Re: Step Wedge

From: Martin Angerman ^lt;>
Date: 11/10/04-11:22:10 PM Z
Message-id: <001c01c4c7af$b2516720$>

I kind of like a combination. Using a step wedge can give a "quantifiable"
representation of the film characteristics. A well known "real life"
subject can give the "emotional" representation. I recall seeing an example
where someone had a standard test diorama for film testing. I don't do
enough film testing to invest in another piece of clutter in my life, or I
would make one of my own. Eventually, one can read the step wedge, and get
a feel for its relation to real life.

The step wedge doesn't have to represent reality, just reliably predict it.
Kind of like exit poling before a national election :-o

Martin Angerman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Step Wedge

> Etienne wrote:
> >
> >Precisely because flare renders curves determined in a no-flare
> >meaningless in real life, one needs to test film in the camera, exposing
> >through the lens, in order to have any real idea what tonal values you
> >going to get in the shadows when you expose film in the real world.
> And there is the crux. We determine to test either, a) the material,
> or b) the material given certain parameters, i.e. "in real life."
> But, since "in reality" there is no "real life", other than multiple
> options from which we choose *one*, "what do we test?
> Testing film in the camera seem intuitively correct, and it works
> reasonably well in practice, but for comparing EFS and CI with
> different films this method is for all practical purposes useless.
> Sandy
Received on Wed Nov 10 23:37:02 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 12/08/04-10:51:32 AM Z CST