Dave Montizambert looks at sensitivity testing
In my
early days of figuring out how to light and expose for digital capture, I
was faced with the 'chicken or the egg' quandary; how do you create perfect
lighting and exposure if you don’t know how your image is to be processed,
and how do you determine optimum processing if you don’t have lighting,
metering and exposure figured out? The crux of the matter is that both
lighting and processing affect image contrast and tonal range. With film it
was easy since the film companies had standardised film’s response to light
and chemistry for us, so part of the puzzle was already complete. But in
digital it was the 'Wild West' – anything goes and you are on your own
(which may sound negative, but I love it, I want all the control!). Anyhow,
after some heavy thinking and much heavy breathing, it occurred to me that
digital is not really that much different from film; to be a successful
film-shooter one needed to do film tests to figure out the correlation
between film, camera, meter and processing. With this in mind I transposed
what I learned from film into the digital world and found that I needed to
shoot a Shirley just like I did in the 'olden days' (see sidebar entitled
'Shirley').
2
Shirley: If you haven’t been in photography for too long you may be
asking yourself, who is Shirley and what has she done to photographers that
she deserves to be shot? Did she apply hairspray to her 'do' too near
someone’s lens or did she publicly declare that photography is not really
art? Well neither of these is actually the case, in fact, back in the old
days of film, an ISO or sensitivity test was referred to as a 'Shirley'. So
you see, a Shirley is more of a thing than a person and now you are probably
wondering what on earth Shirley has to do with testing sensitivity. Well
according to my lighting mentor, Dean Collins, unless he was pulling my leg,
which he often did, the name Shirley comes from the old days of film at
Kodak. One day a long time ago some of the technicians were setting up a
test and needed a flesh-tone and so they invited Shirley, the Kodak
receptionist from their department, to sit in for a few shots and so Shirley
became the Kodak ISO pin-up girl.
3
Finding the best exposure in the resulting images from this 'Shirley'
test allows one to find the true ISO or sensitivity of their film or
camera’s image sensor. Now you may well find that the sensitivity or ISO
settings on your digital SLR camera are spot on, most are, so why bother?
You should bother because in addition to checking to see if your camera ISO
settings are accurate, you will be able to match your handheld meter with
your camera and you will get a correctly exposed raw file from this Shirley
test. This correctly exposed image is required to determine your optimum
processing settings. Once these optimum settings are figured out, you save
them as a preset, that saved preset is your default processing algorithm –
now that you know how your images will be processed you can light to that
standard, thus solving the 'chicken or egg' quandary.
4
My Shirley or sensitivity test consists of photographing a greyscale and
a recognisable flesh-tone (see Image 01) – I like to use my wife Sylvianne
since I am very good at recognising her flesh. The greyscale I use is a 24
patch Macbeth Color Checker. Since these are fairly expensive (£42.50 ex VAT
www. colourconfience.com – Ed.), you could get away with using the Kodak
Separation Guide 21 density greyscale but the Macbeth card is manufactured
to a tighter tolerance level. For a white point instead of using the white
swatch on the Macbeth card or Kodak scale, I like to use a three-dimensional
white point. My three-dimensional white-point is a simple inexpensive idea
that a colleague of mine thought up. It is a small, rolled piece of clean,
white, seamless paper. The idea of a rolled, white, semi-matte surface is
that instead of it being flat like the grey scale white swatch, it has a
rounded surface; that rounded surface at some point will pick up a little
specularity, or in lay-person’s terminology, glare, from the main source of
illumination. That specularity or glare is going to mix with the paper,
brightening its whitepoint. This gives us more of a 'real-life' white point.
A white wedding dress is a perfect example of this; certain areas of that
dress that are on the correct angle to the light 2 source relative to camera
viewing angle, will catch some specularity. Since this is not a true
catch-light, most photographers would like to hold some detail in these hot
areas and so set this white-point to the brightest possible value in the
image capture without letting it burn-out (clip).
Having a flesh-tone in this test is not totally essential, however, it
provides another real-life check – we are all very in tune with flesh-tones.
In addition to my 'flesh-tone Sylvianne', I include a white blouse to give
us another three-dimensional representation of a real-life white, and a
black, woollen jacket, for a real-life black; both not unlike a bride’s gown
and a groom’s black tuxedo.
When shooting with strobe or flash I often include a flash-meter in the
shot, set to non-cord mode. This is not really necessary, however, it is a
great way to confirm that each shot taken has received the correct amount of
light, since strobe/flash heads can vary a little. Also I find that the
meter is really handy to attach my small Macbeth Checker Card to with
double-sided tape, and since this meter has a threaded hole on its back, I
fasten it to the top of a pivoting head from a light stand or tripod; this
makes it easy to get the best angle on the card (see Image 02).
By the way, all you really need for this test are three tones: white,
mid-grey, and black. So if you don’t have the budget for a grey-scale, then
substitute the grey scale with white seamless paper, a grey-card, and a
black jacket like a black tuxedo.
To set up lighting for this test set, I placed a softbox fairly close to
the subject, but not so close that it makes it hard to keep even lighting
across the subject and test targets (see Image 03). To keep things really
simple I do not add a fill light, whether you do or not will not make any
significant difference to the test results.
5
How the greyscale is angled is really important; it needs to be on such
an angle that it is not picking up any glare from the main-light source. The
question is, 'Where do you point the card?' The answer is, you need to aim
it half way between the camera and the light source (see Image 04). Now if
you want to impress your friends with how knowledgeable you are, refer to
this as 'Cosine Compensation'. Placing the card half way between the camera
and the light source is the optimum point. If I were to aim the card away
from the camera a little and more toward the light, glare would appear on
the card from the camera’s view. If I were to aim the card away from the
light source and more towards the camera, the more I pivot the card, the
darker it will become. So, the half way point between is the perfect
position for getting the maximum amount of light without glare; this ideal
positioning is the same for grey-cards as it is for grey-scales.
And so that is the set-up. This test can also be done outdoors, just
think, 'What is my light-source' and set up accordingly – aim the greyscale
card halfway between the lens and the sun (see Image 05 & 06). The next
article will continue with our Shirley test.