes, ultimately it's about creativity and personal expression. I don't think anyone path to art is intrinsically better than another, however, if the intention is to communicate technical information to others, certain methods don't measure up as well as the more scientific ones. They are all just tools.
    PE's boss's words "we sell pictures not curves", shows great wisdom.

    I think you might be a bit surprised. I really have no issue with not knowing certain things.

    In the field I'm much more interested in concepts I can visualize rather than math I have to do.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  3. #83
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,912
    Images
    65
    Mark;

    Thanks. If you look in my gallery, you will see photos taken at 600 or more MPH, upside down! I was not worried about curves then. It is clear that using a film is different than designing one. This discussion is too over the top technical by those that do not have the background for the technical aspect.

    I have seen both sides and used them both to get good results IMHO.

    PE

  4. #84
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,592
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Burk View Post
    I rated TMY-2 at EI 64 for this exposure, which places the negative well into the "Over" category. Because TMY-2 has a very long straight-line, I am still at least three stops camera exposure below the shoulder on the negative.
    By my definition, you are only in the "extra" category; you haven't lost any detail. "Over", IMO, comes only when some of the subject matter/detail you actually visualized to print is truly off the scale and unrecoverable. Your negative though still has 3 stops of latitude you can play with.

    Another way to think of this is that "box" might be considered somewhere close to where the first high quality print can be made and the limit of the "extra" category would be where the last high quality print can be made.

    There are real reasons to consider these alternate placements.

    Exposing for the last HQ print point might eliminate the need for carrying an ND filter.

    Exposing extra somewhere between the limits could also give you consistently longer print times, making complicated burn and dodge work more manageable.

    An example of the use of truly over is a high-key technique I used in studio, the subject is lit to provide proper placement for easy printing at the desired level. The background is then lit to truly overexpose well beyond where detail could be recovered. Creates a stunning white that leaves the subject beautifully isolated.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  5. #85
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    In the field I'm much more interested in concepts I can visualize rather than math I have to do.
    I don't know about anyone else, but I've been discussing the concept of communicating ideas and information in a graph, which I believe is the topic of this thread, not about whether photographic knowledge is a determent when shooting.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-19-2013 at 03:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #86
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    An example of the use of truly over is a high-key technique I used in studio, the subject is lit to provide proper placement for easy printing at the desired level. The background is then lit to truly overexpose well beyond where detail could be recovered. Creates a stunning white that leaves the subject beautifully isolated.
    If it was truly beyond where detail could be recovered, wouldn't it just be blown out white? What it sounds like you are describing is shooting multiple subjects at different levels of illuminace in a single shot. Like shooting indoors looking out through a window and exposing for the interior levels. I agree, it's a nice effect. How to graph it? I don't think this situation could be properly conveyed in a single conventional plot. Strictly from the perspective of luminance, it's just a long luminance range which can be graphed in a single diagram. But in order to communicate the effect Mark is describing in a graph, I believe there would have to be two sets of curves treating the different illuminance levels as separate subjects.

    The example below would be how it would look using a single set of curves. This is the maximum Luminance range my program can do and I think pushing everything into the toe of the paper curve has freaked out the tone reproduction reference line.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4 Quad - long Luminance Range.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	816.7 KB 
ID:	67455

    But what you have is one scene with a normal luminance range normally exposed and printed and another scene overexposed and printed for high key like in the next example.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4 Quad - High Key Example.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	735.2 KB 
ID:	67456

    As compared to a typical high key approach. The scene has a slightly shorter than normal luminance range. The main difference here is that it falls under 100% reflectance (the subject is shifted to the left in Quad 1). The exposure is placed higher on the curve. Development is reduced some, and the subject is printed in in the toe of the paper curve.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	4 Quad - typical high Key.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	688.7 KB 
ID:	67457
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-19-2013 at 04:25 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  7. #87
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,592
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Stephen the single example below expresses my whole high-key placement idea, 2 lines and 2 squiggles in the sand with my finger.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	99.0 KB 
ID:	67458

    Everything I need, to explain my idea to a companion on the beach with me is there.

    It can even explain why I might want to use a highlight or mid-tone to peg exposure instead of a shadow.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  8. #88
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,592
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
    I don't know about anyone else, but I've been discussing the concept of communicating ideas and information in a graph, which I believe is the topic of this thread, not about whether photographic knowledge is a determent when shooting.
    I don't believe anyone is seriously saying photographic knowledge is a bad thing.

    I think what is being expressed s that there is a pretty low threshold of knowledge of the system needed to do truly nice work, beyond that point things might fall into the nice to know range or in the who cares range depending on the photographer.

    Henri Cartier-Bresson is a reasonable example of this, he said in his own words (paraphrased here) that he did not care to know what happened after the film came out of the camera. He said of himself "I'm a hunter, not a cook".
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

    "We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Ana´s Nin

  9. #89

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,534
    Stephen, I like the long luminance range (single set) example actually. I think this type of illustration is powerful.

    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.

  10. #90
    Stephen Benskin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,218
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    Stephen the single example below expresses my whole high-key placement idea, 2 lines and 2 squiggles in the sand with my finger.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	99.0 KB 
ID:	67458

    Everything I need, to explain my idea to a companion on the beach with me is there.

    It can even explain why I might want to use a highlight or mid-tone to peg exposure instead of a shadow.
    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.
    Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-19-2013 at 07:43 AM. Click to view previous post history.

Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112131415 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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