phfitz said: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
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!Konical said: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
phfitz said:Do Not believe me. Go to Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Agfa, ect. and see if you can find a shoulder on their H&D curves.
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.fil said: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??
phfitz said:Happy New Years,
Flat out, hands down winner with no contest:
The Zone System
enough said.
Has any of us seen any of this guy's photographs? That's my only gauge of credibility, or lack thereof.Jorge said: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.
c6h6o3 said:Has any of us seen any of this guy's photographs? That's my only gauge of credibility, or lack thereof.
He quoted 40's reference manuals. You are updating him.Jorge said:it is just that he fancies himself an expert on everything related to 35 mm film using data from the 60s..it is weird....
phfitz said: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.phfitz said:The problem with the Zone System is that it is incomplete and incorrect.
phfitz said: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.
phfitz said: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.
phfitz said: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.
David H. Bebbington said: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
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!Jim Chinn said: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.
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?