Abstract

Further study is made of the statistical correlation between the density scales of negatives and the sensitometric exposure scales of photographic papers. A formula relating these two variables is proposed, for use as a guide in photographic printing, whereby the density scale of the negative can be used as a means of choosing the grade of paper to be used in making the print. The suggestions of Sanders regarding statistical methods of analyzing the data are discussed. The term useful exposure scale is abandoned and the terms sensitometric exposure scale and transition point index are proposed. It is suggested that the sensitometric exposure scale be adopted as the basis for grading photographic papers and that the new numbers be called scale indices. Reasons are given why the contrast of photographic paper is not suitable as a basis for deriving grade numbers. For specifying the shapes of the D−logE curves of photographic papers, the method proposed by Morrison is recommended. Data are presented on the frequency of occurrence of the various density scales of amateur negatives.

© 1948 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. L. A. Jones and C. N. Nelson, “The control of photographic printing by measured characteristics of the negative,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 32, 558 (1942).
    [Crossref]
  2. American Standard for Sensitometry of Photographic Papers (American Standards Association, New York, 1947), Z38, 2.3.
  3. T. D. Sanders, “The relation between the density scale of negatives and the exposure scale of papers,” Phot. J. 87B, 13 (1947).
  4. L. A. Jones and H. R. Condit, “The brightness scale of exterior scenes and the computation of correct photographic exposure,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31, 651 (1941).
    [Crossref]
  5. L. A. Jones, “The contrast of photographic papers,” J. Frank. Inst. 202, 177, 469, 589 (1926); J. Frank. Inst. 203, 111 (1927); J. Frank. Inst. 204, 41 (1927).
    [Crossref]
  6. L. A. Jones and C. A. Morrison, “Sensitometry of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 228, 445 (1939).
    [Crossref]
  7. C. A. Morrison, “An objective method of specification for sensitometric curves of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 243, 55 (1947).
    [Crossref]
  8. C. M. Tuttle, “Photoelectric photometry in the printing of amateur negatives,” J. Franklin Inst. 224, 315 (1937).
    [Crossref]
  9. E. W. H. Selwyn, “Note on the use of probability paper,” Proc. Phys. Soc. 50, 914 (1938).
    [Crossref]

1947 (2)

T. D. Sanders, “The relation between the density scale of negatives and the exposure scale of papers,” Phot. J. 87B, 13 (1947).

C. A. Morrison, “An objective method of specification for sensitometric curves of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 243, 55 (1947).
[Crossref]

1942 (1)

1941 (1)

1939 (1)

L. A. Jones and C. A. Morrison, “Sensitometry of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 228, 445 (1939).
[Crossref]

1938 (1)

E. W. H. Selwyn, “Note on the use of probability paper,” Proc. Phys. Soc. 50, 914 (1938).
[Crossref]

1937 (1)

C. M. Tuttle, “Photoelectric photometry in the printing of amateur negatives,” J. Franklin Inst. 224, 315 (1937).
[Crossref]

1926 (1)

L. A. Jones, “The contrast of photographic papers,” J. Frank. Inst. 202, 177, 469, 589 (1926); J. Frank. Inst. 203, 111 (1927); J. Frank. Inst. 204, 41 (1927).
[Crossref]

Condit, H. R.

Jones, L. A.

L. A. Jones and C. N. Nelson, “The control of photographic printing by measured characteristics of the negative,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 32, 558 (1942).
[Crossref]

L. A. Jones and H. R. Condit, “The brightness scale of exterior scenes and the computation of correct photographic exposure,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 31, 651 (1941).
[Crossref]

L. A. Jones and C. A. Morrison, “Sensitometry of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 228, 445 (1939).
[Crossref]

L. A. Jones, “The contrast of photographic papers,” J. Frank. Inst. 202, 177, 469, 589 (1926); J. Frank. Inst. 203, 111 (1927); J. Frank. Inst. 204, 41 (1927).
[Crossref]

Morrison, C. A.

C. A. Morrison, “An objective method of specification for sensitometric curves of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 243, 55 (1947).
[Crossref]

L. A. Jones and C. A. Morrison, “Sensitometry of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 228, 445 (1939).
[Crossref]

Nelson, C. N.

Sanders, T. D.

T. D. Sanders, “The relation between the density scale of negatives and the exposure scale of papers,” Phot. J. 87B, 13 (1947).

Selwyn, E. W. H.

E. W. H. Selwyn, “Note on the use of probability paper,” Proc. Phys. Soc. 50, 914 (1938).
[Crossref]

Tuttle, C. M.

C. M. Tuttle, “Photoelectric photometry in the printing of amateur negatives,” J. Franklin Inst. 224, 315 (1937).
[Crossref]

J. Frank. Inst. (1)

L. A. Jones, “The contrast of photographic papers,” J. Frank. Inst. 202, 177, 469, 589 (1926); J. Frank. Inst. 203, 111 (1927); J. Frank. Inst. 204, 41 (1927).
[Crossref]

J. Franklin Inst. (3)

L. A. Jones and C. A. Morrison, “Sensitometry of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 228, 445 (1939).
[Crossref]

C. A. Morrison, “An objective method of specification for sensitometric curves of photographic papers,” J. Franklin Inst. 243, 55 (1947).
[Crossref]

C. M. Tuttle, “Photoelectric photometry in the printing of amateur negatives,” J. Franklin Inst. 224, 315 (1937).
[Crossref]

J. Opt. Soc. Am. (2)

Phot. J. (1)

T. D. Sanders, “The relation between the density scale of negatives and the exposure scale of papers,” Phot. J. 87B, 13 (1947).

Proc. Phys. Soc. (1)

E. W. H. Selwyn, “Note on the use of probability paper,” Proc. Phys. Soc. 50, 914 (1938).
[Crossref]

Other (1)

American Standard for Sensitometry of Photographic Papers (American Standards Association, New York, 1947), Z38, 2.3.

Cited By

OSA participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (16)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Print judgment data pertaining to the first-choice prints. Relation between the sensitometric exposure scales of the papers and density scales of the negatives.

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Data from first-choice prints. Relation between the sensitometric exposure scales of the papers and the average of the density scales of negatives.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

Data obtained by rejudgment of the prints to determine the unambiguous relation between the sensitometric exposure scales of the papers and density scale of the negative which gives the maximum yield in print quality.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Midpoints between sensitometric exposure scales of adjacent grades of paper plotted as a function of the density scales at which the transition from one grade of paper to the next was desired by the judges.

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Another method of representing the rejudgment data. The heavy horizontal lines show the range of DSn values for the negatives best suited for each paper. The light lines show the relation of these ranges to: the midpoints, MP, between adjacent grades, the transition points, TP, and the transition point indices, Itp.

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

Method of determining transition point indices, Itp, for four hypothetical papers (a, b, c, and d) and the use of these indices in determining transition points.

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Relation between the sensitometric exposure scales of the papers and the average of the density scales of the negatives for the unique groups of Fig. 3.

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Computation of the line of regression of y on x.

Fig. 9
Fig. 9

Regression lines y on x and x on y, computed by the method of least squares.

Fig. 10
Fig. 10

Papers A and B in the upper graph have the same exposure scales and print the same negatives successfully and, hence, should be assigned the same grade designation even though they differ in contrast. Papers A and B′ in the lower graph have different exposure scales and do not print the same negatives successfully and, hence, should not be assigned the same grade designation even though they may be assigned equal contrast ratings.

Fig. 11
Fig. 11

Papers A and B in the upper graph have the same exposure scales and print the same negatives successfully and, hence, should be assigned the same grade designation even though they differ in contrast and curve shape. Papers A′ and B in the lower graph have different exposure scales and do not print the same negatives successfully and, hence, should not be assigned the same grade designations even though they may be assigned equal contrast ratings.

Fig. 12
Fig. 12

Specification of the D−logE curve shape of three papers: C, B, and D.

Fig. 13
Fig. 13

Specification of the curve shape of the negative, L, which will give exact objective tone reproduction with the positive material, P; and the curve shape of the negative, O, which will give proportional tone reproduction with the positive material, P.

Fig. 14
Fig. 14

Frequency of occurrence of different values of density scale for various groups of negatives. Curves A, B, C, and D apply to groups of amateur-type negatives. Curve E applies to a group of studio portrait negatives. Curve F represents the average for all of the amateur-type negatives.

Fig. 15
Fig. 15

Curve A is a repetition of curve F of Fig. 14 and curve B is its first derivative. Curve C is a Gaussian frequency distribution curve for comparison with curve A.

Fig. 16
Fig. 16

Test for normality of the frequency distribution curve, F, of Fig. 14.

Tables (3)

Tables Icon

Table I First-choice prints.

Tables Icon

Table II Changes required to obtain unique groups.

Tables Icon

Table III Revised transition points. Correlation with midpoints between values of logSESy.

Equations (20)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

log F C E S = 1.10 log S E S y - 0.10.
D S n = 1.35 log S E S y - 0.40.
T P ( a , a + 1 ) = 1.35 M P ( a , a + 1 ) - 0.40 ,
M P ( a , a + 1 ) = [ log S E S y ( a ) + log S E S y ( a + 1 ) ] / 2.
T P ( a , b ) = [ I t p ( for a ) + I t p ( for b ) ] / 2.
av. D S n = 1.28 log S E S y - 0.32 ,
D S n = 1.60 log S E S y - 0.69.
D S n = 1.75 log S E S y - 0.90.
Ω = f ( rate , extent ) .
Ω = k G ¯ ( D ) × ( D max - D min ) ,
V = [ ( D v - D h ) / ( D s - D h ) ] · 100.
D n = f ( log B o ) .
d D g / d log B o · d D f / d log E y = 1.
V n = [ log B o ( at v n ) - log B o ( at h n ) ] / log B S o .
A y = A n ( cos θ n / sin θ y ) ,
D S n = D max - D min .
y = y o exp [ - ( D m - D i ) 2 / 2 σ ] ,
T P = 1.35 [ log S E S ( a ) + log S E S ( a + 1 ) 2 ] - 0.40 ,
I t p = 1.35 log S E S y - 0.40.
scale index = 100 log S E S ,