Quote Originally Posted by Stephen Benskin View Post
Sorry, I spent around two hour writing a post and when I went to upload it, the site had logged me off and I lost 95% of it. All that survives is the bit of intro below. Not really in the mood to redo tonight.

For any speed or contrast methodology to be relevant, the psychophysical nature of the photography must be considered. This is what Jones did in with The First Excellent Print test. He established a criterion of excellence for the photographic image, and established the definition of exposure.

Jones concluded negative density is not a practical criteria for determining quality. Contrast is, or more accurately, film gradient. More specifically quality is determinant by the gradient of the toe in relation to the overall gradient of the film. This conclusion came after comparing various speeds methods with the test print judgement speeds under the greatest number of conditions with the greatest number of emulsions and degree of processing to determine the method that most accurately corresponded to the results from the prints judged to be excellent.
Thanks Stephen, I know how you felt... condensing all that knowledge is a great effort.

I agree... paper can show 1:100 contray. st, but scenes can have have much more, so the way those gradients are used to take the paper (or monitor) range is critical to get a natural image and depth...


Perhaps one key issue about shadow detail quality may be flare, I'm thinking that a 3 stops underexposed area may receive flare enough to decrease microcontrast. Perhaps film can record it, but the scene nature and lens flare can damage that shadow gradient quality.

I'll read about Jones, thanks !