Worst piece of photography/darkroom equipment

[gr82bart]

Isn't it amazing how trolls act behind anonimity? They must be really impotent & insignificant in public life. Pity.

Anyway, my vote goes to the ball head I have for the tripod. Anything heavier than a point and shoot is useless on this thing.

Regards, Art.

 

[Jeffrey A. Steinberg]

In case you have not figured it out, and no one else has in 50 years, there is a fatal flaw to the Zone System since it's inception which actually renders it meaningless. Whether the omission was intentional, a lack of knowledge or a honest mistake I do not know, I have never met A.A.

It's a simple fix that could mean a quantum leap for L.F. photography and printing AND it's hidden in plain sight. Have you found it yet???

Smile

Yes it's rule 15.64-1 "If you don't employ the Zone System correctly, it will not work" (I follow this rool too often).

 

[Peter Schrager]

Worst

Photobully-it's not my nature to want to attack/pick on people. I owned a wisner 5x7 camera for a short while and I was lucky to get rid of it. A long time ago the choices in 5x7 cameras were much more limited. This was true especially about ten or fifiteen years ago. The real shame about Wisner is that he has a really decent camera at a very competitive price. What about build quality? That is the ONLY thing that counts to me as a photographer. It doesn't help me to have 400mm of bellows if the camera doesn't work properly. My wista was bought from Zone-VI in the early eighties. I've replaced the bellows once and a small twist lever fell off on the back. Those are the two things that have broken and bellows do wear out. Somehow Ron has managed to stay afloat so he must be stisfying someone.
Regards Peter

 

[phfitz]

Good evening people,

I guess I stepped on someone's one good nerve, oh well. I do have fat, dumb and ugly down to an art form but a 'troll'? This is nothing personal, just a statement of fact, take it as you will.

Modern films, starting with Kodak's X series (Panatomic-X, Plus-X, Super-XX, Tri-X) were a quantum leap over what had come before. William Mortensen had tested and evaluated all of these films for his book 'On the Negative' published in 1940. Kodak published their H&D curves for these films showing that there is no shoulder on any of these films and they can easily exceed the density range of any reflection print paper made. It was plainly known by 1940 that there is NO SHOULDER on modern film emulsions, they were designed for Hollywood, for projection display, and needed a much longer tonal range and deeper density scale than any reflection print can handle.

When did 'St. Ansel' espouse his Zone System on an unwitting public? Exactly what was it based on? There is NO SHOULDER to any modern film emulsion, the H&D curves run from the toe in a straight line to max. density.

All of these home-brewed speed tests of step wedges and development times are utterly pointless and incomplete UNLESS you are actually trying to find the tungsten film speed for panchromatic film -OR- the actual **depletion point** for your developer solution. If you do find a shoulder on your H&D curve, it is only showing that you ran out of developer. ...2,3,4 yes, you have been doing it wrong all this time.

Do Not believe me. Go to Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Agfa, ect. and see if you can find a shoulder on their H&D curves. At Kodak.com you can find the tech specs for all of their films. Their H&D curves are done by men and women wearing white lab coats and PhD.'s, in controlled laboratory conditions, exposing the emulsions to full spectrum daylight and processed in LARGE tanks. The only shoulder I could find at Kodak was 'Plus-X, extended development in D-76, small tank', this shoulder does not show in development with 'T-Max' developer. I did find a shoulder at Ilford on FP4-Plus but they do not say if it was large or small tank. Large tanks : No shoulder, you think they're related?

The density range of modern film so out-strips the range of papers that it is practically impossible to 'block-up' the highlights. By increasing the volume capacity of your development tanks/tubes/trays, NOT the dilution strength or temp., you will move this shoulder so far up the curve that it has no effect, if it still exists at all. You can then move all the values up and onto the straight line portion increasing the shadow separation without increasing contrast. There is a limiting point to this, but it is theoretical and requires personal testing.

If this fits your vision of your print on your paper, by all means use it. It is only to show that there is no good reason to feel constrained by the artificial range imposed on your film by foolish economy with the chemistry. This is spending dollars to save pennies. Worse, it's a waste of your TIME.

Smile.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Good Evening,

The Yankee 4 x 5 developing tank is my candidate; it's not the quality of the construction but the awkwardness of use and the inconsistency of development.

Konical

Hear hear! I just used mine for the second (and last) time. agitation is virtually impossible without slopping the soup out the top. And I got uneven development to boot. Back to trays!

 

[fil]

Do Not believe me. Go to Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Agfa, ect. and see if you can find a shoulder on their H&D curves.

OK, so I did this. And I find indeed that for TMax 100, even the small tank curves are straight line linear through about 2.5 log D (or 25 dB since I'm a radar scientist and think that way, which is about 8 stops if I have it right). Based on those sensimetric curves, I can't find a reason to doubt the basic arguments put forth by phfitz. As long as you don't screw up the "expose for the shadows" rule of thumb and use more developer than the bare minimum, you should nail it.

So what problem do others see that I don't??

 

[Aggie]

OK, so I did this. And I find indeed that for TMax 100, even the small tank curves are straight line linear through about 2.5 log D (or 25 dB since I'm a radar scientist and think that way, which is about 8 stops if I have it right). Based on those sensimetric curves, I can't find a reason to doubt the basic arguments put forth by phfitz. As long as you don't screw up the "expose for the shadows" rule of thumb and use more developer than the bare minimum, you should nail it.

So what problem do others see that I don't??

Only if you limit yourself to 35mm and shoot many different lighting types. That is the problem in herent to the number of frames on the 35 before you change rolls to a new roll and shoot a defferent lighting situation. that is not a problem of the zone system. phfitz is a single size person with a extrapolation that matches the problem of 35, trying to foist it off on all formats. equipment limitations are not a reason to dump on a metering system that works for most that know how to use it.

 

[Jorge]

Well, you know, even a broken watch is right twice a day...

This is the problem, phfits, aka MS, aka HB, and many other names, cannot understand that even though films might no have a shoulder anymore, papers do have a finite scale they can accomodate. Doing simple sensitometric tests can determine the best fit between paper and film. As it is usual with this bufoon, it is not that he is wrong, many times he is correct, it is that he would not allow any other viewpoint other than his own. The zone system is a good methodology, and for its time it was a brilliant way to try and quantify and explain the "mechanics" of producing a good negative. Nowadays, I find the BTZS far superior, but that is not to say the the ZS has become worthless. Given the choice between doing trial and error, as this fools advocates, or doing ZS testing, the ZS is a far better option.

phfitz, we ran you out of here once....you better behave or we will do it again.

 

[bmac]

Perhaps the reason the zone system doesn't work for you is that you are confusing it for a piece of equipment.

Happy New Years,

Flat out, hands down winner with no contest:

The Zone System

enough said.

 

[c6h6o3]

As it is usual with this bufoon, it is not that he is wrong, many times he is correct, it is that he would not allow any other viewpoint other than his own.

Has any of us seen any of this guy's photographs? That's my only gauge of credibility, or lack thereof.

 

[Jorge]

Has any of us seen any of this guy's photographs? That's my only gauge of credibility, or lack thereof.

I have seen some un-interesting but well exposed 35 mm shots he has taken. For what he does and likes to photograph he has his technique very well controlled.

As I said, it is not that he is a bad photographer, it is just that he fancies himself an expert on everything related to 35 mm film using data from the 60s..it is weird....

 

[Aggie]

it is just that he fancies himself an expert on everything related to 35 mm film using data from the 60s..it is weird....

He quoted 40's reference manuals. You are updating him.

 

[phfitz]

Good evening people,

The links below should be current. The original .pdf file I had saved was dates Nov 2001 and is slightly different showing a C.I. 1.00 and D-max 3.90, rather close to slide films and perfect for scanning. The new specs are slightly lower.

The problem with the Zone System is that it is incomplete and incorrect. It has never tested for developer depletion or the over-exposure point for film. By changing dev. times then moving the charts to the left to align you are losing track of the actual exposure intensity of the highlights. The actual speed point for the film should be set between .1 over base fog and the actual over-exposure point which is a hard point of the film.

It is easier and safer to use the factory speed rating and use a larger volume of developer. There is less likelyhood of dropping the shadows and you cannot blowout the highlights. You will have denser negs and slightly longer print times but printing will be easier.


T-Max films pdf
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f4016.pdf

T-max web page
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...f4016/f4016.jhtml?id=0.1.18.14.23.18.16&lc=en

T-max 100 H&D
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f009_0440ac.gif

T-Max 100 contrast
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f009_0444ac.gif

T-max 400 H&D
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f002_0512ac.gif

T-Max 400 contrast
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4016/f009_0449ac.gif

 

[Aggie]

Wasn't prozac invented for phfitzes disorder?

 

[modafoto]

The problem with the Zone System is that it is incomplete and incorrect.

If the zone system works for somebody then the zone system is correct for them. I, myself, like Rodinal and that is the right developer for me as I can make the photos I like with it. One could argue that Rodinal is a bad developer because of the grain, the tones or anything else. But I don't care because I get a result I like from it. I have tried other devs, but didn't get results I liked better than with Rodinal.
If you think the Zone System is incorrect, then do not use it. Let other people use it if they want to. Let them do whatever they want if it works for them.

Morten

 

[garryl]

May I point out people that the original topic was "worst piece of equipment". It was a subjective question, with expected subjective answers. Phfiz gave his subjective answer. It has turn into "how much I hate Phfitz and how can I bait him into a fight". Let's move on and get back to the original topic- Pretty Please with sugar on it?

 

[Ole]

The problem with the Zone System is that it is incomplete and incorrect.

So it is. And so is Newron's physics, but that has never stopped it being far more useful in most real-life cases than relativity and quantum physics.

It has never tested for developer depletion or the over-exposure point for film. By changing dev. times then moving the charts to the left to align you are losing track of the actual exposure intensity of the highlights.

AFAIK developer depletion is not a constant. It will depend on the actual silver developed, not the area of film per unit volume of developer. So incorporating corrections for developer depletion would complicate things to the point of uselessness.

I believe the zone system was formulated a while after AA shot "Black Sun", which is a good example of solarisation. He was well aware of the possibility of overexposure. With more modern films this is less relevant, which I believe you are well aware of.

The actual speed point for the film should be set between .1 over base fog and the actual over-exposure point which is a hard point of the film.

That would be - anywhere? Overexpose a lot, and there's sure to be something on the film?

It is easier and safer to use the factory speed rating and use a larger volume of developer. There is less likelyhood of dropping the shadows and you cannot blowout the highlights. You will have denser negs and slightly longer print times but printing will be easier.

In many cases the factory speed rating (as printed on the film pack) is overoptimistic. Most factories also give different speed ratings for different developers. Part of the zone system is finding YOUR speed rating for a given film/developer combination. Things do vary quite a lot.

There are cases where the zone system breaks down, as I'm well aware of. But a good understanding of it is still a valuable help in knowing when to ignore it!

A case in point is my photo of a solar eclipse. On the negative there are details in both the foreground and the sun; shaded trees and sunspots are both discernible. Compressing this range into something printable is clearly not interesting. So knowing the ZS I exposed for the shadows, and developed in an extremely compensating developer I had never used before. It worked as I expected...

 

[titrisol]

Worst piece of equipment?
A EastGerman light meter I got once (also for cheap) It was highly inconsistent, heavy and awkward to use..... made an excellent paper weight though

In the darkroom... so far I've been lucky to enjoy most of the stuff I have ever had...

 

[Jim Chinn]

Thanks for the info, Brian, I can certainly understand now why you are irate! I could imagine the root cause of this problem is that Horseman does not make these cameras in-house but sub-contracts them. Most of the problems you describe (apart from the centimeter scale) are due to poor materials which are not apparent to the naked eye but only as the result of torture testing(!). Price also seems not to correlate to quality - among my cameras is a 4x5" Iston, a name which evidently means "made by any one of several companies in China". It was not expensive and required a fiber washer to be placed under every knob before it locked up right, but it is now a nice camera. Others who own cameras bearing this name are apparently not so happy.
Back on the theme of this thread, the worst LF camera I used (at the Victoria and Albert Museum, London) but fortunately did not own was an 8x10" Burke & James, gray painted with red bellows, with a back standard that shook like a jelly on a plate.


Regards,

David

One thing you have to keep in mind with old cameras is that wood and age don't go together kindly, especially with the use some of these cameras have seen over 30,40, 50+ years. I have talked to retired professionals who used these cameras new out of the box (Follmers, Koronas, B&J, Deardorf etc) and they say they were as solid and reliable as cameras of today.

When they are refurbished and refinished they make excellent cameras. But people need to keep that in mind when looking at buying older wooden cameras.

 

[removed account4]

piece of junk cable release bought in a pinch--- *i thought* i forgot my good one at home.
the throw / plunger didn't last a 8 hours and i found the other release in my jacket pocket ( where i was putting the piece of junk "for safe keeping")

 

[David H. Bebbington]

One thing you have to keep in mind with old cameras is that wood and age don't go together kindly, especially with the use some of these cameras have seen over 30,40, 50+ years. I have talked to retired professionals who used these cameras new out of the box (Follmers, Koronas, B&J, Deardorf etc) and they say they were as solid and reliable as cameras of today.

When they are refurbished and refinished they make excellent cameras. But people need to keep that in mind when looking at buying older wooden cameras.

This is true, but in the same studio there was a Gandolfi Universal 8x10" (square bellows) with a tilt-front attachment which must have been 20 years older than the B&J and it was rock solid. The 14" Zeiss Protar from around 1900 was pretty good, too!

Regards,

David

 

[anyte]

Worst piece of equipment? My brain. That darn thing can become quite the obstacle at times. How much better could I shoot if I could just silence my brain and shoot on auto-pilot.

 

[MurrayMinchin]

It was the best of gear, it's now the worst of gear.

I swtiched to variable contrast a while ago and got a Zone VI VC head. My Zone VI Compensating Metronome was an amazingly important piece of gear when I printed on graded paper, as it automatically shortened the time between beeps as the light warmed up, ensuring *identical* print exposures.

I was scratching my head for quite a while as to why my prints with the VC head using the Compensating Metronome were drifting all over the map, both in contrast and max-black times. As I worked on a print, if I changed either the Soft or Hard light and gave the previous exposure, the quality of my dark tones would shift...I then would have to do test strips again to set the dark tones, which of course had an effect on the high tones, which meant a change in contrast, which meant changing exposure again...AAAARRRRGGGGHHHHH!

Then it dawned on me that the Compensating Metronome is blind to the colour of the light; it just reads the amount, or volume of light. If I went from Soft light setting e / Hard light setting e, to Soft f / Hard e, my darks went flacid. It read this as an increase in light volume, shortened the time between beeps, and short changed me on the Hard light. (As a percentage of the whole exposure, the Hard light was reduced).

I spent a day in the darkroom with a small electronic "actual" metronome and did max-black times for a bunch of contrast settings. Exposures now range from Se / Ha @ 35 sec, to Sa / Hh @ 20 sec. AAAAAHHHHH! Now I can move through the contrast changes fluently. This has DRASTICALLY reduced the time it takes to arrive at a good work print.

Murray

 

[Adrian Twiss]

I have read the posts on the zone system with interest but have found that my knowledge of sensinometry is not quite good enough to fully follow the various arguments put forward. However, this I do know. As a keen camera club member I have on many occasions submitted work for critique in competitions. Not once has a judge said "ah, obviously a zone system man". I agree 100% that correct exposure and developement are fundamental to the success of any photograph. However I feel that if your particular methods give you that success then it a a waste of time and of a perfectly good brain to indulge in endless debate about other methods that may well work for other photographers.

 

[eagleowl]

A monopod!
Unfortunately,when I bought it,it didn't occur to me that there is an intrinsic flaw in the design:you have to hold the stupid thing upright,so it still sways!!

Mind you,I suppose it makes a good walking stick!!