ok, camera nuts...

[accwai]

6 hours ago, gmgraves said:

By mastering B&W, I meant that I had the chemistry and the enlarging down-pat and knew how to use Adam’s modified “Zone System” for roll film cameras. [...]

 

How does one modify zone system for roll film?

[lucretius]

2 hours ago, accwai said:

 

How does one modify zone system for roll film?

 

That is discussed towards the bottom of this article:

http://original.srphotography.co.uk/srpzone.html

[gmgraves]

9 hours ago, accwai said:

 

How does one modify zone system for roll film?

Obviously one can’t apply it to to the film processing because all frames are processed “blind” and at once, so you have to do it on the print end only. Ansel Adams wrote a book about it. If you’re really interest, I suggest you read it.

[Ralf11]

The Zone System - I think everyone with a camera should read it

 

 

it is a way to think about, and characterize, the Dynamic Range of a scene, as rendered on film or a sensor - it is needed (for one reason) because the eye has a DR that greatly exceeds that of any film or sensor, much less a print

 

 

[accwai]

3 hours ago, gmgraves said:

Obviously one can’t apply it to to the film processing because all frames are processed “blind” and at once, so you have to do it on the print end only. Ansel Adams wrote a book about it. If you’re really interest, I suggest you read it.

 

I think I found it. Book 2 Chapter 4 under the section 35mm and Roll Films correct? Finished. Thanks for the suggestion.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, accwai said:

 

I think I found it. Book 2 Chapter 4 under the section 35mm and Roll Films correct? Finished. Thanks for the suggestion.

No problem. At one time, I had the entire set of Adam’s books, and it seemed to me that he wrote a later volume about adapting the Zone system to roll film photography, but I might be misremembering. The fact that you found information on it is what’s important. In the early Seventies I took a live summer course in photography from Ansel Adams in Yosemite National Park. We became good acquaintances and kept in touch till his death.

[gmgraves]

6 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

The Zone System - I think everyone with a camera should read it

 

 

it is a way to think about, and characterize, the Dynamic Range of a scene, as rendered on film or a sensor - it is needed (for one reason) because the eye has a DR that greatly exceeds that of any film or sensor, much less a print

 

 

Quite true. There is not a lot one can do to manipulate the DR of digital. But a little manipulation is possible in Photoshop or Gimp. Irrespective of that limitation with digital photography, I found that once I had taken Adam’s class and read his books, that I thought about photography in an entirely different way.  I found that I always kept the zone system in mind when taking pictures. Even now, I will look at a scene and think about the tonality of it, deciding, perhaps to under-expose a scene by a stop or so, with a mind to bring up the highlights again in Photoshop. But one has to keep in mind that today’s digital sensors have far more restricted dynamic range than did almost any B&W or color film. When shadows go to D-max in a digital shot, forget it. There is nothing there digitally, and photo manipulation software can only turn the D-max gray, without bringing up any shadow detail. The same is true on the other end of the spectrum. A burned-out scene cannot be toned down to reveal the lost detail like it can sometime be done with film.

 

Keeping all that in mind has made me a much better digital photographer, but you can’t really do much with a cell phone camera or a simple point-and-shoot.

[charlesphoto]

Actually, highlights are the biggest issue with digital - I find with my Leicas I can recover a lot from the shadows but if one blows the highlights there's really nothing there. Having to shoot 'chromes is probably the best way to learn your p's and q's of exposure. You only got one chance! (and boy did I blow it at times, esp when foregoing a snip test). So I try and shoot digital as much as possible like slide film.

 

I learned the zone system when I was bout fourteen. I think it's an important foundation - that should then be broken. Like all 'rules' in art, the best, most forward innovators take those and turn them around. 

[Ralf11]

with digital, it is cheap & easy to exposure bracket and stack in post

 

 

I also hear that there will soon be a way to unfold all your film shadows using MQA

[gmgraves]

4 hours ago, charlesphoto said:

Actually, highlights are the biggest issue with digital - I find with my Leicas I can recover a lot from the shadows but if one blows the highlights there's really nothing there. Having to shoot 'chromes is probably the best way to learn your p's and q's of exposure. You only got one chance! (and boy did I blow it at times, esp when foregoing a snip test). So I try and shoot digital as much as possible like slide film.

 

I learned the zone system when I was bout fourteen. I think it's an important foundation - that should then be broken. Like all 'rules' in art, the best, most forward innovators take those and turn them around. 

I find that shadow detail is recoverable as long as the shadows haven’t gone D-max. There is no detail in digital black. You are right, shooting digital reminds me of shooting the early Kodachrome 64 (K25 was always more forgiving in terms of DR, but it too was extremely contrasty). Ektachrome was better, depending on the generation and the film speed. The high -speed Ektachromes (200 and 400) were always more contrasty than the low speed emulsions. But, I found Fujichrome “Velvea” had the widest DR of any color reversal film (Agfachrome was also less contrasty than Ektachrome, but it’s high amount of grainyness made it less than popular with me (especially when it was processed with E6. For some reason, it was much less grainy when one sent it to Agfa for processing).

[gmgraves]

23 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

with digital, it is cheap & easy to exposure bracket and stack in post

 

 

I also hear that there will soon be a way to unfold all your film shadows using MQA

You joke, but it got me to wondering if some similar manipulation couldn’t be possible inside the JPEG envelope? Might not do anything about DR, but it’s interesting to speculate.

[Ralf11]

I do think it is possible, but to use esldude's patented phrase it would be irrelevantware.

 

 

I keep over-exposing things with my Hasselblad (using a m43 camera as a light meter) so my relevant question now is which 120 roll print film has the greatest DR, and how many stops off am I...

[gmgraves]

On 6/10/2019 at 3:21 PM, Ralf11 said:

I do think it is possible, but to use esldude's patented phrase it would be irrelevantware.

 

 

I keep over-exposing things with my Hasselblad (using a m43 camera as a light meter) so my relevant question now is which 120 roll print film has the greatest DR, and how many stops off am I...

My advice would be to go to a well stocked photo shop and pick yourself up a standard “18 percent gray card”. Take it outside and use up a roll of color reversal film bracketing a number of stops over and under what the m43 tells you is the correct exposure. Of course, place a Post It note in each photo starting with the m43’s reading off the gray card, and then go in 1-stop intervals over and under. When you get the reversal film back from the processor (or out of your own tank), find the frame that’s closest, on direct examination, to the gray card (again, under natural light, of course) and that will be the correct exposure when using the m43 as a light meter. This is really the only way to accurately calibrate the ‘Blad with the m43. BTW, this is good advice for any camera and separate light meter when used together. Once the base-line for proper exposure is determined, then, of course you are in a position to creatively alter the exposure to fit the situation and get consistent results.

[Ralf11]

I already have some 18% gray cards - it costs $0+ to do a test run, and being a cheapskate, I am just shooting brackets.

[daverich4]

On 6/9/2019 at 11:23 PM, gmgraves said:

. But one has to keep in mind that today’s digital sensors have far more restricted dynamic range than did almost any B&W or color film. .

 

Not sure where you got that idea but it’s not true. 

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dynamicrange2/

[yamamoto2002]

Nowadays digital image sensor performance surpassed emulsion film in every aspect.

Last stronghold of emulsion film was medical x-ray photography but it is now replaced with digital sensor and radiation dose is reduced by increased sensor sensitivity.

[jabbr]

The Zone System is brilliant. When properly used and applied to large format photography the tonality and artistic result is incomparable. One can use special developers to tailor the DR of the scene to that of the film.

 

That said modern digital sensors have evolved and now exceed film in both absolute sensitivity and DR. Of course the cost of an 8x10 or gasp 16x20 digital sensor is prohibitive for artistic photography.

 

Regarding DR, aside from the sensor’s consider HDR techniques! One point is that while film photography depends on optical and chemical techniques, digital photography enables a host of mathematical techniques that are otherwise unavailable.

[Ralf11]

Let me recommend a book.  Tho old, it is not at all dated:

https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781468420395

 

As someone interested in organismal performance, I found this revelatory even tho it was not part of a core research interest (at least when I read it).  If you are on the biology (or robotics, or AI, etc.) faculty at Deep State Univ. it will serve you well.

 

 

Well back to HDR merging of exposure bracketed pics I took with my puny m43 sensor...

[gmgraves]

On 6/15/2019 at 11:26 AM, daverich4 said:

 

Not sure where you got that idea but it’s not true. 

 

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/dynamicrange2/

I have owned any number of digital cameras, both Nikon and Canon. The one I have now is a Canon, and none of them have had the RECOVERABLE DR of a good reversal  film like Fujichrome Velvia, or a long tonal range B&W film like Kodak’s Panatomic X or Ilford’s C41 processed XP2. So, I don’t know where the author of the article you link to, above gets his data, but it certainly doesn’t track with my experience. 

[JanRSmit]

Basically the dynamic range of the best digital camera's is ~ 14 stops(= 14 bit). As i onderstand it, this is a technical /economical barrier in the sensor electronics.

 

Per pixel quality is dependent amongst others on the physical size of a sensel. Thus on the physical size of the whole sensor.

I do not have in depth experience with emulsion based film, but to my knowledge the dynamic range of emulsion film is not more than 14 stops.

 

As a Fine Art printer i see images made with many different camera's. The blogger the sensor the better, that is more realistic, the image captured is. The medium frame(hasselblad. Phase One, Fuji) are better than the full frame Nikon, Canon, etc.

 

A big differentiator however is the chosen exposure. Mostly one under-exposes. Thus reducing the usable dynamic range.

The zone system is mentioned, thus Ansel Adams implicitly. One of his principles is : expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights . In essence this is maximising the usable dynamic range.

 

 

 

 

[daverich4]

2 hours ago, gmgraves said:

I have owned any number of digital cameras, both Nikon and Canon. The one I have now is a Canon, and none of them have had the RECOVERABLE DR of a good reversal  film like Fujichrome Velvia, or a long tonal range B&W film like Kodak’s Panatomic X or Ilford’s C41 processed XP2. So, I don’t know where the author of the article you link to, above gets his data, but it certainly doesn’t track with my experience. 

 

This isn’t a photo forum so I will respond once leaving you the final word. A quick search for film vs. digital dynamic range turns up hundreds of hits, every single one of which disagrees with you. 

 

If personal experience is your final arbiter, mine disagrees with yours. I don’t know what your background is in photography but this is mine. I started processing Ektachrome at home more than 50 years ago using Kodak’s E2 Process. My degree in Photo Science is from the Rochester Institute of Technology and I worked in and managed commercial photo labs for more than 35 years before retiring. 

 

Your mention of sometimes exposing for the shadows also is not a description of best practice when shooting digital. The majority of distinguishable tones reside in the highlights and are very limited in the shadows. This link is to an old article but it a good description of why that is and is still relevant. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150209012804/http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

[Ralf11]

https://petapixel.com/2015/05/26/film-vs-digital-a-comparison-of-the-advantages-and-disadvantages/

 

13 for most film (Kodak) vs. 14 for most digital sensors; D850 is likely at 15

 

OTOH, grain in film is more 'euphonic' than digital noise...

 

the human eye can have about 26 stops of DR, depending upon how measured & what NI tricks are allowed...

 

there is a quantum limit to imaging devices, no matter what they are - retinas, film or digital but as you approach that for biological organisms you begin to see tricks applied

[gmgraves]

5 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

This isn’t a photo forum so I will respond once leaving you the final word. A quick search for film vs. digital dynamic range turns up hundreds of hits, every single one of which disagrees with you. 

 

If personal experience is your final arbiter, mine disagrees with yours. I don’t know what your background is in photography but this is mine. I started processing Ektachrome at home more than 50 years ago using Kodak’s E2 Process. My degree in Photo Science is from the Rochester Institute of Technology and I worked in and managed commercial photo labs for more than 35 years before retiring. 

 

Your mention of sometimes exposing for the shadows also is not a description of best practice when shooting digital. The majority of distinguishable tones reside in the highlights and are very limited in the shadows. This link is to an old article but it a good description of why that is and is still relevant. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150209012804/http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml

While I have extensive photographic and darkroom experience, I have to bow to your obviously greater experience and education in the field. I am more of a “gifted amateur” as I only mastered the various darkroom techniques to suit my own curiosity about such matters. My only “schooling” in photography was a summer course in Yosemite National Park with Ansel Adams, and my subsequent casual friendship with him. 

While my experience with digital vs film WRT DR tells me that film is better, I may have an explanation for that belief on my part. I have had a number of digital cameras, mostly Nikons (I have a Canon, now), None of them were (or are, currently) full-frame 35mm format. All of my interchangeable lens Nikons required me to multiply the focal length designation of each lens by a factor of 1.5. My last two digital cameras were a Nikon Coolpix P900 (24-2000mm equivalent optical zoom range) and my current camera is a Canon Powershot SX60 HS (20-1300 equivalent optical zoom range). The Nikon died after a year so I decided not to replace it with another Nikon. I find the Canon a much better camera in every way. I went the non-interchangeable lens route because, at my age, I was getting tired of schlepping a bag full of lenses along, and it made me think twice about taking a camera with me when I went on a trip. My point is that all of the digital cameras that I have experience with have sensors smaller than full-frame 35mm. Perhaps larger sensors have better dynamic range than the smaller ones do, and I certainly have no experience with two-and-a-quarter or Leaf or other brand digital backs for view cameras. Perhaps in these larger formats, digital does better than film in DR, but I would have no way of knowing that. I maintain that my experience tells me that film is better, but I can see where that obviously incorrect opinion might be colored by the digital cameras on which that opinion is based. Live and learn, eh?

[charlesphoto]

Think of film as a tube amp - a tube amp where one needs to roll the tubes every 36 songs at great time and expense.  Digital is like solid state - plug it in, maybe clean the connections (sensor) every now and then. The lens, along with the sensor, could also be thought of as the 'source.' The better the lens, the better the clarity, contrast, and dynamic range. 

 

Shoot a $7k Leica M10 with a $3K  Leica lens, and just like the difference between a  DCS Bridge and Sonos connect, it will be night and day compared to the consumer cameras mentioned above. Film will have a 'different' look, but imo there's no 'better' between the two. If you like the look, and enjoy the workflow and don't mind the expense (and the post work) then shoot film if that floats your boat. If shooting commercially, then better gear will always be better, but if creating for art, then gear is only an adjunct to creating a vision, and it really doesn't matter as much to the final outcome - unless poor gear holds one back from the realization of their vision.

 

 

[charlesphoto]

Also keep in mind silver gelatin paper has a pretty weak dynamic range which entailed lost of dodging and burning of high and low exposure areas to even the print out. With my Imacon scanner, negatives scan much more evenly in regards to DR than I could ever do with a base exposure in the darkroom. The negative itself may have a larger DR than an equivalent digital file, but getting it to paper in an analog means did take some talent few could muster (I have one image that took over 20 dodges and burns). Digital of course is much easier (just lasso's and curve layers in PS) but it also means that it's easier for EVERYONE, so in order to rise above the fray (something like half a million images uploaded to the internet every minute) means one must be very very good and/or unique.