What we know that our tools don't.

[markbarendt]

My equipment has no clue what constitutes an aesthetically pleasing image.

Since the 60's when I first laid hands on a camera, up until some 10 years ago, I had no interest in understanding exposure. It was not important to me. I trusted my cameras, and they performed admirably. I could count the bad slides and negatives made during that time on my fingers and toes. In the past 10 years I have made great strides in my understanding of exposure, yet my satisfaction with my own work has not increased. To the contrary. I believe that as I become more anal (analytical), my work simply reflects this state. Last fall I decided that I wanted to return to when I enjoyed photography, and the images I produced. I have noticed though, that it takes quite a bit of effort not to analyze a scene before photographing it. Bad habits are difficult to break. I have high hopes. Hind sight being what it is, exposure for me is exactly like Bill noted. It's a bulls-eye with margin. Now, if I could attach and alarm to my camera that beeped as photographic moments approached, I would be all set. Point, meter, focus, shoot.

I'm just an enthusiast.

 

[Alan Klein]

I know nothing about the zone system. I just started shooting Tmax 100 for landscapes, medium format 6x7. I like the smooth look with good tonal ranges of that film. When I shoot, I expose for box speed and bracket + and - one stop. I don't have a darkroom and get the film developed in a pro lab. They use Xtol. They could use other developers but there's a $50 set up charge. So I'll probably stay with Xtol. With Xtol they develop normal, but will push and pull for $2 or $4 depending. A lab will handle my printing. Probably digitally from scanning and possibly wet printing.

Any recommendations about exposure or anything else that would help?

 

[Sirius Glass]

I know nothing about the zone system.

Most photographers do not which shows that one can have a successful wonderful like without the Zone System and the endless meaningless useless and redundant testing. Life is Wonderful.

​

 

[markbarendt]

Any recommendations about exposure or anything else that would help?

Have fun and purposefully bump the limits.

One analogy I've used in my head is that learning to fit a scene onto a film curve is like learning to parallel park blind where a little contact is allowed. Go one way until you bump the limits, then go the other way and do the same until you get it figured out.

The thing I like about this analogy is that neither the film curve nor the brightness range of the scene is a point, they have differing lengths.

 

[DannL.]

My exposure metering these days is very basic. I do carry a small 5" x 6" grey card in the camera bag, but then years ago I discovered that the palm of my hand reads the same as a grey card. So, I meter the palm of my hand, holding it 45 degrees to the source of light, take the reading, and work from there. I tried spot metering and placement in zones, but I found that the results simply didn't warrant the effort in my work. Keeping it simple.

Bracketing is definitely a worthwhile practice. The sooner you fill the roll up, the sooner you can print the negatives.

 

[markbarendt]

My equipment has no clue what constitutes an aesthetically pleasing image.

That is a great statement.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My equipment has no clue what constitutes an aesthetically pleasing image.

I am looking for a filter that, as I fire the shutter, will automatically improve the composition and make any exposure and focusing corrections.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm literally visualizing the film curve in the back of my head, and the placement of various meter readings on it. I can do with with a number of different films almost subconsciously. No EI nonsense (other than a basic meter setting to begin with), no artificially segmented "Zones". God created centipedes and scorpions and bugs in articulated segments, but not light in eight discrete Zones. Nor did Kodak create film where the curve jumps from Zone to zone in abrupt segments. So in a sense, I'm doing things in a more advanced manner than the Zone System. Yet in another way, I'm doing things way simpler and faster. No notes either. Like I've said before, learn your piano chords and learn them well, so that when you finally master them, you won't even remember all that, and will be making music instead.

 

[markbarendt]

I'm literally visualizing the film curve in the back of my head, and the placement of various meter readings on it. I can do with with a number of different films almost subconsciously. No EI nonsense (other than a basic meter setting to begin with), no artificially segmented "Zones".

IMO this is a good example. We see a whole, the meter can only see one point.

God created centipedes and scorpions and bugs in articulated segments, but not light in eight discrete Zones. Nor did Kodak create film where the curve jumps from Zone to zone in abrupt segments. So in a sense, I'm doing things in a more advanced manner than the Zone System. Yet in another way, I'm doing things way simpler and faster. No notes either. Like I've said before, learn your piano chords and learn them well, so that when you finally master them, you won't even remember all that, and will be making music instead.

For me zones were an introduction to the concept of placement, they were a bit like playing with crayons to learn to draw or training wheels on a bike.

They are still a useful concept when trying to talk with others.

 

[Chan Tran]

I was naive to think that a camera and film can capture what things look like in real life. After I learned that is never the case I learned to imagine in my head what's the print will look like.

 

[markbarendt]

Yeah Chan there was a time that I thought that photography actually represented reality too. Getting past that naïveté was a huge step forward for me.