Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/22/2004 1:52:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

From:  Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
Subject: Re: Digital f-stop  ranges and the print

Claude 

In the message below you seem to be  referring to more than simple
resolution.  Do you also mean the  recordable density range?  I would like a
hear a bit more on  this.  I have been spending a lot of time lately
understanding  graduated filters better (just ordered a set - yes I know I
should already  have been using them).  I would now like to understand how
film f-stop  ranges equate to a) the range of f-stops that can be recorded on
digital  sensor such as the 1Ds MK II and b) the density range that we talk
about  for our prints (Dmax less dMin).  As I understand it one of the  big
benefits of B&W film vs converted colour film is the greater tonal  range
that can be recorded by B&W film.  How does this range  compare with the new
digital cameras?  How much of this range is  printable?

Steve



Boy, you have opened a big can of worms here. Most of the color negative  
film (normal C-41 development) has a Contrast Index of 0.44-0.52, which means a  
1 stop luminance change in the scene records a 0.14 change in density in the  
film. Assuming no major color crossovers, from a pure monochomatic conversion 
of  the resultant lumped densities, you can get out to about 15 stops of 
luminance  before a shoulder apperars from the straight line and short toe of color 
neg.  films. This from a Dmin in the shadows of about .25 to a Dmax of r 2.38 
in the  highlights.
 
B&W films, especially Tmax (per my curve tests circa 1990) can vary  from 
3-11 stops with D-76 straight (I wild combinaton to tame I might add) and a  5-11 
minute development time. So with B&W, the Contrast Index (CI) varies  with 
development, as does the effective shadow thresholld speed, although not as  
much as you might think.
 
ISO states that you need a CI of 0.65 to get the box speed rating. Most  
Zoners develop their filme to a CI of 0.55 to match to the CI of #2 paper, which  
is a CI of 1.8 in an ideal world. So ISO essentially "pushes" the film a 
little  to get their rating, but real users have always derated their film at least 
2/3  stop with their "normal development."  So, with severe speed derating 
and  an extreme development "pull" you can get a lower CI than color neg. film, 
which  is fixed. This could also inhibit the Dmax of the film depending on the 
 developer and how it is agitated.
 
I have achieved densities in excess of 4.0 with Tmax developed in Dektol  
(not a misprint), but I never tested for linearity.
 
So, the recordable density range for B&W film varies all over the map  and is 
not necessarily superior to the 12 stop linear capability of some  sensors. 
Besides, with digital capture, you can easily increase the dynamic  range with 
a separate highlight and shadow range exposure to be blended later in  any 
ratio you wish.
 
This makes blanket statements, in either case, untrue without specific  
details of each method.
 
I prefer the speed and efficiency of digital capture with the  
creative/corrective post processes afforded by Photoshop, but that's just me.  I'm too 
impatient to go back to the darkroom for any reason. I earn my living  with "click 
to print" workflows of less than 1 minute for a 4x6 color print from  high 
speed dye subs, and I'm starting to do the same with Epsons, so maybe I've  been 
pulled too far the other way by digital technology.
 
I simply love color pigments AND BO/Quad/Hex/Sept/Oct monochrome inkjet  
output on various papers. What a great time to be in the "lightroom" with so  many 
great choices.
 
My handcuffs are long gone along with my toxic chemical dependency.
 
Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Claude (and others),

You mention you've seen Tmax density from 3 stops to 11 stops. I've 
seen this magical 11 stops (and more) elsewhere, and recall a comment 
saying something like "this is only useful in scientific 
applications".

First, can this kind of range be obtained simply by asking a pro-lab 
to do pull-processing or is other trickery involved?

Second, how useable is such a "high-latitude" negative for a hybrid 
process? In theory, one could scan this negative with a scanner 
capable of reading a Dmax of 3.2 (about max for Tmax according to the 
datasheet), apply curves to reduce range to about 5 stops (thereby 
boosting contrast), and print. Would I be able to match the results 
of this high-latitude negative to a "normal" negative of the same 
scene, assuming the scene does not exceed the latitude of the normal 
negative?

Or (my suspicion), would the tonal range of the "high latitude" 
negative be so long as to make the scan aesthetically ugly (banding 
in dark regions)?

This topic has always been interesting to me.
-Pieris


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... 
wrote:
>  
> In a message dated 11/22/2004 1:52:39 PM Pacific Standard Time,  
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:
> 
> From:  Steve Kale <stevekale@b...>
> Subject: Re: Digital f-stop  ranges and the print
> 
> Claude 
> 
> In the message below you seem to be  referring to more than simple
> resolution.  Do you also mean the  recordable density range?  I 
would like a
> hear a bit more on  this.  I have been spending a lot of time lately
> understanding  graduated filters better (just ordered a set - yes I 
know I
> should already  have been using them).  I would now like to 
understand how
> film f-stop  ranges equate to a) the range of f-stops that can be 
recorded on
> digital  sensor such as the 1Ds MK II and b) the density range that 
we talk
> about  for our prints (Dmax less dMin).  As I understand it one of 
the  big
> benefits of B&W film vs converted colour film is the greater tonal  
range
> that can be recorded by B&W film.  How does this range  compare 
with the new
> digital cameras?  How much of this range is  printable?
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you have opened a big can of worms here. Most of the color 
negative  
> film (normal C-41 development) has a Contrast Index of 0.44-0.52, 
which means a  
> 1 stop luminance change in the scene records a 0.14 change in 
density in the  
> film. Assuming no major color crossovers, from a pure monochomatic 
conversion 
> of  the resultant lumped densities, you can get out to about 15 
stops of 
> luminance  before a shoulder apperars from the straight line and 
short toe of color 
> neg.  films. This from a Dmin in the shadows of about .25 to a Dmax 
of r 2.38 
> in the  highlights.
>  
> B&W films, especially Tmax (per my curve tests circa 1990) can 
vary  from 
> 3-11 stops with D-76 straight (I wild combinaton to tame I might 
add) and a  5-11 
> minute development time. So with B&W, the Contrast Index (CI) 
varies  with 
> development, as does the effective shadow thresholld speed, 
although not as  
> much as you might think.
>  
> ISO states that you need a CI of 0.65 to get the box speed rating. 
Most  
> Zoners develop their filme to a CI of 0.55 to match to the CI of #2 
paper, which  
> is a CI of 1.8 in an ideal world. So ISO essentially "pushes" the 
film a 
> little  to get their rating, but real users have always derated 
their film at least 
> 2/3  stop with their "normal development."  So, with severe speed 
derating 
> and  an extreme development "pull" you can get a lower CI than 
color neg. film, 
> which  is fixed. This could also inhibit the Dmax of the film 
depending on the 
>  developer and how it is agitated.
>  
> I have achieved densities in excess of 4.0 with Tmax developed in 
Dektol  
> (not a misprint), but I never tested for linearity.
>  
> So, the recordable density range for B&W film varies all over the 
map  and is 
> not necessarily superior to the 12 stop linear capability of some  
sensors. 
> Besides, with digital capture, you can easily increase the dynamic  
range with 
> a separate highlight and shadow range exposure to be blended later 
in  any 
> ratio you wish.
>  
> This makes blanket statements, in either case, untrue without 
specific  
> details of each method.
>  
> I prefer the speed and efficiency of digital capture with the  
> creative/corrective post processes afforded by Photoshop, but 
that's just me.  I'm too 
> impatient to go back to the darkroom for any reason. I earn my 
living  with "click 
> to print" workflows of less than 1 minute for a 4x6 color print 
from  high 
> speed dye subs, and I'm starting to do the same with Epsons, so 
maybe I've  been 
> pulled too far the other way by digital technology.
>  
> I simply love color pigments AND BO/Quad/Hex/Sept/Oct monochrome 
inkjet  
> output on various papers. What a great time to be in 
the "lightroom" with so  many 

> great choices.
>  
> My handcuffs are long gone along with my toxic chemical dependency.
>  
> Claude
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've done some work in this area and have come to some unconventional 
conclusions. I'm not saying I'm right. What I am saying is that this 
works for me. You will all have to decide for yourselves.

I'm a 4x5 shooter. Currently I'm only shooting Tri-X for B&W. It 
routinely handles 11 stops of subject brightness range (SBR), for 
example, white flower in full sun, according to my Zone VI modified 
Pentax digital spotmeter. It may well handle more, but I've never found 
more in any of my landscape work.

The Zone System would have you pull that 11 stop range down to about 8 
stops (N-3 or even N-4) to better match the dynamic range of silver 
gelatin paper. What I have found is that with a hybrid workflow 
(film-scan-inkjet), this is unnecessary. The hybrid workflow lets you 
really simplify the Zone System.

Basically, you setup your EI and normal development time just like for 
printing in the darkroom. Then, you expose for the shadows (set Zone III 
for the darkest part you want to carry texture), and let the highlights 
fall where they may. Every sheet of film gets "N" development.

You can do this because the scanner will fit whatever the film density 
range is, into the scanner's digital range of 0-255 (8 bit), 0-4095 (12 
bit), or 0-65535 (16 bit). This in turn, is an *exact* match to the printer.

For example, say your FB+Fog occurs at 0.12, and your normal Zone VIII 
occurs at 1.3. You meter that scene with the white flower in full sun 
and find you have a range of Zone I-XI. You take the shot, develop it 
normally, and end up with a Dmax of 2.1 on the film. This negative is 
virtually unprintable in the darkroom. Yet, if you do a good scan and 
set your black and white points well, you get a full range scan with 
beautiful tonality from darkest shadows to brightest highlights. This 
scan prints fairly easily on an inkjet printer, without blown out 
highlights (which are virtually undefined in this workflow).

Of course, there's always a catch. As you drive up density, you drive up 
graininess. The highlights (that white flower) are going to be a little 
more grainy than if you did an N-3 process. But since I'm shooting 4x5, 
a little extra grain is pretty meaningless anyway.

Sounds too easy doesn't it? Well, I'm not asking you to believe it. You 
can prove it to yourself. Shoot a scene twice, and give one negative N-3 
and one negative N development. Scan them both and pull the files up 
side-by-side in Photoshop. When I've done this test, I've found the 
files to be virtually identical, except for the bit of extra graininess 
in the highlights of the N negative. And that's not going to be 
noticeable in a print smaller than about 40x50 inches for me (about 10x 
enlargement). The real test is in the prints though, and I've never been 
able to get anyone to tell me which print is which.

Sacrilege. I know. I've been told before. So... clearly, YMMV.
--
Hogarth Hughes


Pieris Berreitter wrote:

>
> Claude (and others),
>
> You mention you've seen Tmax density from 3 stops to 11 stops. I've
> seen this magical 11 stops (and more) elsewhere, and recall a comment
> saying something like "this is only useful in scientific
> applications".
>
> First, can this kind of range be obtained simply by asking a pro-lab
> to do pull-processing or is other trickery involved?
>
> Second, how useable is such a "high-latitude" negative for a hybrid
> process? In theory, one could scan this negative with a scanner
> capable of reading a Dmax of 3.2 (about max for Tmax according to the
> datasheet), apply curves to reduce range to about 5 stops (thereby
> boosting contrast), and print. Would I be able to match the results
> of this high-latitude negative to a "normal" negative of the same
> scene, assuming the scene does not exceed the latitude of the normal
> negative?
>
> Or (my suspicion), would the tonal range of the "high latitude"
> negative be so long as to make the scan aesthetically ugly (banding
> in dark regions)?
>
> This topic has always been interesting to me.
> -Pieris
>

Hogarth  -
 
There has to be some suble or not so subtle (depending on subject) differences in the tow and shoulder areas between the N and N-3 development.  Other than that, what you're saying certainly does seem to make sense.
 
Tom Baker




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Ok so I must confess that this and the other responses blew straight over my
head, not being a zone guy and not understanding film shoulders and toes.
Can I ask some basic questions so that I can follow the discussion:

1)  You speak of 15 stops from colour negative film.  I have heard people
saying that Velvia slide film has just +/- 1 2/3 stops, or 3 1/3 stops, of
workable range.  Are these measurements of the same thing?  (What is the
tonal range of Provia?)

2) How does one convert stops to density? Loosely.  For example, if a
scanner has a rated dMax of 4.8 how does that relate to the tonal range in
stops of film that it is going to scan?

3) Where does the "12 stop linear capability of some censors" come from?
What is the figure for the 1Ds MK II or 1Ds?

4) I think I understand the importance of linearity - kind-of-sort-of - from
printing.  Is this a similar concept? Ie evenly distributed tonal range?

5) At the end of the day we are severely constrained by the tonal range
capability of our printing.  Hogarth mentioned 8 stops for silver gelatin
paper.  How do I relate a linearised print of a step wedge on HPR with a
paper white dMin of .04 and a best black dMax of 1.68 to these figures?
(Wouldn't it be nice if they all used the same scale?)

While the boundaries of the digital print are expanding, I guess we still
need to shoot by compressing the tonal range of the scene with ND filters
(or multiple exposures) so that it can be rendered well in the print -
traditional or inkjet.  I am trying to relate the two (and the steps that
may be in between eg scanning) so that when I get out my spot meter I am not
only thinking in terms of stops but also in terms of my printer's tonal
range.  Sorry if these are basic questions but I think it will help a lot of
people tie all the talk of dMax back to the camera itself.


Thanks

Steve

PS:  this was not meant to be a digital capture vs film capture discussion -
I think the topic relates to both. I do believe there are significant
workflow efficiencies with digital cameras and I am about to make the switch
but relating the tonal range of a scene as measured by a spot meter in
f-stops back to the tonal range of the printer, ink and paper combination
applies to both forms of capture.

> From: <claudej1@...>
> 
> 
> 
> Boy, you have opened a big can of worms here. Most of the color negative
> film (normal C-41 development) has a Contrast Index of 0.44-0.52, which means
> a  
> 1 stop luminance change in the scene records a 0.14 change in density in the
> film. Assuming no major color crossovers, from a pure monochomatic conversion
> of  the resultant lumped densities, you can get out to about 15 stops of
> luminance  before a shoulder apperars from the straight line and short toe of
> color 
> neg.  films. This from a Dmin in the shadows of about .25 to a Dmax of r 2.38
> in the  highlights.
>  
> B&W films, especially Tmax (per my curve tests circa 1990) can vary  from
> 3-11 stops with D-76 straight (I wild combinaton to tame I might add) and a
> 5-11 
> minute development time. So with B&W, the Contrast Index (CI) varies  with
> development, as does the effective shadow thresholld speed, although not as
> much as you might think.
>  
> ISO states that you need a CI of 0.65 to get the box speed rating. Most
> Zoners develop their filme to a CI of 0.55 to match to the CI of #2 paper,
> which  
> is a CI of 1.8 in an ideal world. So ISO essentially "pushes" the film a
> little  to get their rating, but real users have always derated their film at
> least 
> 2/3  stop with their "normal development."  So, with severe speed derating
> and  an extreme development "pull" you can get a lower CI than color neg.
> film, 
> which  is fixed. This could also inhibit the Dmax of the film depending on the
>  developer and how it is agitated.
>  
> I have achieved densities in excess of 4.0 with Tmax developed in Dektol
> (not a misprint), but I never tested for linearity.
>  
> So, the recordable density range for B&W film varies all over the map  and is
> not necessarily superior to the 12 stop linear capability of some  sensors.
> Besides, with digital capture, you can easily increase the dynamic  range with
> a separate highlight and shadow range exposure to be blended later in  any
> ratio you wish.
>  
> This makes blanket statements, in either case, untrue without specific
> details of each method.
>  
> I prefer the speed and efficiency of digital capture with the
> creative/corrective post processes afforded by Photoshop, but that's just me.
> I'm too 
> impatient to go back to the darkroom for any reason. I earn my living  with
> "click 
> to print" workflows of less than 1 minute for a 4x6 color print from  high
> speed dye subs, and I'm starting to do the same with Epsons, so maybe I've
> been 
> pulled too far the other way by digital technology.
>  
> I simply love color pigments AND BO/Quad/Hex/Sept/Oct monochrome inkjet
> output on various papers. What a great time to be in the "lightroom" with so
> many 
> great choices.
>  
> My handcuffs are long gone along with my toxic chemical dependency.
>  
> Claude
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰ in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE „OWNER‰ AND
> „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  „OWNER‰ AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

"Yet, if you do a good scan and
set your black and white points well, you get a full range scan with
beautiful tonality from darkest shadows to brightest highlights. This
scan prints fairly easily on an inkjet printer, without blown out
highlights (which are virtually undefined in this workflow)."

Everything you say here makes sense. But I have a couple questions. What do
you mean by "set your black and white points well?"   I would have thought
that if the shadows are placed on Zone III in your example so that the
flower falls on Zone XI with normal development, then there wouldn't be much
choice in how you place the black and white points if the goal is to print
with texture/detail in both the shadows and the highlights. Second, what do
you mean when you say the highlights are "virtually undefined in this
workflow"? I thought the whole point of what you're saying here is that the
negative actually contains texture and detail in zones well above Zone VII
(which is correct, you can actually get up into Zones XIII or even XIV and
still see some tonal separation in the negative) and that textire and detail
can be brought out in the print without minus development when you scan and
print digitally. So why are the highlights "virtually undefined" in this
workflow?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hogarth Hughes" <hogarth@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Tonal range recording



I've done some work in this area and have come to some unconventional
conclusions. I'm not saying I'm right. What I am saying is that this
works for me. You will all have to decide for yourselves.

I'm a 4x5 shooter. Currently I'm only shooting Tri-X for B&W. It
routinely handles 11 stops of subject brightness range (SBR), for
example, white flower in full sun, according to my Zone VI modified
Pentax digital spotmeter. It may well handle more, but I've never found
more in any of my landscape work.

The Zone System would have you pull that 11 stop range down to about 8
stops (N-3 or even N-4) to better match the dynamic range of silver
gelatin paper. What I have found is that with a hybrid workflow
(film-scan-inkjet), this is unnecessary. The hybrid workflow lets you
really simplify the Zone System.

Basically, you setup your EI and normal development time just like for
printing in the darkroom. Then, you expose for the shadows (set Zone III
for the darkest part you want to carry texture), and let the highlights
fall where they may. Every sheet of film gets "N" development.

You can do this because the scanner will fit whatever the film density
range is, into the scanner's digital range of 0-255 (8 bit), 0-4095 (12
bit), or 0-65535 (16 bit). This in turn, is an *exact* match to the printer.

For example, say your FB+Fog occurs at 0.12, and your normal Zone VIII
occurs at 1.3. You meter that scene with the white flower in full sun
and find you have a range of Zone I-XI. You take the shot, develop it
normally, and end up with a Dmax of 2.1 on the film. This negative is
virtually unprintable in the darkroom. Yet, if you do a good scan and
set your black and white points well, you get a full range scan with
beautiful tonality from darkest shadows to brightest highlights. This
scan prints fairly easily on an inkjet printer, without blown out
highlights (which are virtually undefined in this workflow).

Of course, there's always a catch. As you drive up density, you drive up
graininess. The highlights (that white flower) are going to be a little
more grainy than if you did an N-3 process. But since I'm shooting 4x5,
a little extra grain is pretty meaningless anyway.

Sounds too easy doesn't it? Well, I'm not asking you to believe it. You
can prove it to yourself. Shoot a scene twice, and give one negative N-3
and one negative N development. Scan them both and pull the files up
side-by-side in Photoshop. When I've done this test, I've found the
files to be virtually identical, except for the bit of extra graininess
in the highlights of the N negative. And that's not going to be
noticeable in a print smaller than about 40x50 inches for me (about 10x
enlargement). The real test is in the prints though, and I've never been
able to get anyone to tell me which print is which.

Sacrilege. I know. I've been told before. So... clearly, YMMV.
--
Hogarth Hughes


Pieris Berreitter wrote:

>
> Claude (and others),
>
> You mention you've seen Tmax density from 3 stops to 11 stops. I've
> seen this magical 11 stops (and more) elsewhere, and recall a comment
> saying something like "this is only useful in scientific
> applications".
>
> First, can this kind of range be obtained simply by asking a pro-lab
> to do pull-processing or is other trickery involved?
>
> Second, how useable is such a "high-latitude" negative for a hybrid
> process? In theory, one could scan this negative with a scanner
> capable of reading a Dmax of 3.2 (about max for Tmax according to the
> datasheet), apply curves to reduce range to about 5 stops (thereby
> boosting contrast), and print. Would I be able to match the results
> of this high-latitude negative to a "normal" negative of the same
> scene, assuming the scene does not exceed the latitude of the normal
> negative?
>
> Or (my suspicion), would the tonal range of the "high latitude"
> negative be so long as to make the scan aesthetically ugly (banding
> in dark regions)?
>
> This topic has always been interesting to me.
> -Pieris
>









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

I can answer some of this. Disclaimer: I'm bad with off-by-one 
errors. 

Each stop is twice as much light as the previous. So we will be 
working with powers of two here. For digital, an N-bit sensor has a 
range of 2^N -1 values. Because it's linear in response (no toe or 
shoulder in the curve, it's just a straight line), zone 0 falls on 
2^0, zone 1 falls on 2^1, etc. So you see where we might get 11 zones 
for a 12-bit sensor such as those found on the 1Ds.

But that linearity bites us because the total number of possible 
tones in between zone 0 and 1 is 2 (2^1-2^0), while the total number 
of possible tones between zone 10 and zone 11 is 1024 (2^11 - 2^10). 
In other words, your shadows have no smooth tonality and the 
highlights get them all. (hence the rule when shooting digital: 
expose such that the histogram is shifted up as far as possible w/o 
clipping objects of interest).

Dmax can be seen as the base-10 logarithm of the total number of 
stops of light. For our 12-bit camera, Dmax=log(2^12 -1)=3.6. 
Scanners pretend to have a Dmax of 4.8 because they have 16-bit 
ADC's. In reality the light source is probably not bright enough to 
properly read that kind of density. Plus, there is inherent noise in 
the ADC's (usu. at least 1 bit).

Some may think otherwise, but I don't think you need to worry about 
your printer's Dmax when shooting. Photoshop can adjust your high-
contrast scan/capture into a lower-contrast printable version. Just 
remember when you shoot digital or scan, that the bottom end of the 
histogram is kind of worthless as far as tonality goes.

-Pieris

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Ok so I must confess that this and the other responses blew 
straight over my
> head, not being a zone guy and not understanding film shoulders and 
toes.
> Can I ask some basic questions so that I can follow the discussion:
> 
> 1)  You speak of 15 stops from colour negative film.  I have heard 
people
> saying that Velvia slide film has just +/- 1 2/3 stops, or 3 1/3 
stops, of
> workable range.  Are these measurements of the same thing?  (What 
is the
> tonal range of Provia?)
> 
> 2) How does one convert stops to density? Loosely.  For example, if 
a
> scanner has a rated dMax of 4.8 how does that relate to the tonal 
range in
> stops of film that it is going to scan?
> 
> 3) Where does the "12 stop linear capability of some censors" come 
from?
> What is the figure for the 1Ds MK II or 1Ds?
> 
> 4) I think I understand the importance of linearity - kind-of-sort-
of - from
> printing.  Is this a similar concept? Ie evenly distributed tonal 
range?
> 
> 5) At the end of the day we are severely constrained by the tonal 
range
> capability of our printing.  Hogarth mentioned 8 stops for silver 
gelatin
> paper.  How do I relate a linearised print of a step wedge on HPR 
with a
> paper white dMin of .04 and a best black dMax of 1.68 to these 
figures?
> (Wouldn't it be nice if they all used the same scale?)
> 
> While the boundaries of the digital print are expanding, I guess we 
still
> need to shoot by compressing the tonal range of the scene with ND 
filters
> (or multiple exposures) so that it can be rendered well in the 
print -
> traditional or inkjet.  I am trying to relate the two (and the 
steps that
> may be in between eg scanning) so that when I get out my spot meter 
I am not
> only thinking in terms of stops but also in terms of my printer's 
tonal
> range.  Sorry if these are basic questions but I think it will help 
a lot of
> people tie all the talk of dMax back to the camera itself.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Steve
> 
> PS:  this was not meant to be a digital capture vs film capture 
discussion -
> I think the topic relates to both. I do believe there are 
significant
> workflow efficiencies with digital cameras and I am about to make 
the switch
> but relating the tonal range of a scene as measured by a spot meter 
in
> f-stops back to the tonal range of the printer, ink and paper 
combination
> applies to both forms of capture.
> 
> 
> > From: <claudej1@a...>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Boy, you have opened a big can of worms here. Most of the color 
negative
> > film (normal C-41 development) has a Contrast Index of 0.44-0.52, 
which means
> > a  
> > 1 stop luminance change in the scene records a 0.14 change in 
density in the
> > film. Assuming no major color crossovers, from a pure 
monochomatic conversion
> > of  the resultant lumped densities, you can get out to about 15 
stops of
> > luminance  before a shoulder apperars from the straight line and 
short toe of
> > color 
> > neg.  films. This from a Dmin in the shadows of about .25 to a 
Dmax of r 2.38
> > in the  highlights.
> >  
> > B&W films, especially Tmax (per my curve tests circa 1990) can 
vary  from
> > 3-11 stops with D-76 straight (I wild combinaton to tame I might 
add) and a
> > 5-11 
> > minute development time. So with B&W, the Contrast Index (CI) 
varies  with
> > development, as does the effective shadow thresholld speed, 
although not as
> > much as you might think.
> >  
> > ISO states that you need a CI of 0.65 to get the box speed 
rating. Most
> > Zoners develop their filme to a CI of 0.55 to match to the CI of 
#2 paper,
> > which  
> > is a CI of 1.8 in an ideal world. So ISO essentially "pushes" the 
film a
> > little  to get their rating, but real users have always derated 
their film at
> > least 
> > 2/3  stop with their "normal development."  So, with severe speed 
derating
> > and  an extreme development "pull" you can get a lower CI than 
color neg.
> > film, 
> > which  is fixed. This could also inhibit the Dmax of the film 
depending on the
> >  developer and how it is agitated.
> >  
> > I have achieved densities in excess of 4.0 with Tmax developed in 
Dektol
> > (not a misprint), but I never tested for linearity.
> >  
> > So, the recordable density range for B&W film varies all over the 
map  and is
> > not necessarily superior to the 12 stop linear capability of 
some  sensors.
> > Besides, with digital capture, you can easily increase the 
dynamic  range with
> > a separate highlight and shadow range exposure to be blended 
later in  any
> > ratio you wish.
> >  
> > This makes blanket statements, in either case, untrue without 
specific
> > details of each method.
> >  
> > I prefer the speed and efficiency of digital capture with the
> > creative/corrective post processes afforded by Photoshop, but 
that's just me.
> > I'm too 
> > impatient to go back to the darkroom for any reason. I earn my 
living  with
> > "click 
> > to print" workflows of less than 1 minute for a 4x6 color print 
from  high
> > speed dye subs, and I'm starting to do the same with Epsons, so 
maybe I've
> > been 
> > pulled too far the other way by digital technology.
> >  
> > I simply love color pigments AND BO/Quad/Hex/Sept/Oct monochrome 
inkjet
> > output on various papers. What a great time to be in 
the "lightroom" with so
> > many 
> > great choices.
> >  
> > My handcuffs are long gone along with my toxic chemical 
dependency.
> >  
> > Claude
> > 
> > 
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
resources as
> > they are often being updated.
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you 
wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
this same
> > page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
messages to keep
> > them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
flames.
> > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
the membership
> > without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
digital B&W
> > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
removed from the
> > membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules 
and
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the 
group Owner and
> > Moderators. See „Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines‰
in the 
Files section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > 
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, 
THE PRINT
> > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE 
„OWNER‰ AND
> > „MODERATORS‰ OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP
SHALL NOT 
BE LIABLE TO YOU
> > FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
EXEMPLARY
> > DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> > USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
„OWNER‰ 
AND „MODERATORS‰ OF
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> > DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE 
DIGITAL BW,
> > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION 
OF YOUR
> > TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
PARTY ON THE
> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER 
RELATING TO THE

> > DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> >

B. Campbell wrote:

> "Yet, if you do a good scan and
> set your black and white points well, you get a full range scan with
> beautiful tonality from darkest shadows to brightest highlights. This
> scan prints fairly easily on an inkjet printer, without blown out
> highlights (which are virtually undefined in this workflow)."
>
> Everything you say here makes sense. But I have a couple questions. 
> What do
> you mean by "set your black and white points well?" I would have thought
> that if the shadows are placed on Zone III in your example so that the
> flower falls on Zone XI with normal development, then there wouldn't 
> be much
> choice in how you place the black and white points if the goal is to 
> print
> with texture/detail in both the shadows and the highlights. 



What I do is to set my black point to "film base + fog" so that I get 
every bit if information I can from the film. White point is set just 
beyond the Dmax of the image. IOW, I don't clip either end. This usually 
means that I have to use the levels control in Photoshop to fine tune 
the image because I end up with a few empty levels on either end. These 
I just chop off. I do this in Photoshop because it allows finer control 
than my scanner software. You might be able to set your white and black 
points exactly where they need to be with your scanner software though.

The point is, don't clip the image data in scanning.

> Second, what do
> you mean when you say the highlights are "virtually undefined in this
> workflow"? I thought the whole point of what you're saying here is 
> that the
> negative actually contains texture and detail in zones well above Zone 
> VII
> (which is correct, you can actually get up into Zones XIII or even XIV 
> and
> still see some tonal separation in the negative) and that textire and 
> detail
> can be brought out in the print without minus development when you 
> scan and
> print digitally. So why are the highlights "virtually undefined" in this
> workflow?



Not highlights. *Blown out* highlights. If I didn't make that clear in 
my post, I apologize.

Blown out highlights in traditional photo papers are just analog 
clipping. If your scan isn't clipped, your print won't be either, 
assuming that you didn't cook the film to the point that it can't cope 
either (I've done that by mistake, and it's and ugly sight ;-)

Thanks, I get it.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hogarth Hughes" <hogarth@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Tonal range recording



B. Campbell wrote:

> "Yet, if you do a good scan and
> set your black and white points well, you get a full range scan with
> beautiful tonality from darkest shadows to brightest highlights. This
> scan prints fairly easily on an inkjet printer, without blown out
> highlights (which are virtually undefined in this workflow)."
>
> Everything you say here makes sense. But I have a couple questions.
> What do
> you mean by "set your black and white points well?" I would have thought
> that if the shadows are placed on Zone III in your example so that the
> flower falls on Zone XI with normal development, then there wouldn't
> be much
> choice in how you place the black and white points if the goal is to
> print
> with texture/detail in both the shadows and the highlights.



What I do is to set my black point to "film base + fog" so that I get
every bit if information I can from the film. White point is set just
beyond the Dmax of the image. IOW, I don't clip either end. This usually
means that I have to use the levels control in Photoshop to fine tune
the image because I end up with a few empty levels on either end. These
I just chop off. I do this in Photoshop because it allows finer control
than my scanner software. You might be able to set your white and black
points exactly where they need to be with your scanner software though.

The point is, don't clip the image data in scanning.

> Second, what do
> you mean when you say the highlights are "virtually undefined in this
> workflow"? I thought the whole point of what you're saying here is
> that the
> negative actually contains texture and detail in zones well above Zone
> VII
> (which is correct, you can actually get up into Zones XIII or even XIV
> and
> still see some tonal separation in the negative) and that textire and
> detail
> can be brought out in the print without minus development when you
> scan and
> print digitally. So why are the highlights "virtually undefined" in this
> workflow?



Not highlights. *Blown out* highlights. If I didn't make that clear in
my post, I apologize.

Blown out highlights in traditional photo papers are just analog
clipping. If your scan isn't clipped, your print won't be either,
assuming that you didn't cook the film to the point that it can't cope
either (I've done that by mistake, and it's and ugly sight ;-)









Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links