Not entirely-- "native" and "indigenous" are nearly identical terms in this usage. So much so that I literally flipped a coin to pick one term to argue about.
And the Aboriginals crossed an land bridge from Asia to Australia 65,000 years ago and they are still called indigenous. So you point missed the mark.
This is a major part of why you are continuing to make and repeat the same mistakes - you are not properly indexing the readout from the camera's spot meter (only the Olympus OM-3 and OM-4 can do this) for highlight or shadow keying, which are essential to any semblance of using a spotmeter as anything other than a limited area averaging meter of questionable worth. If you must insist on using a TTL camera spot meter, at least do the following: meter the darkest shadow you want detail in with - 2 2/3 exposure compensation dialed in, and you'll actually be in with a chance of keying exposure on neg film correctly. + 2 1/3 compensation and meter the brightest highlight you want detail in for transparency. That's it, no need for dozens of readings of irrelevant stuff.
Lachie, please, don't quote my posts, I ignore you, please do the same.
The effect depends on the flare factor, which depends on the subject. Illustrative diagram of the effect:
Agreed. My point is simply that there is less precision than some people think when it comes to ZS spot metering, and that from an exposure decision perspective it provides less information that we might assume.
Of course, bracketing with big, expensive pieces of film is a lot more painful than with little bits of roll film.
Does that cover it?
I have the same meter and have used it for years. However, the 5 degree is for the IV. The Autotmeter III uses a 10-degree spot. The 5-degree attachment is not recommended. You might want to check. In any case, I aim the 10-degree spot for an "average" looking area. (I mainly shot chromes with it). Then I bracket a stop or half stop. Medium format is relatively cheap and bracketing is cheap insurance that adds only seconds to do.
Today, I've been shooting 4x5. I'm trying my P&S digital micro 4/3 and sticking the scene into the histogram while looking at the screen to see if the exposure looks right. I'll favor the blacks or whites depending on if I'm shooting BW negative film or chrome. But I'm not bracketing as I'm shooting 4x5 now. It's become too expensive and laborious with film holders.
I still am working on using the histogram to figure out my exposure settings. I haven't gotten it down yet. But I'm hoping for the best using it.
their wide latitude of exposure and variable contrast paper, there is very little is any need for the expansion and contract using N+i or N-i development and if ever needed a little darkroom technique can replace it.
The Zonistas love the never ending testing, it gives their lives meaning.
Agreed. My point is simply that there is less precision than some people think when it comes to ZS spot metering, and that from an exposure decision perspective it provides less information that we might assume.
Lachie, please, don't quote my posts, I ignore you, please do the same.
Negative film has much more latitude in the highlights side than in the shadows, shadows are way more critical.
reminds me of the time I caught the ferry to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe. So I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say. Now where were we... oh yeah. The important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have any white onions, because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones...
Duh, iffen you are ignoring his posts, exactly how would you know that he quoted your? Interested readers want to know!
Sirius, as you are discovering it's very difficult to completely ignore someone whose understanding of film exposure is so errant that his posts are starting to play the Laurel & Hardy theme...
On a more serious note, the sort of behaviour he engages in is potentially very damaging both to this community (why do you think the forum sponsors seem to engage so little these days?) and those who rely (via Google search results) on the knowledge base here to learn important aspects of technique etc - like the usage of different types of meter.
No, that depends of the toe and the shoulder which are different for each film.
Negative film has always 3.33 stops latitude for the shadows, this comes from the ISO calibration norm. What negative pictorial film
We may discuss if monodisperse CMS 20 microfilm can be a candidate... but beyond that possible exception you probably won't be able to point a single pictorial Negative film (BW or color) not sporting a well higher highlight latitude than shadow latitude, if shot at ISO speed.
Tell me one... you won't be able.
I made a partial mistake. It cannot be used with the II. However, with the III and IIIF, you have to adjust the setting by 1.2 stops. See link of Minolta instructions.The book of 'destructions' that came with the meter stated that it was 5 degree and I neve queried it. When I look through the eyepiece all I see is a circle where I take the reading from. 5 or 10 degree who knows, it works perfectly well. Why should it not work with the model 3? Is it a different bayonet fitting?
I live in Southern California where it is common to have a Subject Brightness Range of 8 to 14 f/stops. I have gotten up to 14 f/stops on black & white and color film. The problem is not with the film, the details are there. It takes skill to get the range of the film on to paper which has 7 f/stops at best. That takes darkroom skill and done without the expansion or compression of the Zone System.
Ok, now you admit that Negative films have more highlight latitude than shadow latitude... rectification wellcome.
Of course linear films are less suitable for a raw ZS treatment, but ZS practitioners address linear film usage in several ways.
First, let me mention that "Mr Zone" John Sexton worked with Kodak to develop T-Max film, which is essentially linear in nature, being he both a ZS amazing 1st rate teacher and a T-Max defender, having crafted a top quality body of work with ZS and his linear TMX.
Let me reiterate that ZS "workflow rules" are simple common sense. The spot meter serves to ensure shadows have enough exposure and that highlights don't reach excessive densities after development, common sense... ZS adds nothing to what any fine print maker would do
But the important thing is that Spot metering also helps you in the print visualization. You locate the zones in the scene and so you can realize how the print will be. The important concept is VISUALIZATION. This helps your creative process.
View attachment 262620
http://www.alanbrockimages.com/blog/2015/5/30/how-to-meter-using-the-zone-system
_______
Now, if you want we may explore several ways we have to process/print extreme highlights from linear film... several may by used additionally.
1) Silver Chloride paper sporting a long Toe which prints the "film shoulder", what was AZO, now Lodima or Lupex.
2) Pyro + Variable Contrast paper. The stronger proportional stain selectively blocks more blue light of the enlarger in the highlights, selectively printing highlights with a lower contrast grade, performing a selective highlight compression or compensation.
3) Compensating development, low/minimal agitation and/or compensating developers.
4) Burning manipulation
5) HLM masking
6) etc...
None of those is in favor or aganist ZS, today we don't have to play the 1940 ZS as a dogma. While basic rule (Visualization) has not changed, but in those 80 years the ZS way has incorporated all technical advances happened in those 8 decades, being "Mr Zone" himself a powerful drive in that evolution, and THE main promotor of linear film.
Look, today ZS way is mostly about taking the spot meter to acknowledge the scene so we can Visualize the print we'll get. Making the scene dynamic range fit in the paper is the same problem than in 1940, today we have other materials and new techniques. It is irrelevant what technique we use. The important thing is how we map the scene scale to the paper scale, the ample light range of the scene to the reduced density range in the paper.
ZS is about that, how we paint a rock with shades of gray to make it look 3D (for example), and how we Visualize the print before shutter release, usually after exploring the scene with an spot meter, locating the zones helps the Visualization.
Watch those videos by Mr Zone Sexton...
Let me point that again:
Anyone machinegunning ZS may have a problem... if wanting to put a print in the same wall than Mr Zone.
@Sirius Glass The other thing the Zonies seem to happily ignore is that the Zone System inherently screws around with the midtone gradient - quite severely so in many cases.
... at this point we have nothing...
Or course this is the place were we need the safety factor, depending on our accuracy we should add 1/3 or 1/2 stop to our metering. Usually this is enough. Shadows alone may determine our exposure.
Yes, if I set the shadows in Zone 2, 3, or 4 I can safely assume that the high end will still be safely captured. Whereas in the 1960's that would not be assumed.
Here's a demonstration on a Pentax Spotmeter V where you can watch the needle move:..................
I meant to explain that by this, you can decrease exposure to 1/3 to 1/2 stop less that film's rated speed when you are metering carefully, and you will get excellent results.
Where you need the safety factor is when you are casually averaging and you walk into a scene that's backlit and don't compensate.
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?