Yet another post about contrast range!

[Tony Hall]

In this article: How to determine the best exposure for a specific photograph by Alain Briot ( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml ), the author claims that the contrast ratio of your camera is the number of stops above and below the middle spot.

Briot says: Quote

Once you have determined the images that have detail in them count > them. Count only those that are underexposed or overexposed. Do not > count the one which shows the exposure given by your meter.

• If you have 6 images showing details (not counting the “correctly > exposed” image) it means your film or digital sensor is able to record a 6-> stops range. If you have 5 images with details you can record a 5 stops > range and so on. Your results will vary from film to film and sensor to > sensor as I said previously.

For example, I use almost exclusively Fuji Provia 100F. I know, from > conducting the test I just described, that I can safely record a range of 5 > stops: 3 under and 2 over. Your own tests will show the exact contrast > range your film or digital camera can record.

I loved the article and found it very informative. However, I'm pretty sure that Ansel Adams counted each stop from the first to the last as stops of contrast because each "zone" is just the center of a small range of brightness.

In the book "The Confused Photographers Guide to Exposure and the Simplified Zone System", the author says to look at zones like buckets. Each zone is a bucket and if you're counting how many stops, zones, or buckets your camera can capture, you'd count them all.

Is it clear what I'm talking about and do you agree?

Tony

 

[Hugowolf]

Tony,

I agree with Alain Briot.

The difference between f/2 to f/2.8 is one stop, not two. It is like counting sections of a fence, between two fence posts there is one section of fence.

Zones may be different; a zone by definition has some size.

Brian A.

( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml ), the author claims that the contrast ratio of your camera is the number of stops above and below the middle spot.

Briot says: Quote

Once you have determined the images that have detail in them count > them. Count only those that are underexposed or overexposed. Do not > count the one which shows the exposure given by your meter.

• If you have 6 images showing details (not counting the “correctly > exposed” image) it means your film or digital sensor is able to record a 6-> stops range. If you have 5 images with details you can record a 5 stops > range and so on. Your results will vary from film to film and sensor to > sensor as I said previously.

For example, I use almost exclusively Fuji Provia 100F. I know, from > conducting the test I just described, that I can safely record a range of 5 > stops: 3 under and 2 over. Your own tests will show the exact contrast > range your film or digital camera can record.

I loved the article and found it very informative. However, I'm
pretty sure that Ansel Adams counted each stop from the first to
the last as stops of contrast because each "zone" is just the
center of a small range of brightness.

In the book "The Confused Photographers Guide to Exposure and the
Simplified Zone System", the author says to look at zones like
buckets. Each zone is a bucket and if you're counting how many
stops, zones, or buckets your camera can capture, you'd count them
all.

Is it clear what I'm talking about and do you agree?

Tony

 

[Tony Hall]

I agree with what you're saying. If I want to stop down from 5.6 to 11, I'll say close down a couple of stops. However, if we are counting how many stops are recorded on film with detail, do we not count the first AND the last?

Tony

I agree with Alain Briot.

The difference between f/2 to f/2.8 is one stop, not two. It is
like counting sections of a fence, between two fence posts there is
one section of fence.

Zones may be different; a zone by definition has some size.

Brian A.

( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml ), the author claims that the contrast ratio of your camera is the number of stops above and below the middle spot.

Briot says: Quote

Once you have determined the images that have detail in them count > them. Count only those that are underexposed or overexposed. Do not > count the one which shows the exposure given by your meter.

• If you have 6 images showing details (not counting the “correctly > exposed” image) it means your film or digital sensor is able to record a 6-> stops range. If you have 5 images with details you can record a 5 stops > range and so on. Your results will vary from film to film and sensor to > sensor as I said previously.

For example, I use almost exclusively Fuji Provia 100F. I know, from > conducting the test I just described, that I can safely record a range of 5 > stops: 3 under and 2 over. Your own tests will show the exact contrast > range your film or digital camera can record.

I loved the article and found it very informative. However, I'm
pretty sure that Ansel Adams counted each stop from the first to
the last as stops of contrast because each "zone" is just the
center of a small range of brightness.

In the book "The Confused Photographers Guide to Exposure and the
Simplified Zone System", the author says to look at zones like
buckets. Each zone is a bucket and if you're counting how many
stops, zones, or buckets your camera can capture, you'd count them
all.

Is it clear what I'm talking about and do you agree?

Tony

--
Tony

 

[Hugowolf]

Tony,

Then we have the difference between a set of discrete values and a continuous range. For example exposure latitude:

Lets say the correct exposure is 1/60 @ f/8 ± 1 stop, then the range is 2 stops, and there may seem to be three possible exposures at 1/60, f/5.6. f/8, f/11, but it is a range, so there are really an infinite number (only constrained by diaphragm’s ability to discretely step in third or half stops).

I’m just putting my 2¢ worth. It is often really confusing try to discern exactly what photographers mean; there are too many loose terms and ill defined definitions. My favorite is 100% crop: the term is meaningless.

Brian A.

Tony

I agree with Alain Briot.

The difference between f/2 to f/2.8 is one stop, not two. It is
like counting sections of a fence, between two fence posts there is
one section of fence.

Zones may be different; a zone by definition has some size.

Brian A.

( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml ), the author claims that the contrast ratio of your camera is the number of stops above and below the middle spot.

Briot says: Quote

Once you have determined the images that have detail in them count > them. Count only those that are underexposed or overexposed. Do not > count the one which shows the exposure given by your meter.

• If you have 6 images showing details (not counting the “correctly > exposed” image) it means your film or digital sensor is able to record a 6-> stops range. If you have 5 images with details you can record a 5 stops > range and so on. Your results will vary from film to film and sensor to > sensor as I said previously.

For example, I use almost exclusively Fuji Provia 100F. I know, from > conducting the test I just described, that I can safely record a range of 5 > stops: 3 under and 2 over. Your own tests will show the exact contrast > range your film or digital camera can record.

I loved the article and found it very informative. However, I'm
pretty sure that Ansel Adams counted each stop from the first to
the last as stops of contrast because each "zone" is just the
center of a small range of brightness.

In the book "The Confused Photographers Guide to Exposure and the
Simplified Zone System", the author says to look at zones like
buckets. Each zone is a bucket and if you're counting how many
stops, zones, or buckets your camera can capture, you'd count them
all.

Is it clear what I'm talking about and do you agree?

Tony

--
Tony

 

[Hugowolf]

I think the problem derives from Ansel Adams’ use of the word zone to describe a discrete value, instead of its general meaning of a range of values or an area. If one can think of a zone as being a certain shutter speed and f-stop ±half a stop, then it makes sense. But, he even states that he has a “plan a way by which the students would learn the 'scales and chords' to achieve technical command of the medium”, an analogy to musical notes in a scale, which are definitely discrete. I respect and admire Adams’ photographs, but I know nothing of his abilities with semantics and logic.

I am not familiar enough with Adams’ writing to know whether he thinks of a zone as being a range of exposure settings, or whether he thinks of it as being just one. It must be remembered that the cameras of the day didn’t have any settings between f-stops. But while it is true that zones 1-9 encompass nine f-stop values, the dynamic range of such would only be eight stops.

Brian A.

Tony

I agree with Alain Briot.

The difference between f/2 to f/2.8 is one stop, not two. It is
like counting sections of a fence, between two fence posts there is
one section of fence.

Zones may be different; a zone by definition has some size.

Brian A.

( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml ), the author claims that the contrast ratio of your camera is the number of stops above and below the middle spot.

Briot says: Quote

Once you have determined the images that have detail in them count > them. Count only those that are underexposed or overexposed. Do not > count the one which shows the exposure given by your meter.

• If you have 6 images showing details (not counting the “correctly > exposed” image) it means your film or digital sensor is able to record a 6-> stops range. If you have 5 images with details you can record a 5 stops > range and so on. Your results will vary from film to film and sensor to > sensor as I said previously.

For example, I use almost exclusively Fuji Provia 100F. I know, from > conducting the test I just described, that I can safely record a range of 5 > stops: 3 under and 2 over. Your own tests will show the exact contrast > range your film or digital camera can record.

I loved the article and found it very informative. However, I'm
pretty sure that Ansel Adams counted each stop from the first to
the last as stops of contrast because each "zone" is just the
center of a small range of brightness.

In the book "The Confused Photographers Guide to Exposure and the
Simplified Zone System", the author says to look at zones like
buckets. Each zone is a bucket and if you're counting how many
stops, zones, or buckets your camera can capture, you'd count them
all.

Is it clear what I'm talking about and do you agree?

Tony

--
Tony

 

[Sandman]

Tony Hall,

I too found Briot's article very informative. Correct me if I am wrong, but I recall that he defines the contrast ratio as the number of stops above and below the the middle spot in which ONE CAN SEE DETAILS. If we use this criterion, isn't the 5 or 6 stops for the Rebel a more accurate and realistic number? In light of Briot's article, how many stops do you think the Rebel can manage? I simply cannot believe the 10 stops as touted in the previous thread. I sure don't see 10 stops in my images anyway.

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

 

[Tony Hall]

if you agree with Briot, then maybe you can explain why he doesn't count the middle exposure as a stop of contrast.

Ok, once again, let me try to explain what I mean in case you don't quite understand me.

Let's say that we want to capture a contrasty scene on film (well ccd). Let's say that we take a reading of the darkest area and lightest area with our spotmeter. The darkest area gives us a reading of 3 and the lightest gives us a reading of 10. Now, how many stops of brightness is there in the scene?

Well, the first reading: 3, represents the lightest stop or zone in the picture and the darkest reading (10) represents the darkest stop that I would like to record on in my picture. So, there are those two stops and the six stops between them that need to be recorded. How many stops does my film or ccd need to be able to capture if I want detail in the lightest and darkest areas of the scene? Seven... no, if my CCD is only capable of seven, I'll loose detail in the lightest or darkest area of the picture. My camera will need a contrast range of 8 stops to capture the contrasty scene in front of me.

Here's a crude example I just whipped up in photoshop of what I'm talking about. If you want to capture detail in the first zone, you must count it as well as the last zone.



I'd really like to get to the bottom of this so I won't feel like an ass wipe when talking to people about contrast range.

Tony

I am not familiar enough with Adams’ writing to know whether he
thinks of a zone as being a range of exposure settings, or whether
he thinks of it as being just one. It must be remembered that the
cameras of the day didn’t have any settings between f-stops. But
while it is true that zones 1-9 encompass nine f-stop values, the
dynamic range of such would only be eight stops.

Brian A.

Tony

I agree with Alain Briot.

The difference between f/2 to f/2.8 is one stop, not two. It is
like counting sections of a fence, between two fence posts there is
one section of fence.

Zones may be different; a zone by definition has some size.

Brian A.

( http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/determining-exposure.shtml ), the author claims that the contrast ratio of your camera is the number of stops above and below the middle spot.

Briot says: Quote

Once you have determined the images that have detail in them count > them. Count only those that are underexposed or overexposed. Do not > count the one which shows the exposure given by your meter.

• If you have 6 images showing details (not counting the “correctly > exposed” image) it means your film or digital sensor is able to record a 6-> stops range. If you have 5 images with details you can record a 5 stops > range and so on. Your results will vary from film to film and sensor to > sensor as I said previously.

For example, I use almost exclusively Fuji Provia 100F. I know, from > conducting the test I just described, that I can safely record a range of 5 > stops: 3 under and 2 over. Your own tests will show the exact contrast > range your film or digital camera can record.

I loved the article and found it very informative. However, I'm
pretty sure that Ansel Adams counted each stop from the first to
the last as stops of contrast because each "zone" is just the
center of a small range of brightness.

In the book "The Confused Photographers Guide to Exposure and the
Simplified Zone System", the author says to look at zones like
buckets. Each zone is a bucket and if you're counting how many
stops, zones, or buckets your camera can capture, you'd count them
all.

Is it clear what I'm talking about and do you agree?

Tony

--
Tony

--
Tony

 

[Tony Hall]

Yes, that's how he defines contrast ratio. However, his idea of contrast ratio is different than my idea of contrast ratio. See my post above to see what I think contrast ratio is.

I believe that you are supposed to count ALL stops in a scene in which you'd like to record detail. I don't understand why Briot would leave out the middle stop... it doesn't make sense.

If you count the middle zone like I do, I've found that the DRebel can record subtle detail in 6 or 7 stops depending on your paremeters. In raw mode, you can get more.

Tony

Tony Hall,

I too found Briot's article very informative. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I recall that he defines the contrast ratio as the
number of stops above and below the the middle spot in which ONE
CAN SEE DETAILS. If we use this criterion, isn't the 5 or 6 stops
for the Rebel a more accurate and realistic number? In light of
Briot's article, how many stops do you think the Rebel can manage?
I simply cannot believe the 10 stops as touted in the previous
thread. I sure don't see 10 stops in my images anyway.

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

--
Tony

 

[DannyV]

Yes, it should be left out. Because you are trying to determine "how far" from the ideal exposure the camera can still record detail. Look at it this way, if you always counted the first stop as you propose, how would you express the range of a hypothetical camera with less than one stop? Since you are starting at one, you couldn't.

I believe that you are supposed to count ALL stops in a scene in
which you'd like to record detail. I don't understand why Briot
would leave out the middle stop... it doesn't make sense.

If you count the middle zone like I do, I've found that the DRebel
can record subtle detail in 6 or 7 stops depending on your
paremeters. In raw mode, you can get more.

Tony

Tony Hall,

I too found Briot's article very informative. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I recall that he defines the contrast ratio as the
number of stops above and below the the middle spot in which ONE
CAN SEE DETAILS. If we use this criterion, isn't the 5 or 6 stops
for the Rebel a more accurate and realistic number? In light of
Briot's article, how many stops do you think the Rebel can manage?
I simply cannot believe the 10 stops as touted in the previous
thread. I sure don't see 10 stops in my images anyway.

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

--
Tony

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11
300D tips http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
300D FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html

 

[Tony Hall]

you are trying to determine

"how far" from the ideal exposure the camera can still record
detail.

Actually, that's not what I'm trying to determine. What I'm trying to determine is how many zones in the scene before me I will be able to capture in a photo.

Look at it this way, if you always counted the first stop

as you propose, how would you express the range of a hypothetical
camera with less than one stop? Since you are starting at one, you
couldn't.

Huh, you're starting at zero, so how does that give you an advantage in that hypothetical situation?

I believe that you are supposed to count ALL stops in a scene in
which you'd like to record detail. I don't understand why Briot
would leave out the middle stop... it doesn't make sense.

If you count the middle zone like I do, I've found that the DRebel
can record subtle detail in 6 or 7 stops depending on your
paremeters. In raw mode, you can get more.

Tony

Tony Hall,

I too found Briot's article very informative. Correct me if I am
wrong, but I recall that he defines the contrast ratio as the
number of stops above and below the the middle spot in which ONE
CAN SEE DETAILS. If we use this criterion, isn't the 5 or 6 stops
for the Rebel a more accurate and realistic number? In light of
Briot's article, how many stops do you think the Rebel can manage?
I simply cannot believe the 10 stops as touted in the previous
thread. I sure don't see 10 stops in my images anyway.

Cheers,

jim

--
Shoot more, ***** less!
galleries at: http://www.pbase.com/sandman3

--
Tony

--
Daniel
http://www.pbase.com/dvogel11
300D tips
http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.html
300D FAQ at http://www.marius.org/fom-serve/cache/3.html

--
Tony