Sounds to me like another Tesla vs Edison story... Lol
I think this is an interesting read
http://www.iconicphoto.com/pdf/the_zone_system_1104.pdf
The Zone concept was conceived by Fred Archer, a photographer and instructor at
the Art Center College in Los Angeles. In a series of articles in U.S. Camera magazine in
1939-1940, he set out a unified approach to determine the degree of adjustment necessary
to improve contrast to remedy the effects of lighting differences in an image. Archer built
on the system of aperture f-stops that had been adopted by the photography industry. He
introduced a matrix that tied f-stop gradations to a virtual scale from absolute black to
maximum light, allowing photographers to map images for brightness using readily
applicable f-stop equivalents.
Ansel Adams read the material with interest, communicated with Archer and took
the project in hand. Adams went on to further develop and popularize the Zone System,
elaborating the framework in the terminology used today.
I think this is an interesting read
http://www.iconicphoto.com/pdf/the_zone_system_1104.pdf
The Zone concept was conceived by Fred Archer, a photographer and instructor at
the Art Center College in Los Angeles. In a series of articles in U.S. Camera magazine in
1939-1940, he set out a unified approach to determine the degree of adjustment necessary
to improve contrast to remedy the effects of lighting differences in an image. Archer built
on the system of aperture f-stops that had been adopted by the photography industry. He
introduced a matrix that tied f-stop gradations to a virtual scale from absolute black to
maximum light, allowing photographers to map images for brightness using readily
applicable f-stop equivalents.
Ansel Adams read the material with interest, communicated with Archer and took
the project in hand. Adams went on to further develop and popularize the Zone System,
elaborating the framework in the terminology used today.
hi bill...
i had heard of fred archer and his work with the zone system ... but i was under the impression that that system had been used since the days of dry plates and he and adams stood on the shoulders of those before them
mainly because the emulsions used in the first days of the 1900s were extremely finicky and obviously seneitive to different colors in the spectrum compared to those used later on ... so people had to figured out a way to best use their materials so they wouldnt be wasting their time and energies
john
Personally I wouldn't bother with FOMA films, their reciprocity is terrible and they have emulsion issues with spots (or the stuff I've used has) but if it didn't, I would use it because it does give a nice look aside from those issues.
I don't want to sidetrack the thread, but do want to respond. It's been pretty well documented that Arista EDU is re-badged FOMA film. I use it because I love the look and it fits my budget, especially in 4x5. I've learned to work with the issues you've mentioned above.
Reciprocity failure is longer than other films, but that doesn't mean it's a terrible film, and it's not hard to adjust the exposure for it in practice. Again, it's worth it to me to have the look (and price) of the film.
I've had my share of emulsion defects too, which COULD mean it's a terrible film, but I've found ways to adjust my processing routine to mitigate them. Pinholes in negatives are fairly rare for me these days.
To tie back into the thread topic: Like others, I'm also reducing the number of different films I use. I have an occasional need to shoot in the ISO 400 and over range. I've seen that it's possible with Arista EDU/FOMA films. Knowledge gleaned from this forum (and others) has been very helpful, but it's wasn't until I worked through the process myself that I started getting results I liked.
Ansel Adams was quite clear that the system was based on the work of Hunter and Driffield and the experience of 70 years of previous work. What they did do was codify the concept. I.E. if you want to move this zone by this number of steps then you develop by this much more or less.
What struck me in this piece was the documentation of Fred Archer's role and the lack of his tooting his own horn. Even his portrait book does not promote the Zone system although it alludes to the expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights concept.
Considering Archer's publishing first, he must have been a modest man.
Considering Ansel Adams dislike of pictorialism, Archer must have been a likable man too.
And yes what with f stops, light metres and ISO ratings we have it pretty easy.
On the other hand it shows the enormous latitude for " I think this will be OK" that photography must have had in the first 75 years. ( and in truth exists today)
He may have been modest, OR he may have been selfish and didn't want to give away his secrets to just anyone, and shared them with his friend Ansel, who then shared it with the world, you never know really... History is funny that way
Archer was a teacher and he and Ansel taught the zone system as a part of their instruction in photography. Archer was also a great portraitist in Hollywood. He did a portrait of Edward Weston as well. He's worth checking out. That was an interesting period in history.
glad you've mitigated many of the issues, I know I could too, but it would mean changing a lot of my practices and chemicals I've been accustomed to using and I'm not willing to do that just for one film...
Not necessarily. In my case, a simple pre-wash of the film before development took care of it. Not every solution has to be difficult...
The reason I am allowed to try to help answer your questions (which I did in post #2) without posting pictures in the gallery is that you are repeatedly in need of very basic information about things like film speed, contrast, agitation, properties of film developers etc.
For me I would have to change stop baths, and possibly fixer type, that's what I meant.
Or just use water and a standard non hardening rapid fix. I use c41 fixer that I buy by the crate. Proportionately it's cheap as chips and I prefer it to most other commercial fixers.
Good scanning is a very, very difficult undertaking. I have been scanning negatives for years and only now do I feel I can create a digital version of an image that is on par with a silver print. Indeed I am very pleased with my pigment prints, however it is not an easy task. A dedicated film scanner (not a flat bed) makes all the difference, but just as important is knowing how to scan. My scans give me files that are surpassed only by a drum or imacon, and even then not by much. I can produce a truly grain sharp 20x24 print from a full frame scan of my 35mm negatives. Grain sharp, not scanner noise/artificial sharpening noise sharp. With no interpolation I might add. With 6x6 I can go up to 40x40" without any artifacting at 300dpi. It's a total PITA to do the work on these files, but the results are worth it.
What scanner do you use?
Reread this statement, and tell me if that means changing procedure... Think hard...
People posting to the gallery here seem to be doing ok enough with what I assume are fairly basic procedures and probably lower end consumer scanners. But in the end I guess I'm just not that motivated to post stuff.
Or just use water and a standard non hardening rapid fix. I use c41 fixer that I buy by the crate. Proportionately it's cheap as chips and I prefer it to most other commercial fixers.
When I first joined I tried posting a few scans of some prints but the scans never looked very good to me so stopped. I don't own a scanner so I haven't a clue how to do it properly. At the time I would try to scan them at the local library (no photoshop or anything, just whatever software came with the piece of crap scanner). I had no idea what I was doing but even on the occasion I'd get it to look half decent at the library, then I'd look at it the next day on my computer at work and it would be way too light or whatever. I'm insane about print quality, so I gave up on the scanning. It seemed like a waste of time.
One step is adjusted by a twist of the water tap, and you should be using non hardening rapid fix anyway.
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?