I simply stated that I disagree with you. And you chose to be an asshole.
Sorry, did I forget to genuflect before criticizing Adams? I guess I should have said I assume Adam's wasn't very good at theory because of all the fundamental mistakes in his book.
I was just trying to be funny (post #59), and apologized for not taking it more seriously (post #60). I believe my history on this forum shows that I'm willing to discuss issues. As I wrote, I think this is an important subject and worthy of discussion. If you are willing to make a case for your disagreement, we can begin.I simply stated that I disagree with you. And you chose to be an asshole.
This is actually a very important subject and I shouldn't have been flip with my previous response. There are two issues here. Did Adams' books contain fundamental errors in photographic theory, especially tone reproduction, and exposure theory? What are the points of contention?
And secondly, could the reason many photographers regard Adams as the ultimate authority on photography is that they haven't had the opportunity or weren't aware of the more scientifically oriented photography books? I personally consider Adams' series as falling into the amateur / popular photography / how to milieu.
Doremus,Stephen,
I agree that this is an important subject and would love to learn more from you. Unfortunately, rhetorical questions without follow-up explanations don't give me any information. So... What are your points of contention with Adams' Zone-System theory?
Best,
Doremus
An important point to bring up is that Ansel Adams worked hard to keep measures of contrast out of the Zone System.
In "Exposure Record," his definition of "Gamma" included his feelings...
"... it is difficult for the average photographer to evaluate and apply."
...
"I do not use the term Gamma in Zone System procedure; I believe it is unecessary and confusing with black and white photography."
Sometimes curve fitting can be hard, even with computers.
I have to admit, I never liked working with Gamma because it is difficult to measure.
But I find Contrast Index easy to use to measure contrast.
I absolutely love the Zone System notation when shooting and planning development. That is pure genius and timeless and practical.
But by ruling out the use of contrast measurement in the "lab," Ansel Adams made the test procedures more complicated than they need to be. Also it's awkward that the test results are valid only for a particular lens/shutter/paper, when those factors can be broken out easily enough.
I should add some info to my post #28 as regards reduction of flare:
1) The camera used was actually a Sinar 5x7 with a 4x5 back to keep the camera bellows farther from the film during exposure in an effort to minimize the bellows' contribution to flare.
2) The lens used was a Symmar that's not multi-coated and its inherent flare characteristics are therefore included in the test results (none of my lenses are multi-coated); its actual shutter speeds are known and accounted for. If I knew how to go about confirming the accuracy of my apertures I would have done that as well, but I do have a habit of changing apertures by moving in the "closing down" direction (recommended by AA) to rule out free-play in the aperture mechanism.
3) Admittedly the use of a white mount board as a target should cause more flare than a darker board, so that’s why I chose to use a bellows shade that masked the film format as closely as possible, then metered the target using an SEI photometer with its anti-flare tube attached (the meter, incidentally, was checked for agreement with my Gossen meter recently re-calibrated by Quality Light Metric).
My point in all this is that the test results calibrate MY equipment and MY workflow and agitation technique to work as MY system.
I should add some info to my post #28 as regards reduction of flare:
1) The camera ...
2) The lens ...
3) ... the use of a white mount board as a target...
Bill, I find the conclusion to the Gamma quote from the first edition of The Negative, 1948 to be most interesting.
"Hence, is it not more logical to leave gamma to the sensitometrist and manufacturer, and to think of negative development in terms of a simpler symbol? X minutes at Y degrees temperature would represent “normal” with consideration for the photographer’s concept, lens, film, film developer, methods of printing and enlarging, and the paper used.
“7 minutes at 68 degrees F in Ansco 47 Isopan represents “normal” to me..
"Hence, is it not more logical to leave gamma to the sensitometrist and manufacturer, and to think of negative development in terms of a simpler symbol?..
But why should I inject an unnecessary and confusing symbol for a perfectly simple..?"
Is that what we want?
You're still thinking like Ansel. If you develop your 5:45am shot N, are you sacrificing the clouds? (hint: answer is no).
What if developing N- actually sacrifices some detail?
Or burn in the clouds?This shot I described is a good example of the problem.
The foreground, early morning is very flat. If I develop N+1 it would make the foreground more interesting. N-1 is likely to make it dull and lifeless.
So maybe I'll bring Half Dome up to Zone VII and VIII and gain contrast in the river. Forget the clouds, and sort of forget Half Dome too. I could leave that landmark barely recognizable so it merely hints at the location of the scene.
Or burn in the clouds?
I got that.I believe that is what Michael was implying.
You know I always consider the shift for flare to come from the shadow, so by my reckoning Zone I comes up to Zone II and the density of Zone VIII remains 1.25 - still produces a negative with DR 1.05 for Normal.
Now in my example where I changed EI to 400, for my shot of Half Dome and Merced River, I created a negative which was exposed much like your sketch (except my clouds on Zone XI will come down to Zone X because I changed EI and I will have a Negative Density of 1.9 on my curves if I develop to my N).
I will have a density 0.4 more in the clouds to burn (thus 1 1/3 stop of burning. On a 32 second base print exposure that means over a minute of burn time more than an N-1 negative). I don't think I would enjoy printing that negative. Even with N-1 I will get 1.5 density clouds and that is going to be paper white.
Still I argue this negative may be best developed to N+1 - because the flat morning light will give me no sparkling water. I metered 9 on water and placed on Zone V. 10 and 9 on the granite of Half Dome which I placed on Zone VI and Zone V respectively. The water and dark granite of Half Dome would look good printed to Zone VI and the light granite of Half Dome would print on Zone VII which will hold detail.
I'm thinking that I will sacrifice the clouds though since they will hit somewhere around Negative Density of 2.3 which would be silly to try to print.
Bill, there's another way to look at measuring the exposure range. With correct ISO exposure, the shadow will fall approximately one stop below the fixed density of 0.10 over Fb+f. Flare will bring it up to around 0.10. So the highlight should then fall Δ1.90 log-H to the right. Only with the Zone System EI with the 2/3 to 1 stop overexposure does the flare fall where you are referring to and the highlight density would be what it would be at Zone VIII. Otherwise with correct exposure, it will fall at what is considered Zone VII density.
I came close to what you are describing, ISO exposure, by setting my meter at 400. So for what I did your graph is right (I get different specific densities because I use my graphs).
I keep hearing you say... do you know what you're getting? That's why I point out what I think would be a better model for Zone System usual practice.
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?