dancqu
Allowing Ads
Or, that you by some second source are
already familiar with the subject. I've a few
D-Max Newsletters with articles by Phil Davis.
He can be clear and succinct. Dan
He either left out some labelling, or missed some
steps (or is assuming that I know the book by rote).
Tim
Or, that you by some second source are
already familiar with the subject. I've a few
D-Max Newsletters with articles by Phil Davis.
He can be clear and succinct. Dan
Roger,
I hoped someone else would address the flare issue since I do not do the "full Monty" with Davis' system of flare control. However, since no one dropped by I wil briefly explain the system.
Basiclally, you build a flare test box, which is a kind of photographic black hole. Then you place the box in the shadows of the subject area and photograph it with normal exposure. You do this in a variety of scenes with different SBRs. Finally, you read the Black Hole Density and calculate a Flare Density. The Flare Density is then plugged into the Winplotter program.
With N or SBR 7 conditions Flare Density will range from about 0.01-0.02 with modern coated lenses to 0.10 or even higher with old lenses. It is higher in SBR conditions of 8 or more, lower in SBR conditions of 6 or less.
I built the flare box and carried out some of the testing, but somewhere along the line I made a decision to just use a very effective lens hood and plug in the Flare Factor numbers derived by Davis. That is why I wrote that I do not do the full Monty with this testing procedure.
Sandy King
So what's so different between ZS and BTZS? The first one gives you an EI and a development time for your film to be printed on a given paper. The second one gives you an EI and a development time for your film to be printed on a given paper. That's a whole world of differences.
Earlier versions of The Negative use "pre-"; later editions (the blue book) include a notice by Adams that someone pointed to him how redundant was the prefix. Don't worry too much about that. After all, this thread has shown that photographers are not always the best masters of the linguistic medium.
Well, it is dreadful, but I think Adams's idea of emphasizing the "pre-" was to reinforce the idea that B&W photographers should think about how the world will be rendered in the print when making the image with the camera, rather than trying to visualize it after looking at the proof sheets, but you already knew that.
The curious thing to me is that the idea of "previsualization" is in tension with AA's other famous dictum--"the negative is the score, and the print is the performance." So the message seems to be: previsualize, but don't be afraid to change your mind.
I found that reverse-engineering of the BTZS calculations an enlightening piece of writing. . . all of this discussion has only strengthened my belief in simplicity in my art. . . I understand my simplified ZS approach, thanks to Fred Picker. . .it works just fine for me. . .
I am an engineer and I spend my days pouring over boring equations and graphs every day. . . photography is my escape from this drudgery and I dont want anything that requires such rigorous engineering any where near me when I do get that precious time to photograph. . . I am so thankful that I had not even heard of BTZS until long after I had honed my photographic skills. . . my photography time is far too precious to even spend one second plotting any curve. . . I know my technique and my materials and they serve me well. . .
It all depends on what you want. . . do you want to be an engineer and think the camera and film to death. . . or do you want to be an artist and create art???. . . that is your choice. . . I have made mine. . . thanks to all here that have only confirmed what I already knew. . . simplicity is the essence of creativity. . .
B Dalton
Food for thought:
Andreas Feininger in his book on Darkroom which covers developing negatives states that with a properly exposed negative you should be be able to read newsprint though the denses part of the neagative, and see details when looking though the thinnest part of the negative. I just check a few of my 4X5 and 6X9negatives and he is right. Any thoughts?
Hi David,
Putting aside the question of whether or not Ansel coined the term "previsualization" rather than "visualization" (which to me is no big deal .. he got his point across either way), I don't see how visualization goes against the concept of "the negatiive as score", etc. Here's why . . .
As I previously mentioned in this thread, the idea of visualizing a final image before you even expose the photo is much akin to a composer humming a tune before he writes down its notes .... or, for that matter, a painter making a charcoal sketch on the canvas before makes the final painting.
Obliviously, the photographer's immediate task is creating a negative an intermediate step toward the final goal. However, a musical score is also an intermediate step, an just as a composer who writes a score must certainly imagine (even hear, in his head) how the music will sound in concert, the Zone System allows a photographer to already think in terms of the "performance" of the resulting photograph: that is, how it will look in it's ultimate use (on a wall, in a book, as a snapshot, etc.)
What's your thought on this?
Best,
Christopher
However, I insist in saying that "real" sensitometry a basic tenet of BTZS is a second, seperate hobby*.
Best,
Christopher
*"real" sensitometry as opposed to the Zone System's "bubble-gum" sensitometry
.
Paul,
This is an old maxim which especially applies to negatives in which you wish to hold detail in the highlights (such as portrait negatives taken in a studio).
Keep in mind that it also assumes, to a certain extent, that lower zone shadow detail either is not important to you, or that you can light your subject to reveal those values. Try, "underexpose and develop normally" (test first!). You'll get a thin neg. I call it "The Bone System"(you heard it here first folks!)
.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?