Chateau de Pierrefonds ~ a Digital Zone System Black and White adventure II

After reviewing my Vienna in-camera generated jpgs I went in search of a way to further refine my understanding of what is possible using Sony mirrorless cameras.  In this case I wanted to find a way to "brighten up" the highlights while keeping a sense of open shadows.

 

Sony A6000, Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E

  

Normally Sony Creative Style Black and White with Contrast set to 0 (default) pushes the dark values down too low for my tastes.  This is why I'd chosen Contrast = -3 for the trip to Vienna.  The highlights weren't "blown out" and the darks didn't sink into "inky yuck."  Yet the images felt that in some cases they could use a slightly different tonal range to more exactly match what I was looking for.

Keep in mind that I come from large format film days.  120 format was miniature.  35mm nearly Minox.  4x5inch sheet film was "normal."  8x10inch was glorious.  and 12x20inch film was almost "over the top."  In all cases I worked to keep a sense of "open shadows" and found processing/printing techniques to make 120 film format and larger "work" in this way. 

 

Sony NEX-7, Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E

  

I'm not sure how I got to asking the question, but I found myself trying to understand Sony's "Dynamic Range Optimization" feature.  It's something I've avoided using because I didn't understand it and because images I've made using DRO had too much of an HDR "look" to them. 

Considering the feature a little differently I learned that DRO levels are selectable (not just automatic as I'd wrongly assumed) with the intention of "opening up the shadow areas."  This was exactly what was desired.  So I performed a number of "characterizations" using the Sony Creative Style Black and White, setting contrast levels, and selecting specific DRO settings (avoiding DRO automation).

 

Sony NEX-7, Sigma 19mm f/2.8 EX DN E

  

Here's something that I found supremely useful for generating in-camera jpgs in a black and white style I like. 

• Creative Style - Black and White
• Contrast 0
• Sharpness -3 (more about this below)
• DRO 1 enabled <- this is the trick right here 

• Expose -
• Meter = Spot
• Back-button AEL - Auto-Exposure Lock 
• +2.7EV bright light areas (for 80% of the images I took) ... 
  or...
• -2.3EV shadows (for photographing dark places - cathedral, tombs)
• +/-0.3EV bracket for 3 exposures

•  Technique -
• Bright/Normal situations - 
• +2.7EV exposure compensation (depending on how much texture I want to retain - remember Zone 8 / +3EV is "very light with a hint of texture" (edited 17 June 2025)
• AEL the lightest area of a scene
• Recompose
• Release the shutter
• Let the lower tones render as they will 
• Dark situations -
• -2.3EV exposure compensation
• AEL area to be expressed as Zone 3
• Recompose
• Release the shutter 
• Let the lighter tones render as they will

• Digital Zone System details -
• Zone 9 1/2 becomes pure white when using DRO 1
• In fact, +3.7EV is the precise point where we go from luminescence value 247 (usable information in white) to 255 (pure white) at +4EV on Sony from NEX7 mirrorless model on...
• Zones less than 3 often contain useful information (delivering that sense of "open shadows") 

 

 

Sony A6000, Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E

  

 

NOTE 1: DRO 1 raises Zone 5/0EV by exactly 0.3EV.  Zone 5 at -0.3EV is needed to compensate for the DRO 1 effect.

 

NOTE 2: Setting Zone 5 at -0.3EV when using DRO 1 expands the lightest Zones by 0.3EV.  Zone 9 1/3 / +4EV becomes pure white and thereby inching into Zone 10 film-era pure white definitions - in camera (edited 17 June, 2025)

 

NOTE 3: I find that _if_ I have time to properly meter a scene and find I need more contrast (due to a "flat" scene) that increasing this value in Creative Style Black and White brings the black point "in" and isn't all that "harsh" on the highlights (which I like to protect at the expense of the blacks if "push comes to shove").

 

NOTE 4: I like to use +/-0.3EV exposure bracketing since I seldom (or better said: never) have the time to fully meter a scene before hitting the shutter release and moving on to the "next thing."  

 

NOTE 5: Having a copy of the RAW output allows me to re-process images later, particularly if the in-camera generated jpg "isn't quite right."  Shooting RAW+jpg tends to chew up memory, but SD cards are cheap these days so I don't worry too much about it.

 

NOTE 6: Turning down Sharpness to -3 helps retain a certain sense of balance between sharpness and large format film style "smoothness."  The images seen here had sharpness set to +1.  Even when downsizing for the 'net, something doesn't "feel" entirely correct.  Later I tested different sharpness settings and found that the APS-C Sony sensors coupled with their in-camera jpg engine create something that feels much better to my way of "seeing" when Creative Style Black and White Sharpness is set to -3.

 

 

 

 

Sony A6000, Sigma 30mm f/2.8 EX DN E 

  

 

Vienna ~ a Digital Zone System Black and White adventure

We needed to "get out of Dodge" for a few days so my wife and I visited Vienna.

 

I wanted to post images of our wanderings in near real time.  To do that I'd need to rely on the in-camera jpg processor since there was no way I'd be taking computer while on vacation.  I wanted to be out having fun and not sitting around the apartment processing RAW images.

Further, I had in mind shooting a film simulation recipe in the "big camera" that has a nice Zeiss zoom and shoot black and white in the "small" camera that has Sigma fixed focal length lens.  Things got off to a good start, but it was a rather/shockingly/absurdly large effort to download and post both the color film simulations and anything that happened to catch my eye in black and white.  Soon I realized I was very much enjoying exploring the city in black and white and decided to post works only in this style. 

A photographer friend says  "Photography is like music. You need good instruments, good technique, and, above all, artistry. When a picture sings, you've got it right!".

 

Looking at the shear volume of images I was trying to share, I realized I was like that annoying kid with an artless kazoo marching around making all manner of noise. There was no peace.  There was no rest.  It was somewhat difficult to get it right! in camera, but there was no stopping me once I got rolling.

*snap*click*post*whee* goes the annoying kid with an ungovernable rude kazoo

After characterizing my Sony systems to adapt the old film Zone System of exposure (see St. Ansel, Brothers M.White and P.Davis, et al) for this trip I settled on the following process.

• Creative Style - Black and White
• Contrast -3
• Sharpness +1

• Expose -
• Meter = Spot
• Back-button AEL - Auto-Exposure Lock 
• +2.5EV bright highlights (for 80% of the images I took) 
• -2EV shadows (for photographing dark places - cathedral, tombs)
• +/-0.5EV bracket - 3 or 5 exposures

•  Technique -
• Light/Normal situations - 
• +2.5EV exposure compensation
• AEL the lightest area of a scene
• Recompose
• Release the shutter
• Let the lower tones render as they will 
• Dark situations -
• -2EV exposure compensation
• AEL area to be expressed as Zone 3
• Recompose
• Release the shutter 
• Let the lighter tones render as they will

• Digital Zone System details -
• Zone 9 is pure white (this is crucial: _not_ Zone 10 as defined for film)
• In fact, +3.7EV is the precise point where we go from luminescence value 247 (usable information in white) to 255 at +4EV (pure white) (edited 17 June 2025)
• Zones less than 3 often contain useful information (where film seldom ever did) 

 

What I ended up with were minimally three exposures per image with 3 or 5 jpgs to choose from and post while on the road and 3 or 5 RAW to work on at my leisure after I returned home.  I "copped out" by bracketing because I seldom had the time to carefully meter a scene.  So off went the kazoo sending photons of light in three or five different directions with the hope something would "stick."

In general I think the approach "works."  I've only worked a handful of RAW images after the fact.  What I would like to do differently next time is to use 0.3EV bracketing in place of the rather coarse 0.5EV steps.  And I would like to see if I can make the highlights "sparkle" a bit better, while retaining a sense of "richness" of tone that comes with B&W contrast set to -3.

 

Software Intervention ~ Takumar 28mm f/3.5 SMC vs Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN

One of the basic assumptions about lenses for photography that I have accepted unchallenged is that new lenses would be "obviously better" than old lenses.  My thinking was that modern optical design tools improve optical products in meaningful/useful ways leading to technically "better" photographs.

Images loaded into image processing software undergo many adjustments _before_ a starting image is displayed.  Some of these adjustments make optical defect "corrections."  Which made me wonder about the aforementioned optical design tools.

Turning software automation off often reveals an interesting, unexpected truth.  Modern lenses may _require_ software intervention to look good.  In many ways old manual focus lenses look better.  Old lenses often exhibit less geometric distortion, less chromatic aberration, and display certain level of "sharpness", even at wide apertures.  By comparison, some of the the modern lenses I own appear to benefit from a little software help.  

This little "discovery" lit up my brain cells and got me to thinking.  What if I applied lens corrections to manual focus lenses?  Specifically, what if I corrected for chromatic aberration and geometric distortion?  Not that old lenses need much geometric distortion correction, that is.  What effect might software intervention have on old lenses?

Post-Pandemic I found myself once again exploring manual focus optics.  Previously I'd made a decision to move to all modern AF but, it appears, an Old Itch still needed to be scratched.  I now have several beautiful Takumar, ever more Nikkors (including one particularly early SLR F-mount lens), Pentax-M, and third party Kiron.

Recently, I found myself in a favorite location and took two similar focal length lenses off to a car show. One lens was a new Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN.  I really like this lens.  It's light, sharp, and the AF is blazing fast.  It has never let me down and is a jewel of an optic.

The other lens was an old c.1970's Asahi Takumar 28mm f/3.5 SMC (version 2).  It is a multi-coated 49mm filter thread later version of that focal length.  It, too, is very light, compact, very smooth focusing, and relatively quick and easy to use.  In fact, it, too, is a little jewel of a lens.

Setup ~ 

• Sony A7RII set on a tripod 
• 2 second self timer
• ISO100 
• Images shot at f/11

Image processing ~

Deployed four RawTherapee tools, starting from a "neutral" profile (thereby avoiding  automated software intervention) -

• Demosaic 
• Color management (Sony Camera "Standard" .dcp)
• Automated Chromatic Aberration correction ~ RAW -> chromatic aberration
• Capture Sharpen image sharpening ~ RAW -> Capture Sharpen (note: not USM)

Here is an example of what I see -

 

Comments ~

I once again confirm for myself that software intervention can be quite useful, regardless of the vintage of a lens.  In fact, old lenses tend to require less software intervention.

If I didn't already know which lens was which, there's no way I would be able to tell the difference between the old Takumar and the new Sigma.  Can you see any meaningful difference?  Maybe my eyes are getting old, but I can't.

While this is just one very small, minor example of what software intervention can do for images taken with old manual focus lens compared with modern AF .lcp enhanced optics, I see similar things with nearly all my old lenses. 

Software Intervention ~ a few musings

Back when dinosaurs roamed the earth I photographed using film and printed my own black and white images.  For a short time (four years) I printed for various labs around southern California.  My colleagues and I were involved in various projects, including making limited edition runs of various things for different galleries and producing prints for exhibitions and portfolios of famous photographers.

I felt I had a good working knowledge of the requirements that met customer expectations.  To meet those requirements, our equipment and chemical processes were carefully controlled.  Our enlargers were carefully aligned (Omega D-series were easy compared with Beseler).  The enlarging lenses we used were the best we could find (EL-Nikkor, Schneider Componon-S). The chemicals were mixed in a consistent way and temperatures were carefully monitored.  We used densitometers to verify everything was as expected.  Lamps were left on to ensure constant temperatures in condenser enlarger heads and we waited a moment after putting a negative in carrier into the enlarger so the negative would snap into flatness (if it matters and you don't understand what I just said, ask and I'll try and explain a little further).  Global image contrast was controlled by selecting paper types and/or filters.  Local corrections were made using dodging/burning techniques.

We did all these things to make certain the field of film grain would be absolutely sharp from extreme corner to extreme corner across the entire print while working to reveal the subject/scene in all its potential glory.  Making good prints was a mixture of alchemy, art, and craft.

Digital image processing comes with a few more tools than what were available to us "back in the day."  Using these tools helps us to go beyond what was done in the Old Dinosaur Film Days. 

Mulling such things over in my mind, I thought it might be interesting to comment a little on the topic.  Here's a list of things we can do in digital to "improve" a basic image beyond film era global contrast and local dodging/burning.  We can now correct/control:

• Optical distortion (pincushion, barrel)
• Chromatic aberration
• Optical vignetting (illumination fall-off around the edges)
• "Sharpness"
• "Local contrast" 

Here's a short list of the kinds of things that won't be corrected/controlled with neither film nor digital. 

• Optical coma effects
• Optical field curvature (field flatness)

There is (at least) one thing printing from film could do that is more than a little different in digital, and that is image enlarging.  Non-contact printed film sizes obviously require enlargement.  Digital is a different beast, though digital tools exist that enable enlargement possibilities.  I've found G'Mic's DCCI2X and CNN2X upscaling tools to be fairly convincing in taking a 42mpixel image and turning it into a 160+mpixel monster.

I've said a few things about how I feel I can make an old film-era lens look like a new digital-age one.  Using automated chromatic aberration correction and Capture Sharpen in RawTherapee takes my images a long ways toward matching the performance of my new digital AF Zeiss.  If an old lens suffers from lower contrast, a gentle Local Contrast and/or USM application finishes the job.

Taking the Insanity a little further, yesterday I downloaded a Leica Q2 .dng file and looked at it long and hard.  Given Leica's reputation I thought I might see some magic that's not commonly seen in other camera systems.  However, I wasn't "grokking" it, so I turned on/off the various software interventions... and... oh!... sure enough, image processing corrects/changes the outcome, even with hugely expensive Leica.

It's all rather exciting, actually.  Digital image processing software intervention can "democratize" image quality.  

Old lenses?  New lenses?  Apparent image "sharpness?"  On some level it's pretty much all the same.  Which is, I'm sure, partially the point some people try to make when saying things like "equipment doesn't matter."  Of course "equipment matters", but maybe not just in ways I usually think.

One Last Thought: There's something of a community of old lens user-commenters ("influencers?" - perish the thought) on various sites/platforms spouting/touting/sprouting the benefits of using old lenses.  They tend to say things like "old lenses have so much "character"..." and "modern lenses are so "clinically" sharp..." If what they want is "character" maybe they should try turning off software intervention on modern lenses and see what happens.  It might boggle/confuse/re-inform their world view.  Not that there's anything wrong with using old manual focus lenses, right?

Software Intervention ~ chromatic aberration, capture sharpen, local contrast, and USM corrections on a Super Cheap Kiron 28mm f/2

In the prior post I looked at chromatic aberration and capture sharpen corrections on a beautiful old Nikon Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 c.1972 lens.  I then took a small step to see what controlling local contrast and adding a very light USM might have and found the old Nikkor could match (under many circumstances) the performance of a Sony 55mm f/1.8 FE ZA that was managed by the common and now customary lens correction profile (.lcp) file.

For this post I want to consider similar software interventions on an incredibly inexpensive Kiron 28mm f/2 as well as a cheap, widely available Pentax-M 28mm f/2.8.  Nobody seems to like these lenses and prices on the open market tend to reflect this thought. 

Setup ~ 

• Sony A7 set on a tripod 
• +1EV (because of the strong whites and knowing whites saturate at EV+3.5) 
• 2 second self timer
• ISO100 focusing on the central flower
  
• Images made at f/2.8 and f/5.6
• Processed in RawTherapee 

Voila! encore a mundane scene of my Rescue Orchid - 

 

 

 Taking five processing steps and sharing the results in the following image -

• Demosaic and only color management as the starting point
• Add RAW -> chromatic aberration correction to the starting point
• Add Capture Sharpen to chromatic aberration, demosaic, and color managed image
• Add Rawtherapee -> Detail -> Local Contrast very light amplitude = 0.05
• Add Rawtherapee -> Detail -> Sharpening USM

Comments ~

Well, well, well... would you have a look at that, will 'ya?  Incredible, isn't it?  Or, if you've become somewhat jaded to the whole exercise, like me: Huh.

Identifying the tools .lcp files use to correct modern AF lenses and then applying that knowledge to isolating and using similar tools on old manual focus lenses has shown me several things.

First, in surprisingly many ways, modern lenses require software intervention to look as good as they do.  Second, designers of earlier lenses, using by today's standards rather rudimentary calculations, were able to achieve decent performance in terms of field flatness, field distortions, and chromatic aberration.

While there may be little to nothing software can do to correct for field flatness, coma at wide apertures in high speed lenses, or resolution fall-off toward the edges of a field (such is commonly seen in early wide angle lenses at the extreme corners), software intervention seems to work wonders on old lenses in just about ever other way.

From my perspective there is nothing to fear from using old lenses.  To prove this point I may post a few images I've recently made to see if people can tell which lens made which image.  I know, I've played this game before, so we'll see.

If a person can't make a decent image, it's likely not the fault of the lens, regardless of the age of the optic.

Chromatic Aberration ~ software intervention Nikon Nikkor-S 50mm f/1.4 vs Sony 55mm f/1.8 FE ZA

Now that I was on a roll looking at chromatic aberration and sharpness software tools I hauled out an old Nikon Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 c.1972 and a currently manufactured Sony 55mm f/1.8 FE ZA. 

What follows is actually the second pass that I made at this specific comparison.  I tried photographing the Rescue Orchid against strong backlight and found the Nikkor-S flares badly.  So I flipped the scene around and shot with the light coming from behind me.  Chromatic aberration was still present, so I was able to process the way I've learned works well.

Then I took two additional software tools and tried to match the output of the Nikkor-S to that of the Sony 55mm.  I wanted to confirm what I already suspected, which is to say, with a little help, old lenses image might be made to look every bit as good as new.

Setup ~ 

• Sony A6300 set on a tripod 
• +2EV (because of the strong whites and knowing whites saturate at EV+3.5) 
• 2 second self timer
• ISO100 focusing on the stick 
• Images made at f/5.6 and f/11
• Processed in RawTherapee 

Voila! encore a mundane scene of my Rescue Orchid - 

 

 

Three processing steps and sharing the results in the following image -

• Demosaic and only color management as the starting point
• Add RAW -> chromatic aberration correction to the starting point
• Add Capture Sharpen to chromatic aberration, demosaic, and color managed image

Using  

• Rawtherapee -> Detail -> Local Contrast 
• Rawtherapee -> Detail -> Sharpening 

 I took a quick look at matching the Nikkor-S to the Sony FE.

 

Comments ~

As in prior comparisons I see that the automated chromatic aberration correction does a fine job here.  There's not much CA in the Sony FE, so this lens is easy on the CA tool.  There is a bit more CA in the Nikkor, but this, too, cleans up quickly and nicely.

The Nikkor-S has less local contrast and is a touch softer than the Sony FE after CA correction and Capture Sharpen.  Adding two tools, then gently nudging the local contrast and USM sharpness I was able to show myself that at f/5.6 and f/11 the Nikkor-S and Sony FE have little useful/important/visible difference between them.

 

Chromatic Aberration ~ software intervention Nikon Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 c.1959/1960

Once I sorted out how to apply chromatic aberration software corrections to old manual focus lenses I set about to have a look at a few of my oldest lenses, beginning with a well used, mostly clean glass Nikon Nikkor-P 10.5cm f/2.5 9 aperture blade "tick-mark" transition c.1959/1960 lens.

To review, here's how I enabled automated chromatic aberration correction in RawTherapee.

 Rawtherapee -> RAW -> Chromatic Aberration Correction -> select Auto-correction

Pretty simple, right?

Setup ~ 

• Sony A6300 set on a tripod 
• +1EV (because of the strong white back-light) 
• 2 second self timer
• ISO100 focusing on the stick 
• Images made at f/2.5, f/4, f/5.6, and f/8
  
• Processed in RawTherapee 

Voila! encore the mundane scene of my Rescue Orchid - 

 

 

I took three processing steps and share the results in the following image.

• Demosaic and color management only as the starting point
• Add RAW -> chromatic aberration correction to the starting point
• Add Capture Sharpen to chromatic aberration, demosaic, and color managed image

Comments ~ 

There's not much to say.  It's obvious there is little CA in this lens.  It renders beautifully at all apertures.  Using chromatic aberration and "sharpness" software intervention on this optic feels like it brings this ancient lens right into line with modern products quite nicely.