Zone Placement

Bill Burk said:

Wait, don't make it too easy. I still haven't figured out the puzzle...

Click to expand...

I haven't even figured out what question to ask to figure it out :confused:

markbarendt said:

Okay

So using the method for determining CI found in Kodak's Sensitometry Workbook the curve used in the examples has a CI of 0.58. Close as I can tell.

The placement of the zones can be determined by the paper's range, if the papers printable range is 1.05 then B should print the zones as expected and A would end up clipping.

Am I missing something with regard to the paper's characteristics?

Click to expand...

Mark, you are bang on in framing the problem! The average LER for a grade two paper is 1.05, as is shown in paper curve A of the "LER examples" attachment.

On page 220 of The Negative under the heading "Normal Development" Adams writes, "We must first establish the "normal" before we can depart from it in a useful way. Testing procedures given in the Appendix, or similar methods of determining optimum processing should be carried out and the results applied in practical photography to confirm their effectiveness. In general terms, I have found that approximate values for normal negative densities are about as follows:

Diffusion enlarger
Value I 0.09 to 0.11
Value VIII 1.25 to 1.35"

As the negative density range becomes the LER for the paper, the density range for normal conditions is from 1.15 to 1.25. I'm using the higher range in this thread.

Curve B in "LER Examples" illustrates how a NDR of 1.25 will print on a grade 2 paper with an LER of 1.06.

Obviously it doesn't fit. The print will appear dark and contrasty.

According to Loyd Jones, "the procedure followed in obtaining a relationship between DS (read NDR) and log ES (read LER) may seem forced and artificial. This we grant, and it must be borne in mind that the print quality obtained by its use will not be the highest possible quality. But what other course is there to follow? Either we must make the best of a somewhat imperfect relationship of face the prospect of having no criterion whatever for choosing the paper contrast grade."

He's saying that the matching of the NDR to the paper LER doesn't mean that you will have a perfect print. It's a very interesting topic in its own right and it has to do with psychophysics. Can an imperfect system of measurement be the answer? No. Even if it was a factor in this case, the difference between the two aim NDRs falls outside of the imprecision tolerances of the LER system. So even though the process doesn't guarantee the highest quality, it doesn't account for choosing such disparate values.

Therefore, a negative with a density range of 1.25 will simply fail to make a satisfactory print according to the LER criteria.

Problem solved. Question answered. Except that people aren't producing dark and contrasty prints with the Zone System criteria. And people aren't producing light and flat prints using the paper LER criteria to determine the aim NDR. They both seem to work.

How is this possible? How can this large of a discrepancy between the two aim values be reconciled with the all the supporting evidence that they both produce high quality prints?



Shifting over to the CI chart. What are the variables involved in determining those values? As CI is a form of slope / gradient, then the equation of Rise / Run = slope or gradient should solve it (Okay, I'm going to use the term "gradient" from now on). The chart gives both variables. Plug one set in and see.

Compare the CI chart to the processing information from the Xtol pamphlet. What does the pamphlet have as Normal? Where does that fit on the CI chart?

Michael R 1974 said:

And I still don't understand how one can interpret or apply CIs without knowing how they were determined. What points are chosen along the curve, for example. In any case I'm just along for the ride and enjoy Stephen's posts.

Click to expand...

This is important stuff and deserves attention. Michael you should post this question in a new thread.

In the mean time, a little reading material.

OK I drew the A and B on my own graph paper while you were posting the answer.

As I went along I just Knew A was a Negative. It just felt like I was marking down sensitometry results.

I couldn't figure out how B exactly hit 1.05. But now you explain it is the paper curve of a 1.05 LER paper. So by definition, it will hit 1.05.

I'm familiar with the Loyd Jones quote and the wheel used to pick a paper grade for a negative. Of course it is imperfect. The wheel can suggest a grade - then when you go to print, in the end, pictorially and psycophysically you might go up or down a grade, or burn or dodge to make the print look right.

Yeah, I'm not losing my mind.

Bill Burk said:

I'm familiar with the Loyd Jones quote and the wheel used to pick a paper grade for a negative. Of course it is imperfect. The wheel can suggest a grade - then when you go to print, in the end, pictorially and psycophysically you might go up or down a grade, or burn or dodge to make the print look right.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that isn't the solution to the problem. If you had two negatives from the same scene, one processed to produce a NDR of 1.05 and the other a NDR of 1.25, it would eliminate any psychophysical differences, but you are still left with the problem that the negative with the NDR of 1.35 is too large for the paper parameters.

Hint: Work on the CI questions.

Wait, your negative A is 0.61 CI which is really close to the prescribed 0.58 CI for a 7 1/3 stop subject brightness range onto Grade 2 paper. Yet paper B shows the resulting negative range of 1.35 would stink for Grade 2.

Is the bottom line then?... The reason 0.58 CI is Normal on the CI charts for Grade 2 and 7 1/3 stops is because you will NOT get a 1.35 negative range (because of flare and optics). And that still it is OK to exceed the LER 1.05, (guess maybe you really get 1.15)?

I hate to say this, but over the last 60 years or so, I have known literally hundreds of "famous" photographers and truth to tell, not one of them used the zone system to my knowledge. And, when it gets down to it, the zone system is a reduced form of Densitometry and Sensitometry. Nothing more than an H&D curve with a glorified name.

I've said this before in other posts. Sorry. I probably should not say it here and I will take a lot of heat over this.

PE

Bill Burk said:

Wait, your negative A is 0.61 CI which is really close to the prescribed 0.58 CI for a 7 1/3 stop subject brightness range onto Grade 2 paper. Yet paper B shows the resulting negative range of 1.35 would stink for Grade 2.

Is the bottom line then?... The reason 0.58 CI is Normal on the CI charts for Grade 2 and 7 1/3 stops is because you will NOT get a 1.35 negative range (because of flare and optics). And that still it is OK to exceed the LER 1.05, (guess maybe you really get 1.15)?

Click to expand...

So close. (As a matter of fact, I used CI 0.61 because I was working with the Zone Systems 7 stop luminance range.) Let's not forget both film curves are same. They have the same CI.

Could you walk us through the different variables for the CI 0.58 determination?

Densitometry and sensitometry are part of very technical approach to the zone system. The zone system can also be approached very effectively in a craft way by experimenting with bracketed exposures and bracketed development.

However, both approaches are only a small part of the zone system. The key is pre-visualization of the desired result. Once the visualization is made, then steps can be taken and choices can be made. Lighting can be changed (though often it can't), exposures chosen, development prescribed, dodging and burning contemplated, merging and masking images considered.

Photo Engineer said:

I hate to say this, but over the last 60 years or so, I have known literally hundreds of "famous" photographers and truth to tell, not one of them used the zone system to my knowledge. And, when it gets down to it, the zone system is a reduced form of Densitometry and Sensitometry. Nothing more than an H&D curve with a glorified name.

I've said this before in other posts. Sorry. I probably should not say it here and I will take a lot of heat over this.

PE

Click to expand...

Ron, thank you. I'll have your back all the way on this. They are really the same but just use different terms; they both use the same physics; therefore they both should equate.

As the level of frustration seems to be rising, I would like to remind everyone of a few comments I made in an earlier post. The question was about the "correct representation." I could also have said correct presentation of the facts. Remember, both curves are identical and represent a 7 stop luminance range.

I also said "the key is in the interpretation of the data, and a large part of that is having a good grasp of certain principles and asking the right questions." This thread is about the importance of interpreting the testing data. It's not about one system being better than the another (as they are basically the same). I'm using an apparent discrepancy as an example of how problematic misinterpretation of the data can be. And the misinterpretation of data is usually the result of not being aware of and not factoring in all the variables involved.

All this Zone System talk got me fired up so I was in the darkroom tonight running a set of tests on a fresh box of film that came in today. My tests will have no flare (sensitometer). I will be drawing Zone System roman numerals on the curves. I will be using a Zone scale on my lightmeter. (Mostly to spot the shadows and place them on a certain Zone).

Okay, time to bring this to a conclusion.

CI or any average gradient simply tells you want the film is doing. It’s about input and output. A CI 0.50 says that if one unit goes in, ½ unit comes out.

It’s importance in this thread is that it is a different way of approaching the problem. Just having a NDR doesn’t tell you anything about the shooting or processing conditions. If you have two of variables, the third can be determined.

It’s easy to extrapolate the average gradient for the Zone System variables. The Zone System provides the NDR 1.25 and the SBR of 7 stops (2.10 logs).

1.25 (NDR) / 2.10 (7 stop SBR) = 0.595

The importance of Kodak’s CI chart was that it provides all three components involved in the CI equation to practice with, input, output, and gradient. The reason why I added the Xtol pamphlet was to provide an example of what Kodak considers to be the CI for normal. They had it as 0.58. On the Kodak CI chart, that fell under a 7 1/3 stop SBR and a 1.05 LER.

1.05 / 2.20 = 0.48

As that doesn’t equal 0.58 there must be another variable involved, and that variable is FLARE. Now much flare:

1.05 / 2.20 – 0.40 = 0.58

People forget that there are four different elements of "contrast" to consider in the photographic processes. There's the Log subject luminance range of the original subject, the negative density range, the print LER, and the exposure range of the camera image. What the film sees it the camera image, not the tones of the original subject. The input is the combination of the affects of flare on the SBR and not the SBR alone.

Flare is the answer to this thread.

Curve A is the correct representation of reality in that it incorporates how flare changes the log-H range. Otherwise the two examples are the same. They will produce the same negative density range for the same subject. The way we know that is because of understanding how gradient works and not relying only on the negative density range as an expression of the conditions. NDR is only half of the gradient equation. Alone it tells you nothing about the film process conditions or the shooting conditions.

So, the answer is

Zone System:
1.25 / 2.10 = 0.59

Tone Reproduction:
1.05 / 2.20 - 0.40 = 0.58

The two examples are the same. The only difference is one is misinterpreting the data.



The Kodak CI chart show one of the advantages of using average gradient. You can easily determine the all the processing aims simply by input a few variables. Together with a Time/CI Curve, it’s a great tool (Development chart attachment).

Keeping with the topic of understanding all the variables and the advantages of correct interpretation, is the idea of the type of flare model to use. There are fundamentally two different models. The fixed flare model which the Kodak chart uses, and the variable flare model where the value of flare changes as the luminance range changes.

The fixed flare model is easier to generate, but the variable flare model is more representative of shooting conditions. In general, as the luminance range increases, so the level of flare. As the luminance range decrease, so does the flare factor.

With a fixed flare model, the CI indication tends to be excessive with + 2 and +3 development, and quickly flattens out with -2 and below. This isn’t the case with variable flare, but according to psychophysical aspects of tone reproduction theory, the perception of quality in the extreme processing ranges could still be a problem.

According to Jones, “Our analysis of the statistical print judgment data revealed that for maximum yield of high quality prints a surprising rule should be followed: For the soft papers, the density ranges of the negatives should in most cases exceed the sensitometric exposure range of the paper (read LER); whereas, for the hard papers, the density ranges of the negatives should in most cases be less than the sensitometric exposure range (read LER) of the paper.”

Because of this I came up with a third model which I call the practical flare model. It basically splits the difference between fixed and variable flare models.

I’ve attached a chart comparing CIs for various models. Sounds to me like all this technical stuff can give a person some serious creative control over their materials.

Man this zone system can be complicated to hell n back with equasions n mathamatical terms. We're artists not scientists, we don't add 2+2, we count fingers or F stops!

50 years of using the zone system, I've ledarned that the oversimplified version makes more sense. I was always told, as many of us were, by an old photoggrapher friend...

"Expose for the for the shadows, develope for the highlights."

I think we've all heard that one before and it's right on the mark, it's called the Zone System.

Set the camera for the shadow reading, take the meter reading difference of the hightlights, and since you've done the tests you know what the Normal N, N1 N2 N3 and N-1 N-2 N-3 times are so you don't block up the hightlights. jot down the N reading and it all falls into place as expected.

BUT.. you have to do all the hands on tests to know exactly how all this relates to the final print or you are just wasting too much time with a calculator when you have 10 perfecly good fingers to use for making pictures.



.

paul ron said:

Man this zone system can be complicated to hell n back with equasions n mathamatical terms. We're artists not scientists, we don't add 2+2, we count fingers or F stops!

Click to expand...

Careful there, there are a fair number of APUGers that are engineers, chemists, astronomers ...

Also, just FYI, photography has more uses than just art. One of those uses is commerce.

Professional photography is built on a foundation of repeatability. For example studio work is, IMO, assembly line work. There is no guessing about exposure or contrast in a professionally run studio.

We all have differing needs, subjects, and styles.

paul ron said:

50 years of using the zone system, I've ledarned that the oversimplified version makes more sense. I was always told, as many of us were, by an old photoggrapher friend...

"Expose for the for the shadows, develope for the highlights."

I think we've all heard that one before and it's right on the mark, it's called the Zone System.

Click to expand...

Although this classic Zone System type of shooting makes sense for certain subjects it's not the only road.

For example incident metering makes more sense for most of the subject matter I shoot. I also use VC paper so getting exactly grade 2 isn't a be all end all.

Even though I meter differently and use VC paper, understanding the variables I need to consider, like the star of this thread, flare, allows me to trouble shoot and avoid problems.

When I don't understand what the variables are, and don't know which tool to use, and don't understand what normal is, and don't have a language to talk about all that, I end up wasting time guessing or bracketing or leaning on some other crutch or even screwing up a shot when I'm out shooting.

Stephen Benskin said:

Ron, thank you. I'll have your back all the way on this. They are really the same but just use different terms; they both use the same physics; therefore they both should equate.

As the level of frustration seems to be rising, I would like to remind everyone of a few comments I made in an earlier post. The question was about the "correct representation." I could also have said correct presentation of the facts. Remember, both curves are identical and represent a 7 stop luminance range.

I also said "the key is in the interpretation of the data, and a large part of that is having a good grasp of certain principles and asking the right questions." This thread is about the importance of interpreting the testing data. It's not about one system being better than the another (as they are basically the same). I'm using an apparent discrepancy as an example of how problematic misinterpretation of the data can be. And the misinterpretation of data is usually the result of not being aware of and not factoring in all the variables involved.

Click to expand...

Stephen;

You are correct. Thanks.

The zone system is a teaching tool, but too cumbersome to use in practical situations. And, too difficult to measure in actual images. All you have to know is that if your image falls on the toe or shoulder, you lose information. And, if you use the mid straight-line part of the curve, you get the best results, and that mid point is found by using the correct (or near correct) ISO value.

When I had 2 cameras with 2 films with different ISO ratings, I exposed for the most critical film. And so, when loaded with Ektachrome and Super XX (on the aerial shots in my gallery), I exposed for the Ektachrome and the Super XX was just fine. This came from knowing the limitations of the film and knowing the effect of the zone system in theory. No practical measurements were ever made.

PE

paul ron said:

Man this zone system can be complicated to hell n back with equasions n mathamatical terms. We're artists not scientists, we don't add 2+2, we count fingers or F stops!

Click to expand...

So how do you respond when people say the Zone System is too complicated and gets in the way of creativity? (Don't you just hate arguments from incredulity?)

Do you think that while there's a bit of a learning curve involved, the increased knowledge it offers leads to a better understanding and control of the tools of your art? Do you think that if these people took the time to understand the Zone System, they would think that way too?

How do you feel about Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System? That's just sensitometry/tone reproduction. What do you think BTZS users think when they are told by the people using the Zone System that BTZS is just too complicated and interferes with the making of art?

The language of sensitometry and tone reproduction is just another tool to help understand and communicate the ideas of the photographic process. A four quadrant reproduction curve gives you a picture of the entire photographic process in a single glance, from the subject, to the camera image, to the negative, to the print, and finally how the print compares to the original image. Being visually oriented, I find using visual representations to be a definite advantage.

The reason why so many different "systems" work is more a testament to the tolerances in photography than to the actual superiority of the system. They tend to work mostly because of the tendency of most situations to be close to the statistical average (see the normal distribution curve attached), and mostly because the end result of the photographic process is art which isn't quantifiable.

People don't have to be precise for it to work at least on some level most of the time. Disposable cameras have a fixed shutter speed and aperture and they produce acceptable pictures most of the time. The Zone System offers more control over the process than an rank amateur or someone using a disposable camera. BTZS offers more than the Zone System, and Tone Reproduction theory offers still more.

The level of control desired is up to the individual's needs and for the results they want. Any level is an equally valid choice from an art perspective. But it's inappropriate to use the art argument if your intentions are to accurately communicate or analyze a technical photographic concept. For this, you must have the proper tools. You can't chop down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring. Well, you can't. And to purposely obfuscating a technical discussion as being disassociated with the making of art is simply a dishonest strawman argument. Isn't tone reproduction theory just a theory anyway?

In this thread, I've shown how the aim negative density range from the Zone System testing won't be the range obtained in actual shooting conditions, nor is it one that you would want to have. In effect, there was a breakdown in the ability of the Zone System to correctly communicate what was going on in the test. In other words, from the movie Princess Bride, "I don't think that means what you think that means." If I was communicating with someone who was proficient in the terms and concepts of tone reproduction, I would have been able to explain the apparent discrepancy in two sentences and with two sets of variables.

I used to enjoy reading the "technical" photographic how to articles in View Camera magazine. The author would inevitably reach a point in his explanation where he no longer was able to accurately communicate the technical aspects of his concept and the article would quickly devolve into a series of musical analogies. He could explain how to do the technique, but didn't have the tools to explain the concepts of what happens and why. He needed a chain saw but only had a herring.

I've attached two two quadrant curves that which explains to anyone who can understand the language of tone reproduction, without using words, why the Zone System speed method produces consistently lower speed values, by around 2/3 stops, than the ISO method as well as proving meters don't see 18%. Tone reproduction theory is a communication and analytical tool. It's also a dessert topping and a floor wax.

Saying that my normal is CI 0.58 communicates a great deal of precise information. The difference in precision between the Zone System and Tone Reproduction is like the difference between saying something is blue and giving its Pantone or CIElab value.

since you've done the tests you know what the Normal N, N1 N2 N3 and N-1 N-2 N-3 times are so you don't block up the hightlights. jot down the N reading and it all falls into place as expected.

Click to expand...

Good for you. How is that concept different than with tone reproduction? With the tools of tone reproduction, I can show you exactly how it works (see the four quads in post #69). I'm not limited to generalized statements.

BTW, what are your N, N1, etc? Can you communicate them to me in a way where I that I can accurately reproduce the results? I'm not asking how to test, but communicating the results from the test in precise and meaningful way? I can tell you my range from -2 to +3 is 0.48, 0.53, 0.58, 0.66, 0.75, and 0.88. Tone reproduction is a tool to communicate ideas and concepts.

Actually the conclusion to the question in is thread is while the results are correct (1.05), they aren't what was expected (1.25).

Did you know that there's an mistake in the Kodak CI chart? The values they have for a 9 1/3 stop SBR doesn't work. They are for a 10 stop SBR range. Tone reproduction theory gives me the tools to deduce it. It gives me control over the information. I'm not restricted to passively accepting some "expert's" word.

Anyone notice the CIs in the development chart for Xtol don't equate with the CIs in Kodaks CI chart? Did you know that it because there is a difference between "pushing for speed" and "pushing for contrast"? The tell as to which approach they are using is the EI column in the Xtol chart.

Xtol Kodak Chart

0.52 0.50
0.58 0.58
0.65 0.70
0.75 0.88
0.85 1.17

The reason is that rating the film at higher EIs underexposes the film shifting everything to the left and lowering the effective NDR. Increased development shifts the shadow densities approximately 1/3 stop to the right per stop push. That means that the a one stop underexposure will only be a 2/3 stop underexposure so the processing needs to be at 2/3 stop and not 1 stop for a one stop speed push. A two stop underexposure requires only a 1 1/3 stop push in development. Compare the Xtol numbers to the numbers on Kodak CI chart for the 1.05 LER. You will see this progression.

Two simple sets of numbers in the Xtol development chart tells me so much and gives me insight into the thoughts and intentions of the people who put it together, and that puts me in control.

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would want to use the anti-intellectual argument. That is unless there are Republicans in the house!

Before you study Zone, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers; while you are studying Zone, mountains are no longer mountains and rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers.

With a gaggle of jets flying at 60,000 ft and about 700 mph, you don't have time to worry about things like mountains, rivers or placement on an H&D scale. you shoot! And at about $1000 / hour, you had better be right!

Wearing an oxygen mask and flying upside down at zero g or 3 g does not help either! Shoot it! Be right!

PE

Ha PE,

I consider myself privileged to work at Kodak... But I don't know those kinds of privileges.

Today I had to deal with similar stress. I've got two kids in soccer and today was the soccer parade. While walking up to the field, I took a spot reading on my kid's soccer shorts, obvious shadow and placed on Zone II. I checked the off-white stucco of the school and saw it was falling on Zone VI so I was safe. Got the camera out, f/stop and shutter speed were already correctly set. Then I found myself facing into the sun so I popped on a lens shade. Checked the background for distractions, looked in the general vicinity of the kids, and there they were.

I guess I just don't understand why anyone would want to use the anti-intellectual argument. That is unless there are Republicans in the house!

Stephen, right on. ya see, if you practiced long enough, and learned to listen to others with an open mind, you too will be able to one day not have to over think this minutia as if it were a religion. It'll become second nature, by then, your feableness altzheimers shaky hands will kick in, you'll forget the CIs ERLs EVs EIs ABCs BBCs NBCs n all the acronyms that no one even cares to know what the heck they are except to maybe impress texting girl friends n a few bar buddies.

What really matters and impresses are the photos, not how well you memorized the system, studied all the charts n graphs n formulas n constants. You'll find the only things that have stuck is the advice you got from an old fella with shaky hands that said "expose for the shadows, develope the highlights".. now tell me who said that and I'll give you a lolly pop?

One more thing... Zone System is only one tool of many to achieve good prints as you'll notice museums n galleries full of pre zone photographers have done without long befoer it was a twinkle in anyone's darkroom. I was a jerk with a camera n a calculator once, but I grew out of it n gave my meter to my kids to play with.

What I'd like to know; are Democrats better photographers than Republicans?

.

paul ron said:

What I'd like to know; are Democrats better photographers than Republicans?

Click to expand...

It was a joke. There's a current movement with right wingers deigning science.

Why the ad hominem attack? Debate the issues using facts. If you can't, don't stoop to personal attacks. It's bad form. There's still time to delete your post.

Why the ad hominem attack? Debate the issues using facts. If you can't, don't stoop to personal attacks. It's bad form. There's still time to delete your post.

I think you'd better re-read my posts pal.
What case?
Debate what facts?
Pesonal attacks? Reference Republicans at my statements because politics is what this is about? Get a life!

I made a staement, not an argument!

.

Stephen Benskin said:

It was a joke. There's a current movement with right wingers deigning science.

Why the ad hominem attack? Debate the issues using facts. If you can't, don't stoop to personal attacks. It's bad form. There's still time to delete your post.

Click to expand...

I could care less about politics so I have more of a problem with this statement: "I guess I just don't understand why anyone would want to use the anti-intellectual argument." That sounds too much like discrediting the humungous pool of work of the many incredibly talented photographers of the past five decades, who have never thought for one second to take extensive and elaborate technical tests, or used the zone system, to be able to deliver the many compelling images we so enjoy today.

With all due respect, I think this should should also be re-phrased to "this should give a very limited number of people some serious creative control..." Let's be honest, who will be going around with their film camera these days, after reading this thread, and actually be inspired to master these concepts/numbers to come up with an earth shattering image/print? I'm not saying that it won't benefit some very technically inclined individuals, but, as a very sporadic user of the zone system, I can certainly say that if I had to start concerning myself with all of this to deliver a good photograph, I would just hang it up and call it a day. Of course, that's just me and everyone's mileage will most certainly vary. Once again, and will all due respect, I do not argue the validity and purpose of any of your statements but, in the end, I just can't see how most photographers would be using such complications to elevate their creative output in film photography, especially at present time, when we're lucky to barely have film to shoot and paper to print on.

Mark made some interesting points in his response to Paul Ron but, when it comes to commerce and "professional photography", that's in the digital domain these days so most of this would honestly not apply either. Any commercial photographer still shooting film in a studio environment (and I bet there aren't many) has probably been doing it for a very long time and has his/her routine down at this point. And, I am willing to bet that most of their extensive testing was of the visual kind, like "if it looks good, it's good".

As Ron Mowrey eloquently pointed out, there have been hundreds of famous photographers over the years, delivering compelling images, that have never concerned themselves with the zone system and most certainly not with overcomplicated Densitometry/Sensitometry approaches. Why does anyone think it is going to change now? I think it all boils down more to printing skills but, when considering that the majority of film shooters now rarely print and only scan for digital output (mostly screen, with some inkjet thrown in), all of this goes once again out the window.

I am always fascinated by the extremely technical threads, as there is always something to learn for the sake of knowledge but, at the end of each one, I'm always left with more questions than answers, with the most prevalent one being.."who will truly benefit, TODAY, from this conversation and extremely deep pool of knowledge, to deliver an award winning print?" So, yes, the more you know, the more you have control over the outcome. But, what is the outcome, or should I say, output? Today, we have photographers being recognized for their work with iPhones, while others are sitting around plotting charts and have absolutely nothing to show for it.

Best,

Max

You could be right. I read it too fast.

Stephen, right on. ya see, if you practiced long enough, and learned to listen to others with an open mind, you too will be able to one day not have to over think this minutia as if it were a religion.

Click to expand...

I think anyone would agree that since the sentence was address to me, I might assume that the use of "you" could have been referring to me. As in "if you (Stephen) practiced long enough and listen to others with an open mind, you (Stephen) too will be able to one day not have to over think this minutia as if it were a religion."

I'm sorry if I misinterpreted it.

Of course, I don't think I misinterpreted the "get a life" statement.