What Makes Middle Gray, Middle Gray?

Too bad Carl, I thought your posts were very informative. Any thoughts on my ideas?

Dear Stephen,

 

Within the last couple of days, by pure chance, I saw the unsupported assertion that the reason the eye has more difficulty in distinguishing between dark tones than light ones is flare. Clearly this is not the only factor -- I *think* the eye would have to use some sort of compression to understand the full brightness range of the world -- but I wondered if you had any further information on flare in the eye.

 

As for pretended ignorance, I'm right with Socrates, not least because I prefer it to pretended knowledge.

 

And evidently my education has been defective, despite the fact that unlike some users of this forum, I can spell and punctuate and have a modest command of conventional grammar, including the use of upper and lower case (my typing skills are another matter). Would someone be kind enough to explain just what 'trolling' means? Is it related to the fishing use of the term? And if so, why is it an insult?

 

Cheers,

 

Roger

�Troll� is an internet term for someone who posts or asks a question to start an argument. It probably is related to fishing in that the person baits his prey with a provocative post.</p>

 

Here is part of Steven�s original post in the Sunny 16 thread: </p>

 

<I>�What about reevaluating the timeless Sunny 16 Rule? Is it just a rule of thumb? Why use f/16 instead of another f/stop? Why use 1/ISO for the shutter speed? What is the relationship between the Sunny 16 Rule and the meter or the camera exposure? Is there any PROOF to support Sunny 16?�</I></p>

 

Later, Steven admits that he is trolling with this post in the same thread. </p>

 

<I>"I personally didn't have a question about Sunny 16. I was attempting to create a discussion about it." </I></p>

 

Several people answered his questions in this thread and the Sunny 16 thread assuming that Steven asked the questions because he didn�t understand the concepts. Obviously, some of us were mistaken. </p>

 

P.S. Please excuse me for quoting form the Sunny 16 thread, but that is where Steven explicitly admitted trolling, although I think he basically did the same in this thread.

Hi, Roger. Naive questions, rather than feigned ignorance, probably characterizes Socratic method better. Whatever the case, Stephen wasn't feigning anything, just asking for the reasoning behind the statements. And I'm right there with you about pretending knowledge; that's what usenet is for.

 

'Trolling' also comes from usenet. The sport there is to make inflammatory posts to draw out further, contrarian inflammatory posts. For example, "loud pipes saves lives" is a common theme for bored motorcyclists. There's a big difference betweeen drawing out discussion, and flaming and trolling. (Anyone with a reading level beyond middle school should be able to see that, right Mark?)

D., I should have mentioned that the while the X axis says "Reflectance," the numbers are for Reflection Density. Still, the math isn't too hard if you want to make the conversion.

 

Notice how the highlight is at RD 0.00 or 100% reflectance? The 12% value is only valid when the highlight is at 100% reflectance. Jack Holm likes to use 128% reflectance for his highlight which brings the average reflectance up to 14%. While there are many situations that have highlights of 128% reflectance, the average log-H exposure only falls in the proper relationship to the speed point exposure with a 100% reflectance. This makes me believe that the 100% reflectance model is the correct theoretical average highlight point. All this only covers the physical world / camera image classification too. The other two categories of psychophysical / perceptual and camera calibration have their own set of conditions and variables.

 

This is one of the many reasons why no scientific paper has ever state categorically a specific value for middle gray.

Michael, I never accused anyone of flaming. I described above why I thought Steven was trolling. I suggested in another post that either Steven was trolling or he is Socrates reincarnated, and then I invited each person to decide for themselves. BTW, Steven is the person who first brought up the Socrates analogy when talking about his method of asking questions.

 

Trolling is not moral offense, and I think some are making way too much of this.

 

Probably the only objection some of us have is that it was not clear why Steven was asking the questions, since the overwhelming majority of people on this forum ask questions because they don�t know the answer. Also, some of his questions were more than a little argumentative.

<i>Within the last couple of days, by pure chance, I saw the unsupported assertion that the reason the eye has more difficulty in distinguishing between dark tones than light ones is flare. Clearly this is not the only factor -- I *think* the eye would have to use some sort of compression to understand the full brightness range of the world -- but I wondered if you had any further information on flare in the eye.</i>

<p>

This sounds interesting. It's also really complex stuff, the physical nature of the eye, and the way the brain interprets it. So there's no idea of the source? I've never even thought about flare in the eye, wow. I do know that the brain tends to expand flat scenes. This can be attributed to a defense mechanism. It's easier to see predators when there's more contrast.

<p>

I'm sure many photographers notice this when the good looking scene comes back as a flat lifeless image. But why does it compress? I know it compresses, but why? I don't think I have any books on this, and I'm not sure I want to go to the medical library at UCLA to find out.

<p>

<i>I *think* the eye would have to use some sort of compression to understand the full brightness range of the world</i>

<p>

That makes sense. I'm also wondering about the local adaptability of the eye (and I'm not sure I'm using the right term). The eye really never sees the full scene at any one time. Perhaps it just adjusts to the local contrast in the smaller patches of the scene. This could reduce the need to have to deal with scenes with high luminance ranges. Also, there's compression within an average range scene too. When Carl mentioned earlier in the thread that the gray scale isn't linear, I asked if he was referring to the Flechner Law (mentioning the Flechner Law is a definite tactic when feigning ignorance)? Maybe more answers can be found there.

"Whether Adams' had much influence at Kodak is questionable especially in 1948 when the cards were first available."

 

====================================

 

There's a pretty well known case in which, after hearing that Kodak planned to switch from 18% gray to 12% (for which most camera meters were already calibrated), Adams camped out in the offices until a Kodad representative finally assured him that no changes would be made. This occurred sometimes during the 1980s. Bob Shell told the story on his old website, which also provide a good source for explaining the basics of metering and why some myths are simply false.

"And he's the one that convinced a guy that knew someone that once worked for Kodak that he knew more about film than anyone since George Eastman and to make the grey card in his image.."

 

========================================

 

Good observation, Edward. It's inarguable that Adams used his brashness and ego to outtalk and overwrite those with whom he disagreed.

 

Photography, as a discipline, craft, art, commercial or hobbiest pursuit, is full of similar examples.

"Based on the thread you started concerning the Sunny 16 rule, I don't think you have enough understanding of photographic principles to understand these concepts, including the concept of middle gray."

 

=====================================

 

That dismissive tone is unneccessary, Mark. Stephen's credibity has been well documented in other threads.

 

I would suggest that if you dislike hegelian rhetoric then some of Stephen's threads are not your cup of coffee and perhaps not even your cafe.

Lex, last time I checked, Bob Shell is having some legal troubles and the website no longer has any archives. Do you have a copy of the article you mentioned? I still think the Adams story is an urban myth.

"I don't think I am the one who needs to be careful. I think that trolls are the ones who should be careful. If someone wants to pretend complete ignorance in their posts, they shouldn't be surprised if people think they are ignorant."

 

=================================

 

Mark, generally I find your posts to be a positive contribution to these forums. But this remark is uncalled for. It borders on personal attack and attempts to derail what has otherwise been a dispassionate, logically constructed debate.

Mark, I can only suggest that we all try to research, divine, intuit or otherwise grok the intention of a posted question before charging with bayonets fixed.

 

Whenever I read a provocative post from someone I don't know the first thing I'll do is read some of his/her previous posts to get a better idea of his/her rhetorical style, humor, etc.

Stephen, I don't know anything about Bob Shell's current condition or that of his website, <i>and I will delete any further discussion about him that is not directly confined to photographic matters</i>.<p>

 

As for the veracity of the story about Adams camping out in Kodak office and refusing to budge 'til they vowed to now change the 18% standard, I first read it on Bob's website. Having been an editor/publisher for many years, Bob had as much access as anyone to determine whether the story was true.<p>

 

Too bad the section on metering is no longer available. It provided excellent info for beginning to intermediate photographers, or for more experienced photographers just beginning to use handheld meters rather than TTL for the first time.<p>

<i>Steven said he regrets the way he asked the questions so as to confuse people about his intentions and his knowledge of photography.</i>

<p>

For the record, I regretted the approach because it caused problems. I never said anything about intentionally trying to confuse people. In fact, I said on multiple occasions the exact opposite. I don't think it is Lex who should read the posts more carefully.

<p>

Here is one of my posts.

<p>

___________________________________

<p>

D., Isn't 1.5/2 = .74 and an antilog of .74 is 18%? That would make 12% 1.86/2 = .93. The antilog of .93 is 12%.

<p>

<i>like I said the scales are not linear</i>

<p>

Are we talking about Flechner's Law here?

 

<p>

__________________________________

 

<p>

How can anyone reading this think I am feigning ignorance?

<p>

BTW, the Zone System is based on tone reproduction and sensitometric theory. Mark, how can you be interested in one, but not the other?

"Close examination of the text of his posts, and his own admissions, reveal that he was just trolling."

 

===================================

 

Mark, while you seem to know the textbook definition of the Socratic method, I'm not sure you undertand it in application. Like its peculiar ancestor, hegelianism, it is the very point of the nature of such leading questions to foster polite debate, encourage alternate philosophies, etc.

 

The fact that you simply dismiss this form as trolling does not make it so. And inappropriate accusations of trolling are themselves disruptive to the community.

 

Please either tighten up those reins and stick with the issues or I may have to put you in the stall for some cooling down.

Steven, I did not mean to suggest that you purposely tried to deceive people about your intentions or your knowledge of photography. I don�t recall my saying that. I did say that one needs to be careful to avoid such misunderstandings.

 

Likewise, I (and others) did not intentionally misjudge your understanding of photography. I took your naive questions at face value and really thought you did not understand these matters (to put it mildly). At first I tried to help, but later figured out that you had another reason for asking the questions.

 

This discussion is really getting out of hand.

Lex, as I have mentioned to Steven in a private email, I am quite familiar with the Socratic method, having read then entire works of Plato when I studied philosophy in college.

 

I did not say that such trolling was totally inappropriate, but in this case it was misunderstood as to what was intended, by myself and others.

 

I hope you will read all posts in both thread before commenting further, in order to avoid any additional confusion.

Hmmm... brain still foggy from flu...

 

That previous post should have read that hegelianism is the peculiar descendant of the Socratic method.

 

The ire aroused in some folks during this thread neatly demonstrates a microcosm of the reactions that occur in communities and nations when the political movements inspired by the Socratic or hegelian philosophies foment trouble.

 

Take, for example, an issue that occurred in a neighboring school district a few years ago. Teachers were prohibited from asking leading questions such as: "Well, what do *you* think about...", etc. Parents were afraid that chaos would ensue if their children were forced to exercise their tiny brains in any way other than within the confines of the lockstep cathedrals to conformity.

That's rather condescending, don't you think, Mark, to assert that I haven't read the entire thread before responding to specific statements made by various persons?

Steven, I would say your initial posts in both threads, particularly the Sunny 16 thread, qualifies as feigning ignorance. Of course this is strictly a matter of opinion, but I believe others besides myself were fooled by your questions.

 

Obviously, in your later posts, you stated that the questions were not asked because you personally wanted the answers, but were asked to start a discussion. And of course you later exhibited a very technical understanding of the subjects you mentioned. I was referring to the initial posts you made in both threads.

How can someone know enough to ask about Flechner's Law be considered ignorant? How is this question naive?

 

One more time Mark, show me some of your expertise and comment on my more technical posts. Adams said the Zone System was about sensitometry, you are interested in the Zone System, so you should therefore be interested in sensitometry. How about from a Zone System perspective?

Steven, I (and others) thought you were a newbie, or at least seriously confused (or ignorant if you prefer) based on the FIRST post in this thread and the Sunny 16 thread. Obviously we were mistaken, and you are very knowledgeable as you have documented in your later posts in these 2 threads.

Mark, I am going come out and absolutely accuse you of one thing, and that is not reading the posts very carefully. If this is all about hurt feelings then I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. Please reread the posts more carefully and you will see I wasn't calling you anything. I said that I need supporting information or I will have to consider the posted information dogma. Did I say you were dogma? Can a person even be dogma? A person can be dogmatic, but I didn't say that. Circular logic is like saying something is a rationalization. It is simply using the thing you are trying to prove as part of the proof (or something like that said better). A person can't be circular logic. Nor did I call you a stumbling block to rational thought. I said there are many mental processes that come with being human that can be a stumbling block to rational thought.

 

You can see when Lex said something similar, he mentioned the source. I also asked to see the source to prove it to myself. Just like I said to you. Next time if your feeling are hurt, please just tell the person you feel they are being inappropriate with their responses. Don't just lash out at them like a child.

 

Can we please get back to what I feel is a rather interesting insight into middle gray. I've mentioned the influence of flare. I've claimed that the physical characterzation of middle gray does not come directly from the subject but from the camera image. I've talked about how the film and paper characteristics can change how the original reflectance value and metered values are represented. I made a supposition that you need to place the highlight from an average luminance range at 100% reflectance. If these aren't issues for discussion, what are?

<i>based on the FIRST post in this thread</i>

<p>

The first post said I was writing an article. How many newbies write articles? I also said I had a theory and was only looking for a consensus.

<p>

<i>Steven asked some very naïve questions in this thread... The questions seemed to me (and others) to show a lack of understanding of basic photographic principles.</i>

<p>

This doesn't seem like you are only referring to the FIRST question. Mark, you keep changing your argument.