Help reading development charts

[hansbeckert]

Hansbecket has used many names and has tried many times to control the forum that he jumps into. The moderator at photo.net has banned him several times and no one will argue with him on rec.photo. My suggestion is to not respond to anything he tries to say or no matter how he tries to tell you all how good he is. He has pointed us to images he made that are not particularly good but that is another story.

lee\c

I have been dealing with you 'Z' people for 35 years. It is inevitable in your psychological make-up that you feel compelled to silence and denigrate others. I for one will not tolerate such attempts by you or any 'Z' people. Any and all zononsense will be countered not with insult but with facts. If you have anything relevant to say about 'developing charts', say it.

 

[bmac]

And how is that relevant to this thread?

In a word... "very"

 

[mikewhi]

In a word... "very"

I agree, it is very relevant. It's sad to see guys like this come along. I don't mind zany, but I think it mostly belongs in the Lounge. I mean, what he says from a technical point of view is hogwash. I've been dealing with anti-Zone System people for decades, too, and he just seems like another one. The ZS is just basic sensitometry which is based based on the laws of physics. I don't really see how one can disagree with the basic underpinnings of it and not simultaneously contradict the 'laws of physics' (like 'I' know that they re<g>).

Anyway, I guess I'll just add him to my ignore list. I think he'll be joining other people's ignore lists, soon, too. There is no arguing with people like him.

Take care, Lee.

-Mike

 

[modafoto]

I for one will not tolerate such attempts by you or any 'Z' people.

Another person added to the ignore list for being out of line.

 

[sterioma]

I guess I'll just add him to my ignore list. I think he'll be joining other people's ignore lists, soon, too. There is no arguing with people like him.

I have just done the same. I was pleased to have another point of view in this thread when he first posted here, but in the end I realized that he was just being argumentative. Like in those other threads.

 

[modafoto]

I have just done the same. I was pleased to have another point of view in this thread when he first posted here, but in the end I realized that he was just being argumentative. Like in those other threads.

Yes. It's not his because of his opinions but because of his behavior I have banned him.

 

[hansbeckert]

I agree, it is very relevant. It's sad to see guys like this come along. I don't mind zany, but I think it mostly belongs in the Lounge. I mean, what he says from a technical point of view is hogwash. I've been dealing with anti-Zone System people for decades, too, and he just seems like another one. The ZS is just basic sensitometry which is based based on the laws of physics. I don't really see how one can disagree with the basic underpinnings of it and not simultaneously contradict the 'laws of physics' (like 'I' know that they re<g>).

Anyway, I guess I'll just add him to my ignore list. I think he'll be joining other people's ignore lists, soon, too. There is no arguing with people like him.

Take care, Lee.

-Mike

The usual zonazi lies. There is no arguing with zonazis. There is NO scientific basis for the zoan sistern. NONE. It's all lies, distortions, myth, and deception. ALL of it.

I've been dealing with these liars for 35 years.

This lie is typical:

"The ZS is just basic sensitometry which is based based on the laws of physics."

It is anything BUT this. It's mythology and falsehoods.

"It's definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you've seen them all.

But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."

 

[wiseowl]

The usual zonazi lies. There is no arguing with zonazis. There is NO scientific basis for the zoan sistern. NONE. It's all lies, distortions, myth, and deception. ALL of it.

I've been dealing with these liars for 35 years.

This lie is typical:

"The ZS is just basic sensitometry which is based based on the laws of physics."

It is anything BUT this. It's mythology and falsehoods.

"It's definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you've seen them all.

But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."

I really think you've completely missunderstood the zone system and how it's use can enable you to predict what the final print will be like. It can do this even if we choose to use just normal development (as you advocate), as it allows predictable positioning of tones on the print. I accept that in the 35mm world full use of the zone system is not usually practicable, ie with the use of n+ n- development etc but that hardly makes it a pack of lies. The zone system works for many photographers extremely well and is based around a system of measurement which can be used across numerous film/dev combinations to get controlled results. Your system might work for you, but to me it seems to be a far more empirical method, as such being less repeatable and reproducable.

When all is said and done, do what works for you and by all means share but to call others liars because they don't agree strikes me as absurd and seriously undermines any validity in your argument.

 

[bmac]

Wiseowl, not sure if you saw this thread or not, so I will post a link for FYI.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[wiseowl]

Thanks for the heads up

 

[hansbeckert]

I really think you've completely missunderstood the zone system and how it's use can enable you to predict what the final print will be like. It can do this even if we choose to use just normal development (as you advocate), as it allows predictable positioning of tones on the print. I accept that in the 35mm world full use of the zone system is not usually practicable, ie with the use of n+ n- development etc but that hardly makes it a pack of lies. The zone system works for many photographers extremely well and is based around a system of measurement which can be used across numerous film/dev combinations to get controlled results. Your system might work for you, but to me it seems to be a far more empirical method, as such being less repeatable and reproducable.

When all is said and done, do what works for you and by all means share but to call others liars because they don't agree strikes me as absurd and seriously undermines any validity in your argument.

No, I haven't misunderstood. This is a common ploy, to say that I have not understood. I understand perfectly. I've been doing B&W photography for 40 years.

Why should I want 'to predict what the final print will be like'? Half the time I change my mind about how I want to print the negative anyway, or the light/composition/position of the subject changes so quickly from one moment to the next that such an intention cannot be carried out even if I wanted to. I am speaking of course of reportage work, not studio work.

I simply control the contrast of the roll by using a standard development time and adjust for minor deviances from average by use of grade change. In my work I seldom have to move more than 1/2 grade from normal (grade 3).

 

[hansbeckert]

Wiseowl, not sure if you saw this thread or not, so I will post a link for FYI.
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

You're on MY 'ignore' list. I see you have the image of VIEW camera as your image. Is that all you're interested in?