learnt something over the last few weeks - you may not want to do this

[Clinton1]

Lately I've been playing with (and trying to understand) Ansel Adams Zone system. I hope of applying it to help me out with certain situations... when I want to take a shot and the contrast between light/dark is way too far.

Basically, there are times when I need to take a shot and I know that if I expose to get the darker tones right, the light tones will be shot and I just get a blown white section with no detail/texture.

Now, you could use a Graduated Neutral Density filter.... but I don't have one.... come on, they cost at least $40! :rolleyes:

Even changing where you meter from doesn't go all the way to resolving the problem when the (dynamic) range between your whites and darks are so far apart.
Meter for the darkest section and you lose so much detail in the lighter sections.
Meter for the lightest section and the rest of the shot is a big black lump.
Meter in the middle and it kinda works, but I find my strong whites are still unacceptable.

Try sitting in a dark room with enough light to read by (but you'd still prefer a lamp to be turned on). There is a 30cm slit in the blinds across the room and that side of the house opens onto a fence in full, strong sunlight.
- Expose your shot for the dark wall near the blinds, the light from outside is solid white.
- Expose your shot for that slit in the blinds, and you can see the neighbours fence... but the rest of the room is solid black.
- Put on a soft light that illuminates the wall and cuts down and difference between the darkest and lightest sections... or pull the blinds full closed/open.... and you are on a winner.
There are 2 silly examples with a solution.

But....
what about when you can not change the light,
can't wait for the sun to go down, and the sun is in that 10am - 3pm or overhead position,
the subject casts its own shadow down itself (on your side),
there are reflections from white walls or low white clouds reflecting strongly at you,
the blindingly white clouds have this wonderful texture and composition you want to convey,
the blue peeking out of the clouds would be nice to get in the shot,
the sun is in your face, because to get the composition you need to be on a particular side of the subject and you can't go to the other side,
and in one minute you'll have missed the opportunity...
and it could be simply fixed by that $40 filter.... which is what the really good photographers would use... but... damn it, just do it anyway!
and so on.

So, for a few weeks I've been working toward how I set ISO/Aperture/Shutter to change this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3212/2805693956_3d7f1e93a7.jpg

[Clinton1]

To this
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3117/2805626734_c4b622a35b.jpg


So, I thought maybe I'd approach it like this....

Ansel Adams expressed the tonal change from black to white by the use of 11 Zones, from 0 to 10.
Zone 2 through Zone 8 allow you to see 'texture and recognise substances', whereas Zone 0 is pure black.
Zone 10 would be pure white (pure white fluro bulb when you stare at it).

So....
I've been experimenting, and I recreated the conditions today and I think I came to some sort of solution....bear in mind that while I'm really damn good, if I am honest I'd have to admit that photography is one of my very few weak points. :D
So, who knows if it is a good solution or not.

- "subject" is a dark, textured, fence (distance 5 meters), I need excellent detail/sharpness/texture on the fence,
- 'my' side of the fence is in shade due to sun position,
- Shooting from a shaded location,
- Sun is slightly to the rear of the fence (3pm in the tropics),
- Sooo much strong light is bouncing off the clouds back at me,
- I want 'good detail/sharpness' from the weight bench on the right (@2 meters away), and absolutely 'no' detail/sharpness problems in the gravel/plants between the bench and the fence,
- I want the middle and background detail to 'add context' to the photo... I need to accomodate the Zone 9 of the clouds and the Zone 3 - 4 of the darkest part of the fence,
- There is a moderate breeze, so the tree leaves are in motion... but I can make a sacrifice here, and its good to see motion anyway,
- there is a light/shadow interplay in the branches of the trees, I want this.
- the roof beams don't matter, thats just part of the 'test environment'... I'll forget about them.

So...
Auto mode, Matrix metering and AF-S, focus/meter on the fence - blown highlights, but a good 'happy snap',
Auto mode, Matrix metering and AF-S, focus/meter on the clouds - way too dark in the fence,
Auto mode, Matrix metering and AF-S, focus/meter on the fence, complete wash out of the whites,
Auto mode, Matrix metering and AF-S, focus/meter on the mid range contrast area, its 'ok'... and the exposure is something like 1/160 at F6.3
This last one is the one I first pic I posted.

So,
I'm taking a look at the scene, making decisions on zone values, flick over to Manual mode, spot metering.
Next, I am spot metering the fence, changing the aperture to F9 (deciding there is too narrow a DoF), and settling on F13 (focal near limit 2.3 meters, far limit infinity)... and then hunting a shutter speed that accomodates the detail of the fence and starts to accomodate the brightness of the clouds.

final setting is F13, 1/125, focus at the hyperfocal distance of @3.5 meters, acceptable sharpness from @2 meters.
Focus was set to 32mm for both shots (just to frame the area to comply with the desired test area).

Acceptable sharpness from 2 meters in front of me out to infinity... and I've managed to balance the dark light areas in a manner that will give me a good 8x10" print.
Here's a 100% crop of the bottom, slight left, of the fence:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2307/2806065032_8a5d6cd491.jpg


I've gone about 5/3's EV off 'proper exposure, but I've reduced the brightness of my zone 9 (the clouds) to about a 7 (?) and been able to capture all the contrast/texture in the clouds that I could see (I needed to squint to see when I was looking at it, thats how bright it was).

anyway... or you could just buy a filter.
:U

[Waldo]

Clinton1, an easy way to get the Anesl Adams look is to use a red filter with b/w film - but you probably know that.

When I use photographers for shoots I prefer to get the shot in camera, but you can do it in P/Shop, convert the image to greyscale, add an adjustment layer... rather than explain it here's a very simple video.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/490821/creating_an_ansel_adams_style_photograph_in_photoshop/

[Stuart]

Or use the HDR (High Dynamic Range) capabilities of Photoshop - take 2 or more images with different settings, then remerge them into one image with massive dynamic range, then produce the final result as you like it.

Adams Zone system worked on the concept (real roughly) that the neg had much more dynamic range than the print, so you exposed for the whites, and developed for the blacks (or the other way around). Increasing the bit depth of the digital image achieves a similar result.

[Stuart]

Or you could just learn how to use curves in Photoshop :D

[Optimark]

Effectively, your problem is that the scene you wish to keep, has a range that is outside the capabilities of both the capture system (electronic) and/or the viewing system, paper (reflected light) or computer screen (transmitted light).

As a result you will have to compromise.

Various ways to do this, but basically you have to lower the range of extremes, or compress them.

Lowering the range would mean using some fill light in the foreground, either a fill flash or reflectors, such as crumpled foil stiffened by some cardboard backing.

Compressing the range could be done by using a graduated ND filter.

Interesting to see your experimentation and to read your methods. Not too many people I know with electronic cameras, do this.

Stuart's Idea of combining two or more image captures, is a reasonably good suggestion, and possibly one of the better ways to go. Whilst I realise that in-camera capture is desired, it isn't always the better of different ways of doing things.

Generally speaking, the Zone system refers to a 10 stop capture range, that is measurable on film. If you scan film, or look at it on a lightbox, you can see and measure this range of density. However in practice, 7 stops on film is achievable and a more practicable possibility.

Paper (photographic) has less of a range than film. For practicable purposes, paper really only has about a 3 stop range, outside that, you start to either lose detail in both the shadow and highlights.

If you look at catalogues that arrive in your letter box ( realise you may not up there) look closely at white towels or sheets advertisements. It is quite interesting how compressed (usually) the tonal range has been done, especially if the background is white.

In product photography the addition of colour in the eighties to catalogues gave many problems to the studio photographer. An American named Dean Jones worked backwards from the printer printing the catalogues, all the way to the studio photographer.

His study showed that the colour pictures that looked the most dynamic, were ones with good lighting, tonal range of three stops from shadow to highlight and good use of selective focus.

My personal experience using film, is that 4 stops from highlight to shadow, is about what you can effectively print. I still use film and process all my own as well as print, both in colour and B&W.

My wife uses electronic cameras, I see her struggle exactly as you and others do. Interestingly, her ink printing system, has almost exactly the same constraints as the wet prints I make.

I struggle exactly the same as you, we all do!

There is no easy cure :D

Mick.

[mic-d]

geeze, and I thought woodwork and chemistry were hard:D

Cheers
Michael

[Clinton1]

thanks all for the comments...

Just to clarify, my test area ranged from Zone I to Zone IX (or even X).

I can get prints made on a Fujifilm "digital minilab", so I'm not printing to paper, but getting them developed on the above machine.

Thanks for all the comments re Photoshop...
... come on.... I'll muck about for 2 or 3 weeks because I will not spend $40 on a filter, do ya reckon I'll be spending up on Photoshop anytime soon? :U

Actually, a Photoshop disk in in the mail (I found a good way to get a massive discount! :D ), but I still think this method will have its uses.
I intend to work out how to use HDR very quickly.




Effectively, your problem is that the scene you wish to keep, has a range that is outside the capabilities of both the capture system (electronic) and/or the viewing system, the developed film, paper (reflected light) or computer screen (transmitted light). - Exactly (I inserted "the developed film" into your sentence... or did you include film when you typed paper??? i.e. paper = paper/inks/developed film)


Various ways to do this, but basically you have to lower the range of extremes, or compress them. - "Lower the range of extremes" - is this what I'm doing when I accept a compromise solution where I play with acceptable loss of detail/sharpness in the darks (through underexposing them) and by doing that start to lift my exposure toward what is correct for the whites (but in effect reducing the brightness of the whites). ??

This has caused a few headaches. !

and I thought woodwork and chemistry were hard :D

Nah, its easy... its just understanding and influencing the following interactions:
physics (light)
the mechanical effects of the lens system,
optical theory,
photographic theory (EV composition, focal distances, print size, viewing distance...),
Sensor electronic characteristics and abilities with respect to recording light,
the final viewing system,
very subjective perceptions of "what I want",
my flawed and incomplete knowledge of how it all fits together,
financial considerations with respect to buying photographic kit,
doing all of the above to achieve a particular result in a strangers mind,
the interplays of cause and effect with the above.

Stuff the $40 filter and Photoshop... doing this is more interesting than watching tv. :)

[Clinton1]

well, got the two photo's printed at 8x10".

The pic where I used the Zone system to work out the settings is far, far superior... maybe I think that because of my concept of what I should be 'seeing' in the photo, but thats the whole point of photography anyway... to get what you want.

So, I've learnt that I can step up 2 EV's, which drops my highest zone down 2 steps... and I'd argue about the effect this has (in the printed photo) on the darker Zone 3.

I'm not happy with my understanding of the effect on the Zone 3... I need to consider it more and do some more experiments before I can explain/understand it totally.

I'd assumed that by lifting the EV, I'd end up underexposing the darks by the same amount of EV... that seems intuitive... but I don't see that and I need to consider the changes to Aperture and Shutter that I made and how that interrelates to the RBG colour curves and positioning. Maybe thats it. ????
Looking at the photo's I'd say it raised the darker Zones by at least 1 level (and thats counter intuitive, & to me that is illogical)... so I need to investigate and understand more... or perhaps I need to change my logic. :D

Anyway... now that I've finally worked this out.... its getting into the wet season, and there is a lot more darkness to the clouds... so I don't have to do it is much. :rolleyes: :U

[MajorPanic]

Hey Clinton,

Ah, the Zone System...... that takes me back.

I used to teach the Zone System to a few dedicated large format photographers many years ago (well before Ansel was dead)

The Zone System is very simple to understand but hard to get right.

Shooting is relatively simple, it all about being able to see in monotones & depending on what sort of film (now digital - camera response curves) your exposing "placing" your highlights or shadows in the Zone you want. All other luminescence will "fall" in relation to the "placed" Zone.

Development of the image is either expansion or contraction of the tonal range & Ansel went to great lengths to apply consistency of process so results were repeatable. Camera/lens/film stock & processing chemical combinations were all tested & recorded for repeatability.

In the digital age the Z.S. can still be used to engineer what you want & a whole lot more conveniently but consistency is still the key. This means calibrating your camera/lens(s) combinations & your monitor.

[Clinton1]

Hello Major!


The Zone System is very simple to understand but hard to get right - took me a while to relate it to my dSLR... and I'm still trying to get it right. :D



but consistency is still the key. This means calibrating your camera/lens(s) combinations & your monitor.

yep, consistancy is difficult when I'm still working out what I can do and what I want to achieve... but I'm slowly getting there.
I have no idea what calibrating body/lens means... kinda know about calibrating my screen... but haven't done it yet. I have to guess and wait till I get something developed... jsut like I used to do with film. :rolleyes:
I'll search around for 'calibrating body/lens' see what I unearth. Thanks for the tip. :)

I find it helps to do a very quick sketch of the scene (just a few outlines) and write down what I think the zones are, then back that up with a photo... then start working out what I want to do.
Its a slow process to stumble through.

[MajorPanic]

Clinton,

Monitor calibration is the first thing you should do BUT this will cost you money. You need a tool to do it such as the Xrite Gretag Macbeth i1Display2. This is the one I have but there are others on the market. See HERE (http://www.iccimagetec.com.au/calibrators.html) for others or click on pic below to see the i1Display

http://www.xrite.com/images/products/i1Display2_b.png (http://www.xrite.com/product_overview.aspx?region=125&ID=788)

To calibrate you lens & camera combo you will need Photoshop & "the script" - AcrCalibrator is a Photoshop script to automate the process of calibrating Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) for your digital camera.
So off to Chromoholics (http://fors.net/chromoholics/support/?w=GettingStarted) with ya!

If you want to get serious you'll need a print reader (X-Rite has these too) to create colour profiles for your printer & paper combinations so what you see on the screen is exactly what you end up with in the print. The other option is to have your prints done at a good lab. The lab should be able to supply you with their printers colour profile which you use in Photoshop for proofing.

[Iain]

I have been looking at ebay and found that there are a couple of suppliers who do a set of 28 filters from $70 to $90 (depending upon diameter) which includes a graduated ND.
If you are prepared to wait a couple of weeks (or less) this could be an option, the set also includes a polarising filter.
I cannot vouch for the quality as I haven't tried them but after forking out $80 for my Hoya multi coated polarising (52mm) I might give them a go.

[Clinton1]

Thanks gentlemen.
Mark -
I'll tag the monitor and put it into the mix for next year.
I need to buy some new electronic stuff... a tv and puter are on the list, I'll add this to the list.

Printer calibration... again, I'll leave that to next year.

Iain -
thanks mate, I'll go for a look on ebay now.

[JTonks]

Lowering the range would mean using some fill light in the foreground, either a fill flash or reflectors, such as crumpled foil stiffened by some cardboard backing.

Hi Clinton

I often use the fill in flash method for achieving correct (or at least better) exposure in this situation.

The technique is to correctly expose for the bright area (sky) and to use the flash to light the darker areas. I have corrected these sorts of images using Photoshop Levels/Curves after picking the best bracketed exposure. Can be a lot of mucking around if your selections have foliage or other difficult to select objects in them.

The limitation of this method is that it only works within the useable range of the flash which on my two digital cameras is not that great.

As with everything, Google returns heaps of hits on Fill In Flash

John