Fred Picker's "Maximum Printable Negative' Implications

[JimAscher]

When I switched earlier this year (2010) from film and darkroom photography to digital photography, in addition to giving away all my darkroom equipment, I also gave away my full collection of the late Fred Picker's Zone VI newsletters and instructional videos.  So what I'm about to summarize is based entirely on memory.

Fred's modification of Ansel Adams' Zone metering concepts was based on something of a simplification, but I thought very pertinent and effective.  Rather than trying to establish certain zone values for a scene, you should instead strive merely(!) to capture what Fred termed (as I recall it) the "Maximum Printable Negative.'  That is (obviously) to produce a negative with as full a range of light values from a chosen scene that the limitations of your film would permit.  In Fred's view, as I understood it, you don't need to strive to have your negative represent your final aesthetic intent, but rather have the negative contain the maximum information possible to achieve that aesthetic intent in the DARKROOM. 

Now, as I see it, the corollary to this for a digital photographer and processor is to similarly achieve a digital capture in the RAW form of a "maximum printable negative.'  Then, through a RAW exposure adjustment (and any other adjustment) in the processing software, the photographer's aesthetic intent can better be realized.  For most of forum members reading this, the most logical comment will be "Duh!"  It IS rather obvious.  So, I guess what I'm saying is that, for those photographers (other than point-and-shooters), who employ post-processing software, establish with your camera the broadest range of exposure you can and deal with aesthetic tonality later, in the comfort of your PC.   

   

[fdisilvestro]

In digital terms, use base ISO, or don´t go above an ISO where you start loosing DR, and ETTR (without blowing any channel)

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes,

That's it! Perfect!

Best Regards
Erik

In digital terms, use base ISO, or don´t go above an ISO where you start loosing DR, and ETTR (without blowing any channel)

[JimAscher]

In digital terms, use base ISO, or don´t go above an ISO where you start loosing DR, and ETTR (without blowing any channel)

Francisco (and Erik):  In its succinctness your response is like the tip of an iceberg.  The volume under the surface is massive, and hides from view the wealth of discussion (controversy) regarding ETTR over recent years (including in this forum).  On its face (switching metaphors) your response does provide the possible means to a digital equivalent of Picker's "Maximum Printable Negative."  It might be regarded by some as verging on the trite, glib and truistic (although I, for one, would not employ those terms), if not for the fact of your inserted qualifiers which would seem to counter most of the ETTR opposition.  Those qualifiers being the need to start with a base ISO, not losing DR and not blowing any channel through use of ETTR.  Who can really argue or find fault with that?  So, in my view, on balance, your response is a quite respectable answer -- but is it a valid solution?

With my admittedly limited technical understanding of all the objections that have been posted to the actual efficacy of ETTR, my pragmatic concern is regarding the inability within most digital cameras of attaining a viable histogram of the RAW image to enable ETTR to be successfully employed.  I have seen in related internet postings on this subject the diverse efforts and suggestions for various in-camera adjustments to make the histogram sufficiently "resemble" the RAW image as to make ETTR work.  It's possibly something like the convolutions the medieval church logicians went through to provide a demonstration of how the sun went around the earth, or that planets had circular orbits.

The question, and concern, for me therefore remains -- without a valid in-camera histogram of the RAW image, can the employment of ETTR be any more than only marginally effective, and really any usefully better than the camera's native exposure determining mechanism?         

[Schewe]

discussion (controversy) regarding ETTR over recent years (including in this forum).     

There is really no controversy, just misunderstanding...

If the scene contrast range is within the dynamic range of the sensor, you can reduce noise (and improve signal to noise ratio) in the shadows by ETTR. That is fact...not myth.

The "controversy" is born out of a lack of understanding of scene contrast, sensor dynamic range and how to meter for digital. Full sun-lite scenes are not really candidates for ETTR...overcast low-contrast scenes are.

It all depends on the scene...and what you want to get from it.

[JimAscher]

There is really no controversy, just misunderstanding...

If the scene contrast range is within the dynamic range of the sensor, you can reduce noise (and improve signal to noise ratio) in the shadows by ETTR. That is fact...not myth.

The "controversy" is born out of a lack of understanding of scene contrast, sensor dynamic range and how to meter for digital. Full sun-lite scenes are not really candidates for ETTR...overcast low-contrast scenes are.

It all depends on the scene...and what you want to get from it.

Yep, back to Fred Picker.  "(S)ensor dynamic range and how to meter for digital" is the direct equivalent of Fred's concern for the (limited) dynamic range of film and how best to meter for it.  If we cannot really trust the digital camera's metering and histogram depiction, one option is to go back to using an external exposure meter and manually increasing the exposure three f-stops from the metered gray (if I remember Fred's methodology correctly).

[Schewe]

Metering for film and digital are different. The first question is what is the scene contrast range? Is it less than the dynamic range of the sensor? If not, ETTR is not relevant. If the scene is less than the contrast range of the sensor then you do want ETTR unless you want to leave IQ on the table. How much ETTR? Depends on the scene...and yes, I suppose you COULD use an external meter...I would suggest a spot meter so you could meter the scene and determine the contrast range. Otherwise, doing a reflected meter reading and opening up 3 stops (which completely depends on your meter) would be less optimal that using your camera.

You seem hellbent on making this stuff a lot more difficult than it is. And you CAN tell a lot from the histogram on the LCD...you just can't see the entire raw histogram.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Jim, I'm familiar with Picker's book and still have the Zone VI workshop in my bookcase.  I also had the newsletters which were occasionally valuable.  I think Ansel Adams book on the negative was more valuable from my perspective than Picker's book.  The zone system works for film because of the properties of film with respect to light.  Jeff is correct that digital is different and you can't assume that what you did for film will translate equally.  Last spring when the big DR debate was going on here I did my own experiment.  I taped Jack Flesher's test print and my X-Rite passport to a piece of white matte board and did a whole series of test exposures.  It was done outside on a cloudless day so the illumination was constant.  No direct sunlight fell on the test board.  What this did allow me to do was correlate readings from the in camera meter (Nikon D300) and relate this to the histogram on the camera so that I could tell how good/bad it was.  Once the images were downloaded to Lightroom, you can look at the RAW histogram and compare these to the in camera histogram (as long as you didn't reformat the memory card!).  I found that there was a darn good correlation.  In addition I also had a series of exposures that allowed me to gauge the optimum ETTR (and ETTL ) that gives me the type of information needed to get the right exposure in the field.  Jeff is correct that a lot of it depends on the subject matter and light.  That being said, it's more straight forward than application of the Zone system with film.

Alan

[Schewe]

That being said, it's more straight forward than application of the Zone system with film.

What some people forget is that AA's Zone System depended upon not only metering and exposing the film, but also processing of the film to adjust the tone curve before printing on various paper contrasts. Changing the contrast of the file in development was far more difficult than dealing with post-processing in digital. There is no comparison...to try to convert any sort of zone system (notice the lowercase z) from film to digital is to ignore and misunderstand digital's fundamental difference...raw captures are essentially linear. That means the brightest stop of exposure in a digital capture contains 1/2 of ALL the levels the capture can contain. That is a fundamental disconnect from film...

You would be far better off to discard what you think you know and learn what you need to know regarding digital. Digital ain't film...and trying to apply film-based experience will lead you down the wrong path. Seriously...been there, got the tee-shirt, I don't need/want the scars!

[JimAscher]

Alan and Jeff:  Once again the two of you (both in combination and separately) have wafted some fresh reasonable insight (and reassurance) into a self-perceived dilemma of mine.  But if Jeff regards me as "hellbent," I shudder to think how he characterizes all those other guys out there who have rendered the issue so complicated (read "difficult") over the years as to leave my poor brain struggling for comprehension as I read their varied analyses.  Where's my Brownie when I need it?  Thanks, again, to both of you.  Jim

[Schewe]

... But if Jeff regards me as "hellbent," I shudder to think how he characterizes all those other guys out there who have rendered the issue so complicated (read "difficult") over the years ...

It's simple really...know the technology and bend it to your will. The bottom line is the final image-prolly in a print but not always...some people see the "process" as king. I don't...I see the "process" serving the needs of the creator with making the final image. The image is king, not the process. Other than the creator, who really cares about the process?

[Alan Goldhammer]

What some people forget is that AA's Zone System depended upon not only metering and exposing the film, but also processing of the film to adjust the tone curve before printing on various paper contrasts. Changing the contrast of the file in development was far more difficult than dealing with post-processing in digital. There is no comparison...to try to convert any sort of zone system (notice the lowercase z) from film to digital is to ignore and misunderstand digital's fundamental difference...raw captures are essentially linear. That means the brightest stop of exposure in a digital capture contains 1/2 of ALL the levels the capture can contain. That is a fundamental disconnect from film...

You would be far better off to discard what you think you know and learn what you need to know regarding digital. Digital ain't film...and trying to apply film-based experience will lead you down the wrong path. Seriously...been there, got the tee-shirt, I don't need/want the scars!

Absolutely correct on all counts.  I think we are in wild agreement here.

[JimAscher]

Absolutely correct on all counts.  I think we are in wild agreement here.

Wow!  "WILD" agreement.  Oh, you two.  Merry Christmas (I almost forgot).

[bill t.]

Zone Sytem survivor signing in here.  All I can add for the digital world is one word...BRACKET!  Files are free.  If 4x5 holders hadn't been so heavy I would have bracketed a lot more in the good old days and been better off for it.  You kids don't know how lucky you are.

Well now I can't stop.  Best analog for the zone system is some combination of Recovery and/or sliding the right hand part of the LR histogram around.  Don't mess with the dark stuff except maybe drag it on screen to correct overall exposure flubs.

Bottom line was that zone system contractions never really worked the way Ansel hoped, and you can see it in the form of the rather impoverished micro-contrast on many of the pieces where he used it.  The jazzy Adams images are mostly the ones with normal or expanded development.  The simple truth always was...don't block the bright areas, keep the highlights just off the shoulder, and oil the sliders on the drawer with all the burning and dodging gizmos.

Edit...and where was photo-realistic HDR when I needed it? Gawd I needed photo-realistic HDR so bad...

[Alan Goldhammer]

Zone Sytem survivor signing in here.  All I can add for the digital world is one word...BRACKET!  Files are free.  If 4x5 holders hadn't been so heavy I would have bracketed a lot more in the good old days and been better off for it.  You kids don't know how lucky you are.

Well now I can't stop.  Best analog for the zone system is some combination of Recovery and/or sliding the right hand part of the LR histogram around.  Don't mess with the dark stuff except maybe drag it on screen to correct overall exposure flubs.

Bill,
Not only is it easy to bracket, you have better control over shutter speed and aperture than with the older mechanical cameras.  I used to bracket all the time with my Nikormat but of course that was with 35mm film (I wanted to get a 4x5 field camera but never had the money and motivation to do so).  Now I can bracket not only with full stops but 1/3 stops and also program the camera to do it automatically.  I agree with your thinking about the LR histogram and working in digital is so much easier than 'wet' photography.  The one thing I do miss is the magic of seeing the image come up in the developer.

[fdisilvestro]

Once the images were downloaded to Lightroom, you can look at the RAW histogram and compare these to the in camera histogram (as long as you didn't reformat the memory card!). 

Just a comment. In Lightroom you don´t have a RAW Histogram. It is a histogram in ProPhotoRGB color space. You need a tool like Rawnalize to see the RAW histogram

[Nick Rains]

Not trying to be picky here, but in what sense is a  'genuine' raw histogram useful? Surely the data needs a defined space to give it context?

BTW in my photo courses I am starting to use the expression 'capture the data' rather than 'get the shot'. It makes more sense to me to try and capture as much high quality data as possible whilst out in the field and then worry about aesthetic considerations later. ETTR, and bracket if you need to. There is no such thing as a single correct exposure, merely differing qualities of data capture. Worry about the tones when you prepare a file for printing.

[JimAscher]

Not trying to be picky here, but in what sense is a  'genuine' raw histogram useful? Surely the data needs a defined space to give it context?

BTW in my photo courses I am starting to use the expression 'capture the data' rather than 'get the shot'. It makes more sense to me to try and capture as much high quality data as possible whilst out in the field and then worry about aesthetic considerations later. ETTR, and bracket if you need to. There is no such thing as a single correct exposure, merely differing qualities of data capture. Worry about the tones when you prepare a file for printing.

Isn't this somewhat the Fred Picker concept and intent I started out with in this thread?  Have we perhaps come full circle?

[Nick Rains]

Yes, exactly. I think the concept is sound.

[Schewe]

Have we perhaps come full circle?

Then what was the reason for the OP?

Fact is, the vast body of knowledge regarding chem based photography is now no longer really directly useful. This is a new paradigm which while having a passing relationship to previous analog technology is more likely to lead a user astray...

Yeah, I know, it's "comfortable" to try to cling to the past...but it is past.

Too bad the guys we're talking about didn't live long enough to see that has now been wrought...I'm sure they would be tickled at the prospect of more easily creating rich imagery.

But at what point do you quit talking about "process" and start making images?

If ya got the time to dwell on the light or timing of the capture, great...do so. If, on the other hand you have fractions of seconds in order to capture the image, the odds of getting a usable capture are MUCH better if you actually click the shutter–as apposed to fiddling with the dials. And yes, you can fix a ton of stuff in post...