erichard wrote:
I have a question. I haven\'t kept up with this forum, but has anyone challenged the principle assumption of using a white towel each and every time? The lecture seems to rely heavily on this white towel, but in a huge percentage of scenes, there are no whites reflecting nearly as much light as that very white towel...So while your luminance curve may look great with the towel in the photo, it seems to me, it won\'t necessarily look so great if you take the towel out, at the same exposure (data will end prematurely before hitting the whitest whites). It might, but many times it probably won\'t. So aren\'t you often leaving a significant degree of dynamic range on the table with this towel technique?
cgardner wrote:
The White Towel thing is consistently trolled and mocked but never challenged on it\'s technical merit or proven not to work.
It has it\'s genesis back when I was doing Zone System B&W. Adams, who was both craftsperson and artist always strived for a full range of detail in his photos similar to what might be seen as someone in person scanned and their pupils adjusted to highlight and shadow. Then once one managed the technical side so the photo fools the viewer\'s brain that a 2D reproduction is real you put something interesting in the photo.
If you\'re basing the white towel on the Zone System, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Zone System.
One of the tenets of the ZS is to measure the dynamic range of reflected light. You then make a determination of how this compares to the dynamic range possible on a print if you exposed a particular film stock (eg Super XX) normally and processed it normally. Sometimes the dynamic range of the scene is too great to fit and sometimes the dynamic range of the reflected light is only a couple of stops [zones] between the darkest and the lightest. If the dynamic range is too great we can compress the range with exposure and development techniques, including water batch and mixing up custom formulas (D-23). If the range is short, we can expand it, again using exposure and development methods.
Imagine a bank of ferns under soft, overcast light. The scene is mainly dark greens and medium dark greens. The exposure I would select, either shooting film or digital, would be very different from the exposure that would be indicated using an incident light reading. I would \"expose to the right\", especially in digital, then adjust accordingly in post processing (development or Photoshop). If I introduced a white towel as a reference and adjusted exposure to prevent clipping, I would shove the actual data the comprises the subject down to the left, not taking advantage of the full dynamic range of the sensor. By so doing, I\'d probably lose some shadow detail.
The criticism of the white towel is not criticism of the technique, which may be useful in certain circumstances. The criticism is the relentless promotion of the technique as a cure-all, especially when there is some lack of understanding of how and when the technique can be used appropriately.
erichard wrote:
I have a question. I haven\'t kept up with this forum, but has anyone challenged the principle assumption of using a white towel each and every time? The lecture seems to rely heavily on this white towel, but in a huge percentage of scenes, there are no whites reflecting nearly as much light as that very white towel...So while your luminance curve may look great with the towel in the photo, it seems to me, it won\'t necessarily look so great if you take the towel out, at the same exposure (data will end prematurely before hitting the whitest whites). It might, but many times it probably won\'t. So aren\'t you often leaving a significant degree of dynamic range on the table with this towel technique?
cgardner wrote:
The White Towel thing is consistently trolled and mocked but never challenged on it\'s technical merit or proven not to work.
It has it\'s genesis back when I was doing Zone System B&W. Adams, who was both craftsperson and artist always strived for a full range of detail in his photos similar to what might be seen as someone in person scanned and their pupils adjusted to highlight and shadow. Then once one managed the technical side so the photo fools the viewer\'s brain that a 2D reproduction is real you put something interesting in the photo.
If you\'re basing the white towel on the Zone System, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Zone System.
One of the tenets of the ZS is to measure the dynamic range of reflected light. You then make a determination of how this compares to the dynamic range possible on a print if you exposed a particular film stock (eg Super XX) normally and processed it normally. Sometimes the dynamic range of the scene is too great to fit and sometimes it the dynamic range of the reflected light is only a couple of stops [zones] between the darkest and the lightest. If the dynamic range is too great we can compress the range with exposure and development techniques, including water batch and mixing up custom formulas (D-23). If the range is short, we can expand it, again using exposure and development methods.
Imagine a bank of ferns under soft, overcast light. The scene is mainly dark greens and medium dark greens. The exposure I would select, either shooting film or digital, would be very different from the exposure that would be indicated using an incident light reading. I would \"expose to the right\", especially in digital, then adjust accordingly in post processing (development or Photoshop). If I introduced a white towel as a reference and adjusted exposure to prevent clipping, I would shove the actual data the comprises the subject down to the left, not taking advantage of the full dynamic range of the sensor. By so doing, I\'d probably lose some shadow detail.
The criticism of the white towel is not criticism of the technique, which may be useful in certain circumstances. The criticism is the relentless promotion of the technique as a cure-all, especially when there is some lack of understanding of how and when the technique can be used appropriately.
erichard wrote:
I have a question. I haven\'t kept up with this forum, but has anyone challenged the principle assumption of using a white towel each and every time? The lecture seems to rely heavily on this white towel, but in a huge percentage of scenes, there are no whites reflecting nearly as much light as that very white towel...So while your luminance curve may look great with the towel in the photo, it seems to me, it won\'t necessarily look so great if you take the towel out, at the same exposure (data will end prematurely before hitting the whitest whites). It might, but many times it probably won\'t. So aren\'t you often leaving a significant degree of dynamic range on the table with this towel technique?
cgardner wrote:
The White Towel thing is consistently trolled and mocked but never challenged on it\'s technical merit or proven not to work.
It has it\'s genesis back when I was doing Zone System B&W. Adams, who was both craftsperson and artist always strived for a full range of detail in his photos similar to what might be seen as someone in person scanned and their pupils adjusted to highlight and shadow. Then once one managed the technical side so the photo fools the viewer\'s brain that a 2D reproduction is real you put something interesting in the photo.
If you\'re basing the white towel on the Zone System, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the Zone System.
I was first introduced to the Zone System at Art Center College of Design, where Ansel Adams was teaching when he and Fred Archer codified it. We were taught the Zone System and were given assignments to show we could apply the principles. I have used the Zone System both in my personal photography and when I was a professional commercial photographer.
One of the tenets of the ZS is to measure the dynamic range of reflected light. You then make a determination of how this compares to the dynamic range possible on a print if you exposed a particular film stock (eg Super XX) normally and processed it normally. Sometimes the dynamic range of the scene is too great to fit and sometimes it the dynamic range of the reflected light is only a couple of stops [zones] between the darkest and the lightest. If the dynamic range is too great we can compress the range with exposure and development techniques, including water batch and mixing up custom formulas (D-23). If the range is short, we can expand it, again using exposure and development methods.
Imagine a bank of ferns under soft, overcast light. The scene is mainly dark greens and medium dark greens. The exposure I would select, either shooting film or digital, would be very different from the exposure that would be indicated using an incident light reading. I would \"expose to the right\", especially in digital, then adjust accordingly in post processing (development or Photoshop). If I introduced a white towel as a reference and adjusted exposure to prevent clipping, I would shove the actual data the comprises the subject down to the left, not taking advantage of the full dynamic range of the sensor. By so doing, I\'d probably lose some shadow detail.
The criticism of the white towel is not criticism of the technique, which may be useful in certain circumstances. The criticism is the relentless promotion of the technique as a cure-all, especially when there is some lack of understanding of how and when the technique can be used appropriately.
Jan 21, 2012 at 09:56 AM
Previous versions of dmacmillan's message #10267103 « Strobist »
