Landscape Photography

[markbarendt]

It is possible (people do it all the time) to use an abridged form of the zone system to expose roll negative film.

1. Expose for the shadows.
2. Try to group all silmilarly lit shots together as you expose the roll - although this requires planning, it is easier than you might think since natural lighting tends to range quite consistently throughout various times of the day.
3. Keep notes!
4. Cut the film into "consistently lit" sections (half, thirds, etc.), sacrificing the between shots, in order to develop.
5. Develop per notes, expanding or contracting roll section development as necessary (this will likely require some study and understanding of the zs).

It would be easier to roll your own short rolls.

Even still shooting and developing normally and adjusting with VC paper can provide essentially equivalent results with out the back flip of trying to measure to cut the roll with two hands in a dark bag.

There is a common misconception about landscape work that it is trivial and easy:

point camera + develop film appropriately + print photo = ansel adams.​

A academic photography department head once told me that her instructors told her that she would never be a good photographer until she learned to shoot natural light landscape.

That old wives tale/urban legend is such a load of hooey (err photographic bigotry) IMO.

Does anyone really think that the above instructors would have the balls to tell Karsh, HCB, or Erwitt that.

 

[ROL]

Well, since you're parsing my responses (to the OP), I'll reciprocate (to you).

It would be easier to roll your own short rolls.

Even still shooting and developing normally and adjusting with VC paper can provide essentially equivalent results with out the back flip of trying to measure to cut the roll with two hands in a dark bag.

I believe, if not mistaken, that the OP was asking about roll film development and the zone system. Your equivalent method, though if fortunate enough, might potentially produce decent results on the print end of things, but that would not be a part of any version or intent of any zone system that I'm aware of.

It seems to me that cutting lengths of rolls, while a good option on its face, entails a certain amount of dark bag "back flip" in itself. Be that as it may, nobody was suggesting such a thing. Some of us, here at APUG, actually use dark-rooms for the manipulation of light sensitive materials. Cutting up rolls into halves, thirds, quarters, or more if one can manage it, is as simple as folding the film, emulsion side out. Once for halves, twice for thirds, thrice for quarters – and making cuts at the folds. No measuring required (get it?!?). Put the sections in individually marked dark bags (or dark whatever) for normal, contracted, or expanded development.

That old wives tale/urban legend is such a load of hooey (err photographic bigotry) IMO.

Does anyone really think that the above instructors would have the balls to tell Karsh, HCB, or Erwitt that.

Nobody has to think that. I find your accusations and the tenor of your comments insulting in the extreme that you would call my personal communication "old wives tale/urban legend". I thought it clear that the reference of the aside was to the OP's desire (not yours, whatever that might be) to use a less haphazard approach to landscape. But, quite correct, she was not "Karsh, HCB, or Erwitt".

From this point on, I will certainly treat any post from you, in any regard, with great suspicion – "IMO".

PS. It's never been my understanding that HCB printed his own work – that being the goal of zone system techniques.

 

[markbarendt]

I believe, if not mistaken, that the OP was asking about roll film development and the zone system. Your equivalent method, though if fortunate enough, might potentially produce decent results on the print end of things, but that would not be a part of any version or intent of any zone system that I'm aware of.

The zone system in a nutshell was/is simply a way to match a paper's range to a scene's range and make quality printing easier.

It seems to me that cutting lengths of rolls, while a good option on its face, entails a certain amount of dark bag "back flip" in itself. Be that as it may, nobody was suggesting such a thing. Some of us, here at APUG, actually use dark-rooms for the manipulation of light sensitive materials. Cutting up rolls into halves, thirds, quarters, or more if one can manage it, is as simple as folding the film, emulsion side out. Once for halves, twice for thirds, thrice for quarters – and making cuts at the folds. No measuring required (get it?!?). Put the sections in individually marked dark bags (or dark whatever) for normal, contracted, or expanded development.

Touché

Nobody has to think that. I find your accusations and the tenor of your comments insulting in the extreme that you would call my personal communication "old wives tale/urban legend". I thought it clear that the reference of the aside was to the OP's desire (not yours, whatever that might be) to use a less haphazard approach to landscape. But, quite correct, she was not "Karsh, HCB, or Erwitt".

From this point on, I will certainly treat any post from you, in any regard, with great suspicion – "IMO".

That expression has been around, and around, and around.

I was picking on the expression, not you.

As to your friend, the teachers were being vulgar and disrespectful of her and the rest of the non-landscape shooting world.

My point is that the expression has no basis in fact. It is a vulgar taunt that says landscapers are better than portrait shooters.

PS. It's never been my understanding that HCB printed his own work – that being the goal of zone system techniques.

So where is it written that self printing was the goal of the zone system?