Ansels The Negative

[Doremus Scudder]

Monochrome fan,

Modify your approach to AA's book: Assume he knew what he was doing and that his descriptions are accurate and correct.

Any confusion, therefore, is due to misunderstanding on your part. Go back and figure it out or ask for clarification of individual points here.

We'll do what we can, but we can't understand it for you; you'll have to do that yourself.

Your underlying assumption that the book is somehow inaccurate is getting in your way.

Best,

Doremus

[Vaughn]

...

To get the white tile correct, take the reading, then, knowing your meter loves mid gray, stop down two stops to make the tile white in the print. Same with the black tile. Your meter wants it gray, so take your reading, then add two stops exposure to make it black.

I think that is how it works, but did have wine with lunch...

Have another glass...I believe you got it backwards...

Taking a reading off the white tile has the meter thinking, "Wow, that gray tile has a lot of light coming off of it! We'd better close down and/or shorten the exposure to keep it gray." So one has to add a couple stops or so of light to keep the white tile white.

And the reverse for the black tile. Metering something black, the meter will try to make it gray by suggesting about two stops more light than if metering middle gray -- so, to keep it black, reduce the amount of exposure by about two stops.

That the way I've been using a spot meter for a few decades...seems to work.

[Tim Meisburger]

Have another glass...I believe you got it backwards...

Taking a reading off the white tile has the meter thinking, "Wow, that gray tile has a lot of light coming off of it! We'd better close down and/or shorten the exposure to keep it gray." So one has to add a couple stops or so of light to keep the white tile white.

And the reverse for the black tile. Metering something black, the meter will try to make it gray by suggesting about two stops more light than if metering middle gray -- so, to keep it black, reduce the amount of exposure by about two stops.

That the way I've been using a spot meter for a few decades...seems to work.

Well, that uis quite likely, hic...

[Drew Wiley]

I've told this story before. But one rainy week I took a big stack of various "gray cards" to the industrial grade spectrophotometer I had at work. None of them, of any brand, were truly 18% gray, not even from the same brand, and none were actually neutral gray either. Some were wildly off. The Kodak ones were all over the map, probably because they'd sat around on the camera store shelf so long that they were growing mildew. The only accurate example was the mid neutral gray patch on a clean unfaded MacBeth Color Checker chart.

[Joseph Kashi]

I've told this story before. But one rainy week I took a big stack of various "gray cards" to the industrial grade spectrophotometer I had at work. None of them, of any brand, were truly 18% gray, not even from the same brand, and none were actually neutral gray either. Some were wildly off. The Kodak ones were all over the map, probably because they'd sat around on the camera store shelf so long that they were growing mildew. The only accurate example was the mid neutral gray patch on a clean unfaded MacBeth Color Checker chart.

I'll bet that the wide variance that you saw on your grey cards is also true of many, many light meters, both handheld and in-camera. I've found that my several light meters are not really consistent and so I include a separate adjustment specific to each meter on my exposure calculation/record cards. The Pentax digital spot meter seems the most "right on".

It's one reason why Minor White always had us do a complete start to finish calibration of the entire process, to include camera, shutter speeds, aperture accuracy, light meter accuracy, film speed, development time, enlarger, print processing, and viewing light/conditions. FWIW, White and Zakia wrote the classic BW film bible "The New Zone System Manual", sadly no longer available.

White is even stricter about process calibration than his friend Ansel Adams. His calibration process is thorough, to say the least, but just what you'd expect from someone teaching Zone System and fine art photography at MIT.

However, doing your calibrations accurately up front can take a lot of work initially but the payoff is consistently better work and the mark of a mature craftsman.

[jnantz]

I've told this story before. But one rainy week I took a big stack of various "gray cards" to the industrial grade spectrophotometer I had at work. None of them, of any brand, were truly 18% gray, not even from the same brand, and none were actually neutral gray either. Some were wildly off. The Kodak ones were all over the map, probably because they'd sat around on the camera store shelf so long that they were growing mildew. The only accurate example was the mid neutral gray patch on a clean unfaded MacBeth Color Checker chart.

that's why I have never used a grey card or a gray card, they seem like a total scam.
my old boss taught me to cast a shadow on my hand and through experience to know what the shutter and fstop should be, that way you're not tied to a meter that could be uncalibrated or a grey card that isn't grey.

[Michael R]

This isn’t going well. OP doesn’t need any of this “calibration” or grey card hooha.

[bmikiten]

If you've seen a contact sheet of Ansel's 6x6 work, you'd see that he bracketed exposures as well. The fact is, there is quite a bit of "proper" exposure latitude in film so this discussion about how accurate a grey card is can be quite moot here. Phil Davis addresses much of the issue around Ansel's methods and the proper use of an incident meter. We all seem to get stuck on the one-shot Moonrise story and forget that Ansel (and all of us) are just regular people making exposure errors at times. Oh...and for some fun, think about all the errors that contribute to the actual exposure including minor bellows factors we don't include, F-stop mis-reads and shutter calibrations including errors in the cold. Dang, we are lucky if we actually do get a perfect exposure and then develop properly. I taught BTZS courses for years both locally and with Phil and the variations we found with the same settings on groups of student's cameras would make your head spin.

[jnantz]

Dang, we are lucky if we actually do get a perfect exposure and then develop properly. I taught BTZS courses for years both locally and with Phil and the variations we found with the same settings on groups of student's cameras would make your head spin.

hi bmikiten
sorry to be a PITA but is there a perfect negative that exists ? IDK seems perfect negative would just need a simple light, and exposure and no burning and dodging at the printing stage. in a way an over exposed beefy negative contract printed on AZO might be close but still it isn't. the paper is sometimes hard to find, and the light might be simple but it's blinding, and I won't even go into the chemistry to develop it. everything photography is a compromise. from the camera to the film exposure developement, then printing ..
I've given up and don't care and embrace the idea that perfection doesn't exist and since I did that photography has become much much easier. silver bullets vanish, together with all the mind boggling technical stuff others get bogged down with, to me at least none of it matters. I let the camera vignette, black in the print or max black on the film. without the tech stuff it allows photography to be photography. like I said to the OP in another thread, different people have different reasons for making photographs and memorializing moments of time, for some it's to conquer all the obstacles of the gear and materials and put their flag up as their own, for others it's just to enjoy the moments and make stuff.

[paulbarden]

No such thing as a "perfect" negative - only a negative that does what the photographer needs it to do.