Quote Originally Posted by Michael R 1974 View Post
Ok, in the flare example the more I think about what Stephen said I think we can at least remove reflection off the emulsion. So we've removed that element, and removed the diaphragm as a variable by using and ND filter. So the possibility we're left with is simple camera flare. Here is where I'm still unsure - because assuming I don't mask the lens to an image rectangle with projection limited to the emulsion area, the image circle is larger than the film, so indeed additional extraneous light could bounce off surfaces in the mirror box, onto the film and cause increased exposure. Is this reasoning correct?
I can't speak with any certainty to camera design and all the elements that contribute to flare, but generally what you are describing are things that could add to the level of flare.
If that is correct, the question again would be, given the equivalent image forming units of light in the two exposures (1/60 @ f/2, 1s @ f22), would there be a difference in film density for this relatively low density (actual density or "Zone" not really critical, as long as the net density above FB+f is quite low - say somewhere around 0.1-0.2 above FB+f).
The flare factor is calculated by how much the shadow exposure is affected. I believe the standard practice is to use the shadow exposure 4 1/3 stops down from the meter exposure point of a statistically average scene luminance range. A one stop filter factor means flare doubles the shadow exposure 4 1/3 stops below the metered exposure. If the luminance range is shorter than the statistically average and the shadow exposure doesn't reach down 4 1/3 stops, then there's nothing there to add exposure to. Where the shorter luminance range shadow falls in this example will not experience a doubling of exposure.

Within the same optical system, the only way to change the flare factor is by a change in the luminance range or change in the portion of dark and light tones in the scene and how they are distributed. Adding or reducing the camera exposure should just move back and forth along the x-axis.

Currently reading about K in Henry's book. If I didn't already understand what the K-factor is, I still wouldn't know after reading that section. Another example of how he just might not be into theory. Still have the testing for K to get through.