Your hearing may be fine; how is your eyesight? Ha ha ha.Originally Posted by Ken Lee
Your hearing may be fine; how is your eyesight? Ha ha ha.
Large Format = Zone System
Roll Film = Expose for Zone III and let 510-PYRO or OBSIDIAN AQUA or diXactol look after the highlights.
RR
they - if as in all listed above - yes.
Overwise - you are mistaken
No, there were systems developed before that. And after that. And some of them have nothing to do with AA design
You can open photography manuals printed in 19 century, long before AA came, and find quite good exposure suggestions and systematic approaches.
thank God , no. It is not equal. And seriously - enough with pushing that developer of yours.
To answer original question - as long as you using the SAME approach in how you meter thing and access scenes - it becomes system. Will be based on AA or on something else - entirely doesnt matter as long as you getting results you like.
Forgive me Sergei I should have used a different symbol from =. My mistake. I would go back and change it but the forum application doesn't allow me to, so I will repost in an effort to be more clear. The point about the three developers I listed is that they are compensating developers. None of them are "mine" I happen to use them (along with other developers).
RR
For Large Format: Zone System
For Roll Film: Expose for Zone III and let 510-PYRO or OBSIDIAN AQUA or diXactol look after the highlights.
RR
When I said earlier that ZS and its clones are advanced techniques, there was a good reason:
ZS is a SYSTEM.
It includes every step from identifying a subject, envisioning the final print, then using the methods and materials required to make that print.
In order for it to work, you must select ONE film, ONE paper, and appropriate chemistry for each.
Then you must do exhaustive testing to see how variations in exposure and processing affect each material.
If you want to use a different film and/or paper, you must repeat the entire process with the new material(s).
The same is true if you want to change developers (or toners or other post-processing steps).
Only when you have completed all of this can you "place" a particular subject tonality on Zone IV, or use N+1 development to achieve a desired density range.
It ain't a chinese menu. You can't pick one or another feature of the system and expect to get any particular results.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Using #4 is really cheating yourself of the film experience, though I have done it myself when I have forgotten to bring my spot meter. But then I already have a good bit of knowledge and experience in "exposure systems". A good belt will guard against that anyway.
You can't go wrong with #1. Its principles are basic to the others, and if appreciated can take you all the way to your print (as intended).
You will find more helpful sub forums here with regard to that nonsense. As already stated, #1 will take you from film to print. If you're not printing yourself you may as well not bother with #1, as it can be difficult to fully comprehend and in fact poorly understood by some practitioners. That ZS is intended to give the photographer the utmost control within the limitations of the traditional process. I use the word nonsense because while there are plenty of good and necessary reasons to embrace digital processes in all their forms, it leaves me with a blank (and cranky!) stare as to why anyone, particularly a post-digital convert, would want to shoot a huge, expensive piece of film and not have as complete control as possible throughout the making of an unadulterated print, IMAO. Sure, just hand it off to your lab for developing and PS it, if that makes you proud... many do. AHH, progress.
If the goal is the making of an unadulterated print there isn't much question about it, as you say. Making an unadulterated print is very difficult and requires total control. But that doesn't seem to be the goal in the original question, or so I assume from how I read the posting. Many people make really nice prints using, both, "adulteration" and cropping. I was assuming that given the proposed hybrid workflow. In that case, any of the systems could yield a workable neg... just as an incident reading or even a general-coverage reflected reading could. Why complicate things until there is a good reason to do so? There should be no shame placed upon folks who use labs or computer post-processing... it really is progress (just not of the traditional kind)!... why anyone, particularly a post-digital convert, would want to shoot a huge, expensive piece of film and not have as complete control as possible throughout the making of an unadulterated print, IMAO. Sure, just hand it off to your lab for developing and PS it, if that makes you proud
I feel perfectly justified in offering a differing opinion in a non-digital forum. I quoted the OP because my purpose was to offer reasons why he may not want or need to invest in the ZS. I thought it was clear that I accept prints anyway they're made, as long as the photographer can justify them or they have a market. I'm backing away from non-confrontation in this case, and talking about another way to do things, because the rising tide of digital production is completely overwhelming traditional processes to the point that the "other" side is rarely heard, and very often disparaged by digital commercial products and services. I'm not anti-D. Blather on your indignancies. Picking at my words shows poor comprehension, or possible communication on my part, or both, of the point. Deal with it.
"Blather on..."; "Deal with it"???? Dude, I was basically agreeing with you. Since this is a discussion forum I was "discussing" a POINT made... not picking at your words to degrade either you or your opinion. Sheesh.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks