+1Actual shooting and processing through to the finsihed image is, all in all, the best way to learn.
Let me try to explain.Don’t pre-visualize, just visualize.
I have no idea what the “pre” is about?
Visualize before you visualize?
I'm a note slacker so sometimes I'll use my cell phone to grab a picture for comparison later. I find this also helps.
I am having trouble using the Zone System on my cell phone. Please help.
Being not the new Ansel Adams (check my previous posts...) and above all not having a darkrooom at my disposal right now, wanted to ask you if there are pre-measured tables or something of the kind where I can tell, for a given film (especially b/w) if, given a delta of x stops from middle grey, I will have detail or not? Maybe for a certain type of paper, which then I can translate into monitor viewing (I target monitors invariably)?
Another interesting use of visulaization was by Minor White in the first edition of Aperture magazine. He referenced the pre-visualization where the photographer has a 'vision' of the final image before he fires the shutter. Then he discusses post-visualization. Where you shoot like a banshee, using 35mm film, and figure out what you were up to afterwards. Remember, this was in the mid-50s when 36 exposures on a roll was like your first 128mb compact flash card- way too many!!! Not sure if he was making fun of the new 35mm film shooters like Robert Frank (28,000 frames for 83 images), or was seriously proposing such an approach (the article was serious in tone and seemed to be supportive). But this was about the time of John Cage. And as Jasper Johns said when someone asked him abut the accidental drips on his canvasses, 'They may have happened by accident, but I choose to keep them.'
before I press the shutter release, I imagine being in my darkroom with the negative; will I feel motivated to spend an hour or so to produce a half-decent print, or is it just going to stay in the negative file? If the latter, I just pass.
A couple of important thing to remember about photography: mid-20th century, it was still a pathetic bastard child in the world of fine arts struggling to be recognized. And two, photographers love systems and techniques. Never heard a painter talk about their so-called creative process to the extent that Adams and White et al did to try to legitimize their endeavors.
As a photographer who came of age at the mid 20th century it seemed to me that the other visual arts of the time did not have the technical challenges that photography struggled with. Painting, oil, acrylic, watercolor, sculpting, the methods and means were well know and taught. When Ansel Adams and Fred Archer developed the zone system in the late 30s and early 40s meters were new and inaccurate, film was slow and grainy, and few photographers understood the science behind the craft. What AA attempted to do was devise a system that allowed the photographer to focus on creativity. It was designed for sheet film, although Adams used both 35mm and 6X6 he never explained at length how to use the Zone with roll film. As film got better, meters go better, and roll film became dominate to some extent the zone was not as relevant as it had been. In my opinion using the zone system to determine a personal E.I or personalized ISO is just overkill. I do use a crippled zone with roll film, based on a ring around test to find zone 3 shadows, I develop for Zone VII, meter the shadows for zone III then print for my highlights. If I have VII when developed I can visualize for zone V to VIII and use VC paper and filters to get the highlight I want. Saying that, if I am using a newer camera with matrix metering, don't find that it is necessary, matrix in case gives a very negative to work with.
Not necessarily. The manufacturer’s recommended time and temperature are just a signpost. You, and only you can determine what works for you, even if it diverges from what's printed on the box.One thing…if I say “I develop for zone x” where x would bring me to use a time and/or temperature way off from the manufacturer’s recommendations, would I not obtain an inferior image anyway
It would seem to me that, given that I can expose for a certain zone, and then print (or photoshop) for another zone, this two variables would suffice that obtain the zone system, without bringing film out of its area of best performance? Sure, I can also use the third variable (develop for zone x) but to a beginner’s eyes it sounds like just complicating things.
Not necessarily. The manufacturer’s recommended time and temperature are just a signpost. You, and only you can determine what works for you, even if it diverges from what's printed on the box.
If you want to keep it very simple, just use the "expose for shadows and develop for highlights" idea and go from there, see if it works for you. That's as simple as it gets.
Perfect!Even simpler is to take the exposure for the shadow which has detail that you want, put it in Zone 2, Zone 3 or Zone 4 the adjust the overall exposure by increasing 3-, 2- or 1-f/stop. The adjust the exposure for any filter factor. Develop normally. Voilà the Zone System exposure.
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?