 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / November 2004Using Photoshop for Zone/Speed Test
I know I've read about this before (can't find anything about it, however). What I would like to do is this: Use Photoshop (and a scanner) for a speed test. That is, shoot a frame at Zone V, then Zone I. Develop and test. In a class I had a while back, I remember using a densitometer to determine Zone I for a particular film/developer combination. So, would this work: scan in a gray card (18%); then scan in a sheet of film (in this case Tri-X 320 4x5 developed in HC110) which I shot at Zone V. In theory (if I'm correct), the scanned sheet should closely resemble the scanner gray card, right? And if so, what value would K have (in the RGB info panel) for Zone I? And why? Or...why would this not work? Thanks! I hope I've expressed this correctly. RON _________________________________________________________________ B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com Some additional info: when I scan in the gray card and convert to RGB, my values are about 83/83/83, not 128/128/128. I don't know why that is the case. RON >I know I've read about this before (can't find anything about it, however). >What I would like to do is this: Use Photoshop (and a scanner) for a speed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > _________________________________________________________________ > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com > Some additional info: when I scan in the gray card and convert to RGB, my > values are about 83/83/83, not 128/128/128. I don't know why that is the > case. Because the Zones and densities do not have a linear relationship between them. >> Some additional info: when I scan in the gray card and convert to RGB, my >> values are about 83/83/83, not 128/128/128. I don't know why that is the >> case. > > Because the Zones and densities do not have a linear relationship between > them. Indeed true, and somehow this whole idea of using Photoshop as if it were truly a wet process replacement turns my stomach. I must be getting older than I thought. In article <10phe64j0pv28b0@news.supernews.com>, "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> wrote:. > Indeed true, and somehow this whole idea of using Photoshop as if it were > truly a wet process replacement turns my stomach. I must be getting older > than I thought. Hey an there are people even calling it "the darkroom" ;-)  SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > In article <10phe64j0pv28b0@news.supernews.com>, "jjs" <jjs@x.x.com> > wrote:. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hey an there are people even calling it "the darkroom" ;-) Yeah, like Henry Wilhelm does... Hey, I"m a darkroom guy, too. I just thought it the tool would work, I should use it. If it doesn't, no big deal. >>> Some additional info: when I scan in the gray card and convert to RGB, >>> my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > truly a wet process replacement turns my stomach. I must be getting older > than I thought. > Hey, I"m a darkroom guy, too. I just thought it the tool would work, I > should use it. If it doesn't, no big deal. An inexpensive visual densitometer you can get used is far simpler, accurate, and a lot cheaper than a scanner+PS. > >>> Some additional info: when I scan in the gray card and convert to RGB, > >>> my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > truly a wet process replacement turns my stomach. I must be getting older > > than I thought. That's the approach I decided on. Thanks!! >> Hey, I"m a darkroom guy, too. I just thought it the tool would work, I >> should use it. If it doesn't, no big deal. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> > older >> > than I thought. | An inexpensive visual densitometer you can get used | is far simpler, accurate, and a lot cheaper than a | scanner+PS. Until now I thought a densitometer was a very expensive electronic diveice, unafordable in my case. Can you explain me what this visual densitometer is? Do you know of any brands...? Thanks, Jan > | An inexpensive visual densitometer you can get used > | is far simpler, accurate, and a lot cheaper than a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Jan Visual is one that reads only b&w, as opposed to other modes for color negatives and tranparencies. Orthochromatic densitometers can also be used to read b&w negative densities. It's the color filters (which must meet stringent standards) that tend to make densitometers "very" expensive. Older used visual densitometers with an analog readout shouldn't be "expensive." At least not compared with buying a non-upgrade version of PS. BYW, Phil Davis in his Beyond the Zone System tells how to make an adequate densitometer out of a Pentax V analog spot meter. Always some old used V's around. > > | An inexpensive visual densitometer you can get used > > | is far simpler, accurate, and a lot cheaper than a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > shouldn't be "expensive." At least not compared with > buying a non-upgrade version of PS. > > Do you know of any brands...? > > Older used visual densitometers with an analog readout > shouldn't be "expensive." Sorry. Try Speedmaster. Ebay has some on occasion. Also a place to check is http://www.photosupplyinc.com/ $100 to $200 max is all I'd pay for one in excellent condition. Hi, It looks like your scanner has incorrect brightness (and possibly contrast) settings. Are you able to control these settings with your scanner? This is where I would start. Translating the Zone System into Photoshop should not be very hard to do. I will give it a try and let you know if I've been successful. Hope this helps. Bartek > Some additional info: when I scan in the gray card and convert to RGB, my > values are about 83/83/83, not 128/128/128. I don't know why that is the [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>_________________________________________________________________ >>B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com Signaturehttp://bartus.org > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Translating the Zone System into Photoshop should not be very hard to do. > I will give it a try and let you know if I've been successful. What a joke! You can 'translate' all you wish, but if you don't do wet darkroom work it means absolutely nothing; what you are doing is something else entirely - so begins the thread "digital zone system" which I will watch with great disinterest. > What a joke! You can 'translate' all you wish, but if you don't do wet > darkroom work it means absolutely nothing; what you are doing is something > else entirely - so begins the thread "digital zone system" which I will > watch with great disinterest. Now you' ve done it congratulations!!! Next we shall hear from the "HMS Nutcase" to pipe in and expound on Zone Nazis and how the digital age is no deterent to thier abuses of his pure photographic b.s. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> What a joke! You can 'translate' all you wish, but if you don't do wet >> darkroom work it means absolutely nothing; what you are doing is something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >how the digital age is no deterent to thier abuses of his pure >photographic b.s. Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! Thankz jj and Tom and Dan. Great work. Not! Robert Vervoordt, MFA > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:38:50 GMT, Gregory W Blank >>Now you' ve done it congratulations!!! Next we shall hear from >>the "HMS Nutcase" to pipe in and expound on Zone Nazis and >>how the digital age is no deterent to thier abuses of his pure >>photographic b.s. > > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! That's one reason Blank, among others, is in my killfile. > > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! > > That's one reason Blank, among others, is in my killfile. Me thinks, JJS talks from two side of mouth with forked tongue. SignatureIf you could use a Voodoo doll to hurt anyone you choose would you? >> > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! >> >> That's one reason Blank, among others, is in my killfile. > >Me thinks, JJS talks from two side of mouth with forked tongue. jj is a wise guy. He knew I was talking about the nameless one, but chose to spin things around to point to Gregory, for humorous effect. We put up with his little pecadilloes, because he keeps it within reason; his own definition, I might add. Also, 25% of the time he's really funny. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >> > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > reason; his own definition, I might add. Also, 25% of the time he's > really funny. And conversely 75% (or more) of the time he's just a puerile bore... >> >> > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And conversely 75% (or more) of the time he's just >a puerile bore... Now, I didn't say that. Face it. Tom, no one, or two, among us has shown anything near the offensive qualities of the nameless and radioactive one. Aswering that troll is really counterproductive. No one else comes close. We have to keep on with theeffort to restrain ourselves, or he will come back in full and odious force. Robert Vervoordt, MFA > >> >> > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Now, I didn't say that. My own interpretation, of course... > Face it. Tom, no one, or two, among us has shown anything near the > offensive qualities of the nameless and radioactive one. Aswering that > troll is really counterproductive. No one else comes close. I'd agree. John S is merely boring. > We have to keep on with theeffort to restrain ourselves, or he will > come back in full and odious force. <sigh> I'm sure you're right. Course I find M.S. boring as well. >> >> >> > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ><sigh> I'm sure you're right. Course I find M.S. boring as well. Ah, doing th jj now. OK. Robert Vervoordt, MFA >>I'd agree. John S is merely boring. Because I have 'creatively' munged my killfile, I have only a slight idea who might have said that, but to be okay I'm killing everybody in this thread. Sorry to the innocents. "Kille 'em all and let (whomever) sort it out later." > >>I'd agree. John S is merely boring. > > Because I have 'creatively' munged my killfile, I have only a slight idea > who might have said that, but to be okay I'm killing everybody in this > thread. Sorry to the innocents. "Kille 'em all and let (whomever) sort it > out later." The more you killfile the better we like it... >Kille 'em all and let (whomever) sort it > > out later." > > The more you killfile the better we like it... He should kill file himself outside the group. SignatureLF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > >> >> > Already, we see the effects of answering him. He's ba-a-a-ck! > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Robert Vervoordt, MFA Are you saying you miss me? > > What a joke! You can 'translate' all you wish, but if you don't do wet > > darkroom work it means absolutely nothing; what you are doing is something [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > how the digital age is no deterent to thier abuses of his pure > photographic b.s. This thread is of no interest to me. The zs has no direct relation to digital, because with PhotoShop curve controls you can manipulate the curve anyway you want. The zs relies on variable film development, which has no digital equivalent. All images are captured the same in digital. Hey, I wasn't trying to cause a riot or something. Just thought it might work. I do use a scanner and PS a lot, but just for a web site and to produce digital proofs and to fool around. Basically, only interested in actual silver (or platinum someday) prints. To solve my problem, I'm getting a densitometer (now that's digital, right?!) > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >>>B&W Landscape and Still Photography: >>>http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com > Hey, I wasn't trying to cause a riot or something. Just thought it might > work. I do use a scanner and PS a lot, but just for a web site and to > produce digital proofs and to fool around. Basically, only interested in > actual silver (or platinum someday) prints. To solve my problem, I'm getting > a densitometer (now that's digital, right?!) I removed the digital readout from my densitometer and replaced it with an analog (moving needle) meter, just to avoid the digital world! Additionally, I modified the thermostat in the water bath so that the bi-metallic strip, instead of just switching on or off (binary states) controls a rheostat to provide an infinitely varible heat (analog)! Finally, instead of having only wet or dry prints (binary states), I now display prints that are moist! Ken Hart > > Hey, I wasn't trying to cause a riot or something. Just thought it might > > work. I do use a scanner and PS a lot, but just for a web site and to [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Finally, instead of having only wet or dry prints (binary states), I now > display prints that are moist! Ah, but the viewer experience changes with the dry down effect ;) > I know I've read about this before (can't find anything about it, however). > What I would like to do is this: Use Photoshop (and a scanner) for a speed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > so, what value would K have (in the RGB info panel) for Zone I? And why? > Or...why would this not work? You need to read on this topic if you want to get into it. "The Negative", "Beyond the Zone System" and "Controls in Black and White Photography" would be some of the books I'd read. The easiest way to read densities with scanner+photoshop, would be to purchase a calibrated step tablet for easy comparison between the RGB values you get with it versus the ones of the negative. Alternatively, you could try this method: http://www.bobwheeler.com/photo/Documents/ZoneDigital.pdf Guillermo > I know I've read about this before (can't find anything about it, however). > What I would like to do is this: Use Photoshop (and a scanner) for a speed [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > _________________________________________________________________ > B&W Landscape and Still Photography: http://www.ronaldgansphotography.com Hi, To answer your question about using the Photoshop densitometer and how it relates to zones. It's actually very simple. The K value indicates the percentage of black. So you need 9 zones + Zone 0 (K=100, pure black) and Zone X (k=0, pure white). Thus, you get 9 zones spaced at K=10% increments (for Zone V, K=50%). This should give you an idea of which zone your scanned gray card is. If you want to use Curves to manipulate each zone separately, I made a Curves preset file that you can download at http://bartus.org/zones.zip Hope this helps. Bartek Signaturehttp://bartus.org > > I know I've read about this before (can't find anything about it, however). > > What I would like to do is this: Use Photoshop (and a scanner) for a speed [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > black) and Zone X (k=0, pure white). Thus, you get 9 zones spaced at > K=10% increments (for Zone V, K=50%). It all depends on how good your scanner's S/N ratio is. Most _aren't_ that good for a "pure" black-zone I. In other words, it ain't = to good old fashioned sensitometry... > This should give you an idea of > which zone your scanned gray card is. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > http://bartus.org > To answer your question about using the Photoshop densitometer and how it > relates to zones. It's actually very simple. The K value indicates the > percentage of black. So you need 9 zones + Zone 0 (K=100, pure black) and > Zone X (k=0, pure white). Thus, you get 9 zones spaced at K=10% increments > (for Zone V, K=50%). This should give you an idea of which zone your > scanned gray card is. Are you perfectly sure that the "zone system" zones are graduated in 10% increments? And do you think that photographic materials respond linearly in such graduations? Let me save you the grief of finding out how bad an idea this is - they are not the same at all. This whole idea of trying to obviate testing for wet printing without wet processing is just nutz. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.