Film testing

ok folks,

I will say up front I use a modified Zone System method. I will say up front that Donald and I have been friends for several years. I have seen the work that Donald produces and it is without question excellent. One might go look in the galleries here on APUG.ORG. To say that he doesn't know what he is talking about is foolish. Mr Friday do you have prints on the wall or on the internet so we can see your work? What about you Mr Hicks? You seem to think that 40 years of reading about photography is all you need to be an expert. Where are your "skins on the wall"? Time folks to put up or shut up.

lee\c

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Don.

We certainly agree on this.

I find it interesting that while a number of people have suggested that you might be wrong, absolutely no-one has suggested you may be right.

This leaves two possibilities. One is that your stellar intelligence has left the rest of us in the dust, despite the somewhat opaque manner in which you phrase your assertions. The other is that you may indeed be completely wrong. For obvious reasons -- not least logic -- I incline towards the latter.

Why do you persistently refuse to point out the flaw in my original thought-experiment about the incident light meter in front of (a) snow (b) black velvet (c) a mixture of the two? Can it be that there is not one? And that you are simply wrong? Which of us, indeed, is demonstrating arrogance here, and a refusal to learn?

IF you can demonstrate the flaw in that thought-experiment, I (and many others) will be grateful, and we shall have learned a great deal. If you cannot, we are entitled to dismiss your arguments that you can in fact measure (not approximate, not guess, not assert) the brightness range of a subject using an incident light meter.

By the way, despite your assertion, I do not claim to 'know it all'. Many know a good deal more than I about this subject. Alas, you are not among them.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

Roger,

You're abusive verbalization is only exceeded by your abusive verbalization. I have tried to be reasonable in my explanation to you. Apparently reason is something that you do not recognize nor entertain in your own life. I have suggested where you might turn for an explanation of your questions. You refuse to acknowledge that direction as valid...at least it seems that way to me since you refuse to access it (preferring to argue instead) To this I can only say that some people's ignorance is only exceeded by their flagrant stupidity.

For that very reason I am putting you on my ignore list along with the illustrious and equally abusive Mr. Friday. You will be happy to know that my decision is later in the process than others who have had you on their list much longer.

I would sincerely hope that you have enough of a life that you will favor me with a similar decision on your part.

Donald Miller said:

Roger,

You're abusive verbalization is only exceeded by your abusive verbalization. I have tried to be reasonable in my explanation to you.

Click to expand...

Well, Don, you haven't succeeded in being reasonable, nor have you attempted to answer the simple question I have put to you repeatedly.

No, I won't put you on my ignore list. I don't care what you personally can bring yourself to believe, but if I ignore you, I won't see what you're saying, and I won't be able to correct it for the benefit of those who might be misled.

Amusingly, earlier today I received a PM about you, concerning your 'rules of debate' It boiled down to:

1 Don is always right

2 If Don is wrong, see point 1 above

3 Continue to argue and he will become abusive

4 Continue to argue after he becomes abusive and he will put you on his ignore list.

Well, you're running bang to form.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Don.


I find it interesting that while a number of people have suggested that you might be wrong, absolutely no-one has suggested you may be right.

R.

Click to expand...

I am not prepared to say that Donald is 100% wrong or that he even may be right. Although I am 100% prepared to say that I completely disagree with using an incident meter to determine SBR, much less its use in an application of the ZS.

Let's assume that you can do that Donald and that you do with results that you like. It begs the question to a "zonie" such as myself, as to why you would. It is clearly easier and I think infinitely more informative (as do many others) to use a reflective means of evaluating SBR. Afterall, it is the intensity of the reflective surfaces striking your film plane that comprises the SBR.

So, I'm not going to so strongly question your knowledge as I am the reason why you apply the incident meter in ZS the way that you have described.
_______________________

And Roger, as for your ten reasons why you don't use the zone system. It seems to me that you certainly have some misconceptions yourself or at least you are feeding off the misconceptions of others, and I'm speaking more to the point of why people use it and stand by it rather that any techinical issue. Although you tried to soften your words by supplying a compliment of those excellant photographers who use the ZS, you are, nonetheless, being derisive in your discussion of it. It seems, IMO, you have formulated opinions on the ZS that point to others misuse of it, in both terminology and application. That is an incorrect approach to an evaluation of method. Case in point, your mention of the word "previsualization". Nowhere in any technical publication by AA can I personally find that word, all references seem to be to "visualization" (I don't have all pubs, though). If you don't like the ZS, then thats cool with me and most others, I'm sure. But, don't cloud young and inquiring minds by implying perceived fallacies within the system that seem to be based on your view of how others apply it. Your going to have to go deeper than that have credibility in your criticism.

As for reason #6, by all means, please continue to "help people understand the basic and fairly simple theory behind photography"; I think that is an awsome thing to do. But please don't belittle the zone system in your path to that goal. It is an awsome tool for learning even if one chooses not to adhere to the method solely in their photography. And as for the last statement in reason #10: "....many are convinced that the Zone System is the foundation of sensitometry, rather than vice versa." Case in point again, you have made a derisive statement about the ZS based on others misuse of the concept and this is wrong. The man himself never made that assertertion:

AA:

"I felt it essential to translate the arcane principles of sensitometry into a system of applied craft which would be both precise and adaptable by the individual to any practical or expressive aspect of photography. Out of this need was born the Zone System,......"

Again, all this for the interest and love of the wet process. These are friendly challenges to some assertions that have been made, so I am not trying to be hateful to anyone as it is hard to convey that in this form of dialogue.

Regards,
Chuck

Donald, it's with disappointment that I note my inability to get a response from you with civil engagement.

I have not followed everything in this thread so I am probably missing something.

However, as someone with a good working knowledge of both Zone and BTZA I can say for certain that the use of incident readings is an excellent way to determine SBR when theat means subject luminance range. In fact, the use of an incident meter to determine SBR is at the heart of the BTZS system, which IMO is both more accurate and reliable than conventional metering with a reflectance meter for the great majority of pictorial subjects. Creativity in difficult lighting conditions introduces specific problems that may favor either incident metering or reflectance reading. However, to say that Donald does not know what he is talking about when he recommends incident readings to determine SBR is hogwash.

When there is significant discrepancy in opinion between persons who claim expertise on a given subject it is a good idea to look at the actual work these persons are producing. I looked at the work on Donald Millter's web site, and the control and creative use of lighting should be obvious to anyone. It is entirely possible that Donald may have been overly criticla of ZS, but to claim that he is foolish suggests to me ignorance on the part of those making the claim. In saying this I don't want to convey the impression that I endorse everything Donald has written in this thread.

Sandy King

Dear Chuck,

There are two separate points here. We agree, I think, that the claim to measure a brightness range with an incident light meter is patently nonsensical. The rest of his arguments, given his refusal to address this absolutely fundamental point, do not merit serious examination.

When it comes to the second point, the 'Why we don't use the Zone System' module in the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com, I'll freely admit to a bias. What I'm trying to do is to point out that the Zone Sustem is neither indispendable nor anything more than a subset of long-established sensitometric knowledge. I do not expect for an instant to persuade a committed 'Zonie' to give up the system, nor would I want to do so. I am quite sincere in my statement that if you like the ZS, it is a perfectly good way to determine exposure.

What I do want to do, though, is to present a robust counterblast to the more overblown claims for the system. Many (perhaps most) photographers are insecure to some degree, and quite a lot of Zone literature does present the Zone System as the be-all and end-all. We have all met fundamentalist 'Zonies', too. The module is designed to reassure those who may be persuaded by ZS propaganda that they are stupid, lacking moral fibre, or destined to be poor photographers if they don't use it. In other words, it is counter-propaganda, with the same faults as the original propaganda, but also its same virtues.

When I wrote a similar article in Amateur Photographer some years ago, I expected a lot of hate mail from fundamentalists. To my surprise, letters of support outweighed the letters of attack by a factor of three to one or so. Many said, "Thank God! It's not just me!"

With your comments in mind I have revisited the module, and I have to say that I do not believe that my comments go beyond a robust presentation of my irrefutable argument that the Zone System is not indispensible. If it were, after all, it would be used by all photographers. You will see that I have been quite careful in my phraseology. For example, I did not say that AA maintained that the ZS was the basis of sensitometry, because (like you) I know full well that it is not true. I said that 'many' believe it, and I stand by that. Surely you have met them too.

I shall re-read it again, and see if I can incorporate changes that address your criticisms, but I hope you will accept that most of what I write is written out of a desire to help people, not arrogance. The remainder? Well, that's meant to help people too, by making them think. Sometimes that comes across as arrogant, though most people see it more as the humour that is intended.

Cheers,

Roger

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Chuck,

There are two separate points here. We agree, I think, that the claim to measure a brightness range with an incident light meter is patently nonsensical. The rest of his arguments, given his refusal to address this absolutely fundamental point, do not merit serious examination.


Roger

Click to expand...

I suggest you read Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System. There are for sure a number of mistatements in this thread, but your statement that brightness range can not be measured with an incident light meter is just plain wrong.

Sandy King

sanking said:

However, to say that Donald does not know what he is talking about when he recommends incident readings to determine SBR is hogwash.

Click to expand...

Dear Sandy,

Go to post 36. Answer the question in it. How does the incident light meter know it is in front of (a) snow, with a subject brightness range of 0; (b) black velvet with a subject brightness range of 0; (c) a chequerboard of the two with an SBR approaching 6 stops; (d) anything else?

Cheers,

R

lee said:

ok folks,

Mr Friday do you have prints on the wall or on the internet so we can see your work?
lee\c

Click to expand...

Hello Lee,

I have prints here in the Apug gallery. Please note that they are mostly platinum and paladium prints or experimental work. Also, I refer you to Photo Techniques Magazine, November/December 2002, and Emulsion Magazine Issue One and Emulsion Magazine Issue Two.

Allen

sanking said:

I suggest you read Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System. There are for sure a number of mistatements in this thread, but your statement that brightness range can not be measured with an incident light meter is just plain wrong.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

Dear Sandy,

See also post 56. Subject brightness range is a range of reflected light. You cannot measure reflected light with an incident light meter. This does not require elucidation.

The only way to measure something is to measure it. This is not the same as inferring its existence from theory and assumption.

And -- as I requested of Don -- please answer the question about how the meter knows what is behind it.

Then we'll see who's wrong.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Sandy,

Go to post 36. Answer the question in it. How does the incident light meter know it is in front of (a) snow, with a subject brightness range of 0; (b) black velvet with a subject brightness range of 0; (c) a chequerboard of the two with an SBR approaching 6 stops; (d) anything else?

Cheers,

R

Click to expand...

Man, I would really like to know the answer to this question. I am reading BTZS now, and will hopefully find the answer. To me, this arguement seems to have 2 completely, and inherently different points:

1) a spot meter tells you the reflectance of the subject- the subject brightness.

2) an incident meter will tell you the amount of light falling on the scene, it sais nothing about the subject's inherent tone.

These are the fundamental differences in how these types of meters work- just read any basic book on photography. I see a relationship in that the more light falling on a subject, the more reflectance it will have (and vice versa), but in no way does an incident meter tell you about the inherent character of the subject- it's not even looking at it! I can only assume at this point (at the end of reading chp 2 in BTZS, essentially nothing applicable yet) that using incident metering toward and away from the light source is giving you the contrast range of the scene, and then you go from there, letting the "tones fall where they may", like I do in color slide photography. It may work just fine, but in a different way than spot metering a tone, deciding how light or dark you want it, and working from there. If they both work, they're both valid approaches, in my eyes.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Sandy,

Go to post 36. Answer the question in it. How does the incident light meter know it is in front of (a) snow, with a subject brightness range of 0; (b) black velvet with a subject brightness range of 0; (c) a chequerboard of the two with an SBR approaching 6 stops; (d) anything else?

Cheers,

R

Click to expand...

Incident meters measure the light falling on a subject. They don't know whether they are standing in front of snow or velvet. The same level of ignorance applies to reflectance meters in that they too have little understanding of where they are standing.

People use meters to make creative decisions about exposure, based on some type of system. I gather from your comments and questions that you know little or nothing about the BTZS system of exposure and development control. This system uses incicdent metering to determine the SBR of the scenes we photograph, and it works very well in practice, even better than ZS in my opinion, though certain types of difficult lighting might lend themselve more to reflectance or incident reading, depending on desired interpretation.

Sandy King

My understanding is that the BTZS uses the incident meter in this fashion to measure the light reaching the subject rather than the light reflected from the subject. This is built in to the method in such a way (and this is the bit that is black-magic to me) that it allows you to expose and develop to the required values by adding five to the number of stops difference between the two readings. One then reads the film speed to use off the EFS chart previously plotted and uses the shadow reading for the exposure. There seems to be a lot of confusion over this "add five" method even within BTZS users themselves having read a lot of the forum on Mr. Davis's web site.

As far as I can see, this only works as part of the BTZS and will not work outside it as you are making assumptions that are not valid outside the system, but I admit that I may be wrong as the book is not an easy read and perhaps just adding five will work outside the system... IDK.


Cheers, Bob.

thanks Allen, as soon as I pressed post it occurred to me that you might have work in the Apug gallery. nice work

lee\c

sanking said:

Incident meters measure the light falling on a subject. They don't know whether they are standing in front of snow or velvet. The same level of ignorance applies to reflectance meters in that they too have little understanding of where they are standing.

People use meters to make creative decisions about exposure, based on some type of system. I gather from your comments and questions that you know little or nothing about the BTZS system of exposure and development control. This system uses incicdent metering to determine the SBR of the scenes we photograph, and it works very well in practice, even better than ZS in my opinion, though certain types of difficult lighting might lend themselve more to reflectance or incident reading, depending on desired interpretation.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

This is how I understand things. I think the problem here is terminology. SBR should not be used with incident meters and BTZS. It should be IBR (Incident Brightness Range), no?

Dear Sandy,

Thanks to a kind intervention in a PM from Allen Friday, I have a better idea of what we are disputing here.

The BTZS incident-light system allows you to infer the maximum likely brightness range of the subject, and based on this inference, you can create very consistent negatives.

My sole argument -- which I do not think is answerable -- is that you are not directly measuring the actual brightness range. What you are doing is establishing a maximum possible brightness range; adjusting your development to suit this maximum possible brightness range; and regardless of whether the actual brightness range is (let us say) a nude on a fur with an actual brightness range of 1:2 or a black cat on snow with a brightness range of 1:40, you will get a very printable negative, because it ensures that the subject will be within printable limits.

This indeed fully justifies the name 'Beyond the Zone System' BUT it is not the same as actually measuring the SBR.

As for the way people use meters, indeed, any meter must be applied with intelligence. But the person using a spot meter knows where he is pointing the meter; can if he wishes describe that area in terms of Zones (the naming of which I freely admit to be unalloyed genius, even in my counterblast, mentioned above); and can, unlike the user of an incident meter, actually measure the subject brightness range rather than inferring it.

Cheers,

Roger

timbo10ca said:

This is how I understand things. I think the problem here is terminology. SBR should not be used with incident meters and BTZS. It should be IBR (Incident Brightness Range), no?

Click to expand...

In Beyond the Zone System Phil Davis chosre to use the term SBR in lieu of SLR (subject luminance range) since he felt that people might confuse SLR with single lens reflex.

The issue here is that persons who appear totally ignorance of BTZS and its terminology are calling other people foolish for their use of SBR to describe luminace range. You go figure who looks like the bigger fool.

Sandy King

sanking said:

Incident meters measure the light falling on a subject. They don't know whether they are standing in front of snow or velvet. The same level of ignorance applies to reflectance meters in that they too have little understanding of where they are standing.

People use meters to make creative decisions about exposure, based on some type of system. I gather from your comments and questions that you know little or nothing about the BTZS system of exposure and development control. This system uses incicdent metering to determine the SBR of the scenes we photograph, and it works very well in practice, even better than ZS in my opinion, though certain types of difficult lighting might lend themselve more to reflectance or incident reading, depending on desired interpretation.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

I too am a little confused by this.
If I meter a subject with my spotmeter in absolutely flat light then I can measure the darkest tone, get reading 1, measure the lightest tone and get readind 2. The difference between these two readings, without compensation, gives me my SBR. Yes?
If I use my incident meter pointed toward the camera from the position of the subject I only get one reading. I do not seem to be able to get a range from one reading.
Where could I be wrong here?
Regards
John

jonjonho said:

I too am a little confused by this.
If I meter a subject with my spotmeter in absolutely flat light then I can measure the darkest tone, get reading 1, measure the lightest tone and get readind 2. The difference between these two readings, without compensation, gives me my SBR. Yes?
If I use my incident meter pointed toward the camera from the position of the subject I only get one reading. I do not seem to be able to get a range from one reading.
Where could I be wrong here?
Regards
John

Click to expand...

Umm, if you wade through this post in its entirety (a daunting task), I think you will see that you take 2 incident readings- one toward the light (brightest EV) and away from the light (dome in shadow of the meter- lowest EV), and this gives you the range. I will not go against my own complaint and tell you to read more about it in books A, B, C and D

sanking said:

In Beyond the Zone System Phil Davis chosre to use the term SBR in lieu of SLR (subject luminance range) since he felt that people might confuse SLR with single lens reflex.

The issue here is that persons who appear totally ignorance of BTZS and its terminology are calling other people foolish for their use of SBR to describe luminace range. You go figure who looks like the bigger fool.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

Dear Sandy,

Luminance adds not one iota to the clarity in any scientific sense; it is normally accepted in physics as the photometric equivalent of the commoner term 'brightness', and you are no more measuring luminance range than you are measuring brightness range. You are inferring it. We must surely agree on this.

Cheers,

Roger

timbo10ca said:

Umm, if you wade through this post in its entirety (a daunting task), I think you will see that you take 2 incident readings- one toward the light (brightest EV) and away from the light (dome in shadow of the meter- lowest EV), and this gives you the range. I will not go against my own complaint and tell you to read more about it in books A, B, C and D

Click to expand...

Yes I see this but I said in flat light. In my example this would mean turning 180 deg. and have my back to the camera I do not think that I would have a different reading on the incident meter and this would not give me a SBR from my camera position. Would It :confused: .
Regards John

Ah well, at least this has somewhat resolved my confusion over the "add five" concept, so not all was wasted...

Cheers, Bob.

jonjonho said:

Yes I see this but I said in flat light. In my example this would mean turning 180 deg. and have my back to the camera I do not think that I would have a different reading on the incident meter and this would not give me a SBR from my camera position. Would It :confused: .
Regards John

Click to expand...

Hmmmm yes, true dat, true dat. Well, can't help ya there- sorry.

Bob F. said:

Ah well, at least this has somewhat resolved my confusion over the "add five" concept, so not all was wasted...

Cheers, Bob.

Click to expand...

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I guess I'll keep reading- maybe this "add 5" thing will make more sense then.....