Is film still superior than digital for clarity / depth of colour?

[simon_crofts]

<p>Sorry Tom, posted my response before I saw your p.s.</p>

[tom_mann1]

<p>They are certainly bright, but, except for the couple of small areas that are indeed in the 253-255+ range, you can still extract a lot of info from the range of say, 245 to 252 and convert it to an acceptable overall look for the cloud. This is, of course, not intended to detract from your argument about the necessity for proper exposure, just to point out that he's closer to that goal than one might think.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Tom</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>Or one could always paste in bits from a different sky! Then the blocked up woods and water would need rescuing. And the texture of the mid tones...</p>

<p>Ultimately one could construct something that might look usable. Given access to the original RAW file, a lot could probably be done.</p>

<p>But you still wouldn't want to put it alongside a large format Adams print...</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>Hmm, I see as this bickering goes on that it is yet again time to trot out what Ansel Adams himself had to say about electronic imaging, just before the Macintosh came out:</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I give full credit to the excellent scientists and technicians involved in the photographic industry. The research, development, and design aspects, as well as production, are extraordinary. However, very few photographic manufacturing technicians comprehend photography as an art form, or understand the kinds of equipment the creative person requires. The standards are improving in some areas, however: in my opinion modern lenses approach the highest possible levels of perfection, and today's negative and printing materials are superior to anything I have known and used in the past. I am sure the next step will be the electronic image, and I hope I shall live to see it. I trust that the creative eye will continue to function, whatever technological innovations may develop.<br>

<br /><br />Ansel Adams, 1983 <em>Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs</em>. Little, Brown and Company. p.59</p>

</blockquote>

[simon_crofts]

<p>I didn't see any bickering, just discussion. And yes, Ansel Adams would no doubt have used digital tools if they'd been available to him. I don't think anyone is disagreeing.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>p.s. not that it matters what Ansel Adams would have used if he worked today. Why should we care? He doesn't live and work today, and even if he did, there's no reason why we should want to do whatever he would do. Copying is a bankrupt enterprise, and there are better photographers around than Adams anyway.</p>

<p>What matters is what we want to do, not what he would have done.</p>

<p>But all that doesn't mean that we can't learn anything from trying to understand how Adams worked, how he thought, what we can learn from him. If you haven't understood his theories, then you haven't understood the basis of photography and image processing.</p>

 

[richardsperry]

<p>Simon, that is not the original. That is a very edited pic, per the experiment I posted earlier. The actual jpeg is posted back a page or two. The main problem I have with the image is that there is horrible noise in the blue. You can see the results of that in Tom's re-sampled jpeg in the sky and clouds. Secondary issues are that there is some kind of chromatic aberration on the needles of the trees. And for some reason, the sensor turns cold things blue, or when the camera is cold. In the NEF, the snow at the foreground is notably blue in color, in the JPEG made at the same time, the snow is much whiter.</p>

<p>Tom, correct, there are a few pixels in the clouds which are 255 or 0. Just a cursory sampling, I could not find any black, 0, pixels. And many of those are because of the resampling to black and white from color; in which there was <em>some</em> data, say 0,1,0 for example which got converted to 0,0,0.</p>

<p>Scott, I would too use HDR techniques to improve the image. I wanted only to use PS tools which have an analogue or equivalent in darkroom techniques that I know of, per the post to Dan back a few pages. I did use the healing tool to remove the twigs on the left, and to move some cloud around, though because they were distracting. I also bent the trees upright, what one might do with a tilt shift camera. And there is a dust mote spot up in the upper left hand sky, I blotted that out with healing brush.</p>

<p>Still, Simon, the hypothetical(albeit real) question remains. When you have a <strong>perfect</strong> negative with no Zone 0 or Zone 10 on it. But with lots of exposure close to both ends on the negative. How do you put that onto your paper without photoshopping at the printing process? Can you suggest some Supapaper that is as responsive as film, for example? Where no manipulation from negative to film is necessary, just straight exposure.</p>

<p>I am going to forego the 20 or 12 Zone question. It is intuitive that if the white car's shadowed tires are in Zone 1, and the car's paint is zone 9, that the blazing reflection of the sun off the chrome is way off the range of either paper or digital. And will assume that there is no other answer than to make the white car grey in either case.</p>

<p> </p>

[richardsperry]

<blockquote>

<p>Hmm, I see as this bickering goes on that it is yet again</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, I don't think it's bickering(even though it may appear so). I have very little experience and less knowledge. Simon has much more experience and knowledge.</p>

<p>His posts and points are not clear to me. I am asking for clarification, for what he is saying does not make sense to me. If he wants to share his knowledge and experience, I respect that. If he blows me off, that's fine too. I am not paying him to school me, he has no obligation to do that.</p>

<p>I obviously don't understand the Zone System the way that he does. If someone says something is some kind of panacea, I will raise my hand and question why. When my experience and knowledge is in dissonance with what is being stated. I don't know how you can shove 256 bits of information, 256 shades of tone, of a single channel, into 10 Zones; I have stated that several times in this thread. If Simon wants to explain it, I will read it. Zone 0 is pixel byte 0, Zone 10 is pixel byte 255; there is a lot of extra information in the middle of that.</p>

[richardsperry]

<blockquote>

<p>just to point out that he's closer to that goal than one might think.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think it is entirely permissible to have black pixels, 0,0,0, and complete white pixels 255,255,255 in an image. There are many scenes where pure black and pure white are present. I would like to have most of the information inbetween that, of course. Considering the actual percentage of 0, or 255 pixels, which are very very small, I am satisfied that most of the clouds are not in Zone 10, and most of the shadows are not actually in Zone 0; just very very close.</p>

<p>I am presently not sold on the idea that black and white can not be present in the same image or print; I know they exist, I can see them. And some artificial behavioral aesthetic should not prevent them from being captured or printed. If a highly saturated color film, say a Velvia or Provia(Nat Geo films) can capture color which is not really present in the scene, and be permitted, yet capturing real black with real white is not...something is askew.</p>

<p>Having black or white pixels in an image is not a block for me. What my block on this photo is, that I don't like the composition. There is water cut off on either sides down at the bottom. There is little contrast between the face of El Cap and the clouds and sky in the middle. And those trees have little contrast between them and the rock face behind them. And the trees are too tall.</p>

<p>And the immensity and height of El Cap is not captured, I have not seen any image which has simulated that; that awe. I suppose that is only available by being present, by being forced to extend one's neck and gaze upward in a sweeping motion; some kind of muscle memory not present in a 2D image.</p>

<p>I like the black trees to the side, the white ones in the middle left, and the middle tone trees in the front. I like the blackened water, which had to be darkened more to match the reflection of the artificially darkened sky.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard,</p>

<p>Get the 256 out of your head. You only have 256 shades of grey in an 8 bit jpeg, your RAW files contain many more, a 12 bit capture has over 8,000. That is one of the reasons LightRoom gives a % value to a pixel rather than a numerical one between 0-255.</p>

<p>The Zone System does not have 10 zones, it has 11, 0-10 inclusive, though Adams recognised zones XI and XII, with the technology of the time he accepted that using them was impractical. Each zone is one stop different, so each zone is twice as light (or dark) as the next.</p>

<p>But to answer your question. To get 256 shades into 11 zones. divide a ramp of your 256 shades into 11, make the first black, the last white, then where ever your remaining 254 numbers come within those remaining 9 zones are the zone they live in.</p>

 

[simon_crofts]

<p>Richard, the snow in the foreground is blue because it's lit partly by the blue sky above. Snow in the shadow always goes blue, nothing wrong with the sensor there.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know how you can shove 256 bits of information, 256 shades of tone, of a single channel, into 10 Zones</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't quite understand the question here. Do you mean how to fit 10 zones into 256 shades of tone?</p>

<p>There's nothing to say that a scene will have ten zones in it. Ten zones was taken as a baseline of the possibilities because typically b&w negative film had the capability to record around ten stops of dynamic range (including absolute white and absolute black). So each zone represents one stop.</p>

<p>So when looking at a scene, you could potentially choose how to record up to around ten stops. A piece of photographic paper has much less potential dynamic range than that, from whitest white to blackest black. I can't remember of the top of my head how much, but you can measure with a spot meter - I think it's around 3 and a half stops. The Zone System, is about how to record the amount of dynamic range in the original scene (you can choose up to 10 stops recordable - if the scene is more contrasty of that, you have to make a choice to sacrifice some highlights or some shadows, though as I mentioned earlier, there are ways of extending slightly the capabilities of film).</p>

<p>If there are only 5 stops contrast in the original scene, and you record and process the film as you would for the high contrast 10 stop scene, you'll only be using half the recording capabilities of the negative. In other words, you will end up with a negative very 'flat' in contrast. You can compensate for that by using higher contrast in printing, but the quality is nothing like as good as if you photograph the scene and develop to record a negative with good contrast, and print from that. This is how Adams got such superb quality - by matching the contrast and exposure of the negative to the original scene, so that highlights recorded on the 'shoulder' of the negative, and ditto shadows.</p>

<p>You then carry this contrast through to the print, so that the highlights in the negative match the highlights in the paper etc. By the time they've reached paper, because the paper is much lower contrast, your Zones don't represent stops of contrast on paper any more. You can do all your dodging and burning etc. at that point, but you are working from a negative that has all the quality available in it and good contrast (not too flat, not too contrasty).</p>

<p>So you choose your Zone 8 or 9 highlights in the scene, put those at the optimal part of the negative, and carry them through to subtle highlights in the print.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean you can't manipulate the print, just means you have good material to manipulate from.</p>

<p>So, taking your picture, Adams would probably have chosen to record the clouds around Zone 9 or 8, as the highlights. In your jpeg, they're Zone X ie. burnt out.</p>

<p>Using colour film, or digital camera, you can only record up to around 7 stops - 8 zones, so you would have to adapt the zone system if you wanted to use it.</p>

<p>The point is about choosing which tone you would like each zone in the scene to record that, and how to carry it through to the RAW file, then the TIFF/JPEG, and finally the limited dynamic range of the print. It doesn't mean you can't manipulate tones along the way or use filters. What it does mean is making sure that you capture all the information you need to do the manipulation, and use all the possibilities of contrast in the final print (or screen, lightbox, projector, etc. etc.)</p>

[richardsperry]

How do you edit those extra bits in PS, Scott?

 

Am I missing the 1024, 1024, 1024 bit mapping in my version of PS?

 

I just upgraded from CS3 to CS5, and LR2 to LR3. I haven't found them yet.

[andylynn]

<p>In Photoshop, work in 16 bit per channel. In Lightroom, don't worry about it, it's processing from the raw file as needed so you don't need to go 16-bit until you export a file. Scott is correct - a digital camera raw file can contain much more tone information than a conventional JPG file, which can be used to mitigate quality loss when processing - not unlike printing methods that you might use to manipulate what part of the film's - well, you guys already know this.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Scott, when I bring my NEF into PS, it is defaulted at 8 bits(though shot at 12).</p>

<p>I can convert it to 16 or 32, but I get no more shades of grey than with 8 bit. Whats up with that?</p>

<p>Andy, just saw your post. How do I get that extra byte of info to work with at 16? My palette is still stuck at 256 per color, 8 bit.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard, not content with opening one huge can of worms you have now moved over to another :-).</p>

<p>Effectively PS is giving you a 256 zone system, LightRoom is giving you a 101 zone system, but you have the ability, via curves, to move any pixel value within a zone into any other zone. Remember the zones (apart from the first and last) each contain many shades, you can stretch a zone to give you greater control over the tones contained within it, or compress a zone that holds little information, this gives you a huge amount of power, far more than you seem to think.</p>

<p>If you open a file in Camera RAW rather than PS on the bottom it has the colour space and bit depth it has opened it in. If you click on it it gives you an option box, select a wide colour space, Adobe RGB (for instance) and 16 bit, you will then have a lot more tonality to work with.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Like this.</p>

<p>It is important to remember that PS can not open RAW files natively. You must open RAW files in Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) and to realise your cameras potential you need to work in a space and bit depth at least as wide as your cameras output.</p><div></div>

[richardsperry]

<p>Simon,</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So, taking your picture, Adams would probably have chosen to record the clouds around Zone 9 or 8, as the highlights. In your jpeg, they're Zone X ie. burnt out.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So if the 256 is divided equally into 11 zones. That gives us about 23 pixel shades per zone. That would put us at about 210 for the white clouds, give or take at Zone 8.</p>

<div></div>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Richard, that does not mean your clouds will be that shade, it means that on the negative they will be contained within that zone, this allows for detail to still be resolved from them when printed onto paper. He could have chosen to expose the paper to take that detail up the the top of zone VIII or into zone IX, that is the point, exposing and developing the film to retain detail in the important zones for the print.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Scott,</p>

<p>When I open a NEF in PS, it pulls up a import screen called Capture Raw 6.0 D300(similar to yours). But I don't get an import bit depth screen like you have posted. I don't know where your "Workflow Options" screen came from.</p>

<p>I am missing something that you have, obviously.</p>

[simon_crofts]

<p>You can decide where you want Zone 8 to appear, whether you want it to be around 210 Photoshop, or 220, or 240. It depends what effect you want to produce.</p>

<p>The point about Zone 8 or Zone 9 is that, in a system where you are able to record around 9 stops of tonal range in the negative - Zone 8 or 9 is where you are getting highlights that are just recording delicate detail in the negative. How you want to take that delicate detail forward and record it in the print (or what value you want to give it in Photoshop) is entirely up to you. You could make it a mid-grey if you wanted to.</p>

<p>If you wanted to develop your own Zone system for digital RAW, you'd probably use something like an 8 Zone system rather than a 10+ zone system, where Zone 8 was pure white and Zone 0 was total black, since digital cameras might typically record around 7 stops in RAW.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>At the bottom of the ACR box, in blue, it will say "sRGB ---------- 8bit--pixel dimensions in numbers--(total MP)---240ppi" Put your mouse on it and click, the dialogue box will open.</p>

[richardsperry]

<p>Thanks Scott.</p>

<p>That worked.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

The Zone system is based on one full stop between zones. That does not mean there are only ten zones or tones on the image. One can and does have a zone 5-1/2 between zones 5 and 6 on an image. One could make up a 20 zone system based on 1/2 stops or a 256 zone system based on, er, a whole bunch of fractional stops.

[AlanKlein]

<p>I want to get back to the OP question. <em>Is film still superior than digital for clarity / depth of colour?</em><br>

The question I have that may be related to this has to do with movie film photography. Cinematographers use film rather than digital to "film" their Hollywood movies. There is something very different about the look of both mediums. Film seems to have a richer depth to it while digital has a "soap opera" live camera look. Most people can see the difference immediately. How much of the difference has to do with the discussion here? What knowledge can you pass on?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>"Most people can see the difference immediately"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That simply isn't true. When I go to the movies I don't have the faintest idea if it was shot on film or native digital, or if it being projected from film or digital. I doubt if 1% of viewers could tell you.</p>

<p>What I do know is that one of the reasons film movies are so expensive to make (when film is used) is because every single frame is digitised, graded, colour corrected and manipulated, before it is then printed off to projection copies, either film or digital.</p>

<p>Further, don't forget, in movie cameras 35mm film is used sideways (to us still camera film users) and carries a soundtrack, this gives the commonest picture area as 22mm x 16mm. It is not difficult to out shoot that frame size, from an image quality point of view, with digital captures with a larger sensor. Besides cameras like the Red series are making huge gains in the movie industry.</p>

<p>Recent big movies shot entirely on digital? Pirates Of The Caribbean 4, The Hobbit, The Social Network, Inside Job etc etc...........</p>

<p> </p>