Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,218   Posts: 1,532,172   Online: 1014
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 39
  1. #21
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    There's no consensus on whether light meters are actually based on an average of 12% or 18%. My Kodak grey card says the card is 18%, and light meters are regulated on an average 18%, and no compensation should be made. Other versions of the notes on the same Kodak grey card actually give different instructions.

    I read somewhere that 18% is middle grey for the printing industry and the use of the 18% grey card is in fact to ease printing. If light meters are actually regulated on a 12% average scene, then I suppose the 18% card gives good values because the instructions typically say to orient the card at an angle half-way between the light source and the subject.

    It might be that orienting the card this way actually lets less light fall on the light meter than would have fallen if the card was oriented straight at the light meter. So the 18% card actually works well when used the way Kodak say to use it while using a 12% calibrated light meter.

    The "middle grey" on film is not really exactly at half of the linear portion of the film curve, if I interpret correctly Minolta thinking. My light meter, a Minolta Spotmeter F, considers the typical slide to begin burning highlights slightly above 2.3 EV above middle grey, and to begin blocking shadows 2.7 EVs below middle grey. So a slide film is supposed - by Minolta at least - to have more "room" below middle grey than above it in the linear portion of the film or, if you prefer, consider middle grey of a slide film to be not "in the middle" of the film response curve. The total contrast of the scene recordable by slide film is this way 5 EVs (linear portion) plus foot and plus shoulder and middle grey is not in the middle of the curve.

    That is food for thought: why would film producers design films that have more room "above" the average scene than "below" the average scene? (the answer might be that for film producers "average world reflectance" is actually 12%, but light meters producers know that photographers use 18% as reference and so place this "reference grey" there at 18% and not where the "average world reflectance" as film makers see it put it).

    If we see 12% as the exact middle of zone V (the median value of zone V, which is a "zone" not a value) then 24% is middle zone VI, 48% is middle zone VII, the linear part of a slide should arrive unto until 75% or so, a very very light grey, after which the shoulder begins and the film response is not linear any more. The whitest white we can distinguish more or less, that is the white side of the Kodak grey card, is 90%. Frankly I don't think that I would be able to distinguish the difference between 90% and 95%, and none of my films as well.

    On the other side, 6% should be the midst of zone IV, 3% should be the midst of zone III, and 1,5% is already in the "foot" of the slide (really the shoulder, as this is a positive). Again, this 1.5% is in the foot so the film response is not any more linear in that region.

    If light is even I don't think one can ever see ten zones, nor eight. Maybe 5 or 6. That is, if I scan with my spot light meter a natural scene, with dark and light zones, in even light, I don't think it is easy to see more than 5 or maybe 6 EVs of difference.

    But if you have uneven illumination (part sunlight, part shade) and both very dark and very light subjects, then the difference in EV between the dark object in the shade (the black car in the shade rendered as black) and the light object in the sun (the white wall in sunlight rendered as white) can be well above those 5 or 6 "zones" (I would rather just say EVs).

    Fabrizio

    PS To sum it up, I'm not less confused than most on where this elusive middle grey should be, and I don't use grey cards to determine exposure as I find it an unreliable way to work (a slight inclination of the card gives a different reading). I mainly use a spot light meter and using its instructions works well.
    Last edited by Diapositivo; 04-07-2011 at 02:44 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  2. #22
    ic-racer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Midwest USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,168
    Quote Originally Posted by markbarendt View Post
    I'm not understanding this statement.

    As I understand it, one of the best reasons for using a reference card is to be able to "place" a subject in relation to a standard.

    In the case of a Kodak gray card, if we have a reference shot including the gray card, that "18%" gray shade becomes directly translatable from scene to paper for all the related shots.

    If the Kodak card can be considered a "middle grey" subject when it's in the scene, then there is a connection to the print.
    Simplest reason it that 18% reflectance just is not the middle value of a glossy silver print.

    More detailed explaination is that each type of paper has a different maximum black (remember all the threads on Dmax ). The D-max, then determines what the D-middle (D-Middle = 1/2 D-Max) is going to be. It is not one universal value and is highly dependent on the paper.

    The "Zone" followers are always posting transmission log D values of their negatiaves and assigning them zones, but they almost never divide up the paper reflection densities into the appropriate zones. I don't know why they leave this step out. But if they did they would find that the middle is about 36% for paper with a D-max of 2.0.

    The 18% card would match the middle value of a paper with a D-max of 1.48.

    Again, the 18% card is an exposure tool for times when you need an approximate incident reading and have only a reflected meter.

  3. #23
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,656
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Simplest reason it that 18% reflectance just is not the middle value of a glossy silver print.

    More detailed explaination is that each type of paper has a different maximum black (remember all the threads on Dmax ). The D-max, then determines what the D-middle (D-Middle = 1/2 D-Max) is going to be. It is not one universal value and is highly dependent on the paper.

    The "Zone" followers are always posting transmission log D values of their negatiaves and assigning them zones, but they almost never divide up the paper reflection densities into the appropriate zones. I don't know why they leave this step out. But if they did they would find that the middle is about 36% for paper with a D-max of 2.0.

    The 18% card would match the middle value of a paper with a D-max of 1.48.

    Again, the 18% card is an exposure tool for times when you need an approximate incident reading and have only a reflected meter.
    I don't think that D-max/min actually matters in my argument.

    I see using the gray card in a reference shot as much more than an approximation. In fact it calibrates the print to the scene. It factors out exposure errors and even differences in film or development choices.

    Let's say I've done my paper testing and I can program my EM-10 or color analyzer to reproduce middle gray (the Kodak card tone) reliably on whatever given paper is in the enlarger, and I set the enlarger properly. I should get really, really close to a "real world" match every time.

    My argument does assume real rather than relative placement and that shadows and highlights are simply allowed to fall off the paper where they may in a straight print.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  4. #24
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,418
    Images
    2
    Mark, I think that you and ic-racer aren't necessarily disagreeing, but that all he is saying is that the grey card won't be the same reflectance as the representation of the gray card in an otherwise satisfactory print. It is still useful for exposure of course.

    Do I have it right?
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  5. #25
    markbarendt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ignacio, CO, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,656
    Blog Entries
    3
    Images
    19
    Yep, that's true.
    Mark Barendt, Ignacio, CO

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

  6. #26
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,442
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    ... For an 18% gray card, the log D would be 0.74, which is darker than the middle gray in a silver print on glossy paper.
    I aim for 0.75 density for Zone V in a print. See attached:
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails RegularDensities.jpg  
    Regards

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

  7. #27
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,442
    Images
    1
    Lightmeter calibration or average reflectance has nothing to do with understanding why 18% reflectance is 50% gray.
    Regards

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

  8. #28
    Klainmeister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe, NM
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,493
    Images
    30
    Handy chart Ralph, printed!
    K.S. Klain

  9. #29
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,442
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Diapositivo, it's a very good explanation, but it still makes 18% seem like an arbitrary choice. What am I missing? Ralph?
    It's not arbitrary. Look at the math I've presented. 18% is perceived as 50%.
    Regards

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

  10. #30
    RalphLambrecht's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    the villages .centralflorida,USA and Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,442
    Images
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by holmburgers View Post
    Let's see the numbers. What reflectance are we calling zone VIII for instance?
    Look at the table in post #26 and use the following equation to calculate the print reflectance:

    R = 1/10^D

    where D is the reflection density. For example, Zone VIII has a reflection density of 0.09.

    R = 1/10^0.09
    R = 1/1.2303
    R = 0.81283
    R = 81%
    Regards

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

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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