a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

The venerable Zone system puts middle gray in zone V (5) but it is part of a range that includes, usually, ten stops.

Even my Sony cameras (not high end) can record ten or more stops of dynamic range. The high-end Sonys, Nikons and Canons, maybe others, too, can do 13+ stops. So why limit myself to Zone 8? It has been observed here on UHH (Scotty and perhaps others) that Zone 8 is as high as we can go with our digital cameras. Isn't it limited to Zone 8 because we are starting too high?

I get that if I use only 3 or 3.3 stops below maximum as Zone 5 then Zone 8 is maximum. The question is why expose that high to begin with. Noise is one reason but I wonder if that is a good enough reason to limit DR where the scene has high DR.

To be TMI about it, a camera that is set for 3.0 stops below maximum is by definition set to record middle gray at 2048 (RawDigger) on a 14 bit sensor or a value of 99 out of 255 RGB and is theoretically assuming the world is 12.5% reflective.

Our digital cameras are set up to produce properly exposed JPG's with no editing at about 3.00 or 3.33 stops from maximum (12.5%), varying a bit with brand, model and perhaps even individual copies. But if we are shooting raw, why should we be confined to that design? Why should our raw files, which are intended for post-processing, be limited by what is feasible for SOOC JPG's?

(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Only reason is you want those SOOC JPEGs. You don't want the JPEGs then you're free to expose your raw files in whatever way suits you.

Joe

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

That's not a bad question. It seems somewhat arbitrary but it's what the three manufacturers I have tested (Nikon, Sony and Fuji) seem to aim for and others have found Canon to do the same. It's not something that you can explain from a theoretical viewpoint but a pragmatic approach including a good deal of testing reveals what the numbers tell us, but not why.

After some testing I documented the results in The Zone System and the Digital Image.

The bottom line is that the Zone System (nine steps of tonal range between pure black and pure shite) is designed around print zones. It does not perfectly align with luminance zones measured in stops.

User ID

You can reset the camera's response curve.
The default setting is no curve, just straight
at 45 degrees. I set mine for the longest toe
toe and shoulder possible. Acoarst my SOOC
jpegs look dull and flat but at least this gives
me as much tone to edit as is possible from
a jpeg, and the "snap-up, brighten-up" edit
takes less than a minute [unless I choose to
fuss with it even further].

Many of my cameras have special abilities
that are jpeg-only, so I've learned to make
the most versatile jpeg recordings possible
even tho they look rather dull SOOC :-)

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

I just go out and take photographs.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

The default camera JPEG processing is designed to handle the majority of scenarios and it does a pretty good job in most cases with little or no tweaking if you get the exposure right. This usually places middle gray where we expect to see it - close to JPEG 127 and in the middle of print Zone V. For most scenes there might also be no blown highlights with the brightest JPEG value comfortably below 255 and the highest raw value below about 8000 (for a 14-bit raw file).

There are a lot of things that you can do in the camera to alter that default processing. Fuji offers a long list of film simulations and most cameras let you adjust the response to scenes with high dynamic ranges. But this can still leave you with a JPEG that needs to be tweaked.

There is no better way to handle those occasional abnormal conditions than to do the raw conversion on your computer of a properly exposed (no blown highlights) raw file.

PS: A slip of the finger in my earlier post, "... between pure black and pure shite)" should have been, "... between pure black and pure white)".

BebuLamar

So how many stops the middle gray is from the minimum? Although you can have many stops before the minimum but noise would limit that. I use the 117 (rather than your 99) as the middle.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Note your "zones" might not be limited to only whole stops, exact multiples of two. Read Ansel Adam's books about the negative and the print both. Ten zones can be stretched or compressed.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

When it comes to numbers and mathematics I will be the first one to tell you that they are not for me. Come to think of it not even when I was a child i was a fan of arithmetic.

When Archer and Ansel Adams worked with the Zone System I am sure you know they were working with film, there were no digital cameras with their wide dynamic range and you are right, the majority of modern cameras are very capable of a 13 stops dynamic range. That is great I would say but, do we need that wide dynamic range for the highlights? My non intelligent answer is NO. After Zone 8 not even a digital camera does better than film and consider how sensitive digital sensors are to light. It is a fact that the exposure for digital cameras should consider an important bright area as a priority for the exposure since if we do not have the correct exposure for that specific area clipping of the highlits will take place that will result in a ruined photograph. So much for wide dynamic range with highlights.

From my "experiments" the Zone System works as nicely with digital as it did with film and as a matter of facts I incorporate it in my exposures almost automatically. Let me first say that I follow the rules and I ALWAYS meter for a bright subject placing its reflectivity around Zone 6 or VII depending on how bright it is. Never an issue. Others prefer, specially in low light to work with ETTR (exposing to the right) to obtain the most information from the subject. In that respect what I personally do is to make sure the color histogram looks good as per my experience.

As I am sure you know the meter to use for precise exposure when using the Zone System is the spot meter and I am sure you know as well that if the operator is not skilled enough using the spot meter it is completely useless.
I respect your curiosity but I prefer to spend my time photographing.

greenwork Loc: Southwest Florida

Thanks. Very interesting.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

You need to separate the concept of exposure zones from print zones.

There is a relationship but it's not exactly linear or directly proportional for film except in the middle zones and under carefully controlled development. Where Zones IV, V and VI might align with exposure zoned 4, 5 and 6 when the film is developed normally, than changes if you push or pull the development. And away from the mid-tones the film's characteristic curve usually spreads out and loses contrast. The curve resembles an elongated "S" and that's what it is called. On the other hand, digital has a response that is pretty much a straight line.

See Film vs. Digital Characteristic Curves where I explain why a digital image can suddenly blow out the highlights while film usually tapers off and simply loses contrast in the higher zones. It's the higher zones that Adams described as having: VIII Lightest tone with texture, IX Slight tone without texture and X Pure white (paper white) no tone or texture at all. Zones II, I and 0 have similar descriptions ending in pure black for Zone 0.

During film printing you can dodge and burn to shift things around and change the overall contrast of parts of the scene but you can't do much with the tone curve of the film and it's not easy to alter the local contrast of the paper unless it is variable contrast paper and you use different colors (from yellow to magenta) during dodging and burning.

During digital post-processing you can squeeze the entire range of tones together or spread them apart to change the overall contrast or you can bend the straight tone curve into a shape similar to the S-curve of film. And of course, you can do a whole lot more than that.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I tend to agree that, "Crank the knobs up and tune for minimum smoke with maximum poke" is a viable working strategy. (That was the engineer's joke at a radio station I worked for in the 1970s.)

The question presented here truly is valid for academics, engineers, and people who get off on the math of it all, but the answers are lost on most photographers.

That's okay, in both cases. Some want to optimize a process based upon empirical evidence, and others just want to find a method that works without a lot of worry. Pick yer piezin and drink it.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

That is what I was implying about read those two books by AA. Thanks for adding a bit of explanation to this thread.

Doyle Thomas Loc: Vancouver Washington ~ USA

I just go out and make Photographs.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Why is it that every darn time I start a thread that is the least bit technical there are always a few people who just have to put in their two cents saying, in effect, "who cares - just take pictures". My reaction to that is "who cares that you don't care?" Stop cluttering up the thread if you are not interested.

I don't care that you don't care. Go out and take pictures and stop playing with your computer.