Ever felt in the minority?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Everytime I try to talk to my friends about the zone system, especially its relevance to today's photography including using it with digital cameras I get a beat down if you will about how it was good then but not now, how it doesn't work today and how digital is so much better than film, etc. What I find interesting is my friends who started in film are the most anti film anything, although they try to say they like film, it is obvious from their arguments they have rejected film anything.

Things like the zone system won work for digital, which I categorically reject, the adoption of expose to the right for digital, which I also categorically reject, but try to show them how it can work for digital they almost get angry for even suggesting such heresy.

Or maybe it is just me, as the older I get, the mo e I am flinging I am rejecting technology and yearning for the "old" ways. I wish I could apprentice with an artist from the past.

Another thing I find is that old school photographers were smart people. They had to be to keep there equipment running in good order. I just overhauled my Durst CLS450 he d I just b ought with a Laboratory CE 1000. That was kinda fun.

[Louie Powell]

Welcome to Curmudgeonhood. It eventually affects us all!

[fotopfw]

People tend to degrade the tools and knowledge from the past, because they've ditched all that when going digital. They have to keep telling themselves and others that it was the right choice. Consequently, all concerning film must be outdated.

[jnantz]

Things like the zone system won work for digital, which I categorically reject,


sorry to ask, but do you use the zone system when you expose chromes or paper negatives
or if you shoot WP ... with tintypes/ ambrotypes?

im not trying to be a PITA or side with your digital film haters
but because paper and chromes are a useless task with the zone system
( can't speak for collodion, i don't use it). i shoot a lot of paper and
the latitude is slim, sometimes slim to none, and while i know how to slide my exposure
with film and understand the zone system is useless ( at least for me) with anything but negative film.

its too bad people who like digital can't be nice
and people who use film can't be nice and we can just all get along.....

[Tin Can]

This forum is aimed directly at Large Format as defined by the Mods, 4X5 capture or bigger on any sensitive medium, including digital.

Many members recognize that photography is photography in any medium.

I am not the only the only one here shooting images with everything I can, including iPod, tablets, cell phones, P&S, DSLR, mirrorless and most formats of film.

This forum also allows all those 'capture methods' to be discussed and posted in the Mod determined forum location.

[chassis]

Horses for courses. All means and methods work, from glass plate to roll film to pinhole and paper negative to digital. Sunny 16, zone system, and digital spotmeter are all part of the puzzle.

Single image workflow of 4x5 film suits me best at the moment. In the future it may, or may not, suit me best.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I tend to use whatever tool wil work and parts there of. Even though the zone system isn't designed arou d anything but a negative bw image, there are elements that work witb slide film, etc. For example, i look at a scen, and decide what I want to have detal, meter it then either shoot or decrease/incrwase exposure to place it where I want. For example snow if you just meter and shoot it comes out gray. So I meter then increase exposure time 1 or 2 stops. The zone system way of thinking helps me. And since I am going to print most of my images either by scanning developing in PS or LR and then print or in a traditional darkroom I think about my scenen and how I kneed to expose tk achieve my vision for the he final pri ted image thru the method I choose.

I find he zone system and parts of itand other methods relevant for not only film, but digital capture as well. I use all formats available, but there is a certain satisfaction from making an image that involves the old ways.

[paulbarden]

sorry to ask, but do you use the zone system when you expose chromes or paper negatives
or if you shoot WP ... with tintypes/ ambrotypes?

John, you’re a hoot! I can’t imagine trying to apply the zone system to wet plate collodion work. Most days I’m grateful that an image appears on the plate at all!

[Two23]

Since I'm almost always the only one there when I take photos, I don't worry about what others might think. Even if they were there, I wouldn't worry about it.


Kent in SD

[jp]

I find he zone system and parts of itand other methods relevant for not only film, but digital capture as well. I use all formats available, but there is a certain satisfaction from making an image that involves the old ways.

That's different than saying you categorically reject digital.

I'm in the minority in many aspects of my life. I am not bothered by the feeling. I'm perhaps in the minority here because I shoot B&W film and don't use a system of exposure but rather an incident meter. Works fine for snow.

[DG 3313]

I was in Colorado for Christmas last year and we took a trip to Estes Park for the day. My friend took a quite nice photo of the Rockies in evening light that was quickly edited for color,saturation and drastically cropped. I was standing behind my Toyo 4x5. He knew it would be days before I even developed the film. He showed me the photo and commented about how good and quick it was. I asked him to make me a print to hang over the mantel.............yeah....no.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

That's different than saying you categorically reject digital.

I'm in the minority in many aspects of my life. I am not bothered by the feeling. I'm perhaps in the minority here because I shoot B&W film and don't use a system of exposure but rather an incident meter. Works fine for snow.

I mean I categorically reject the idea that the zone system does not apply to digital work, not I categorically reject digital.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I was in Colorado for Christmas last year and we took a trip to Estes Park for the day. My friend took a quite nice photo of the Rockies in evening light that was quickly edited for color,saturation and drastically cropped. I was standing behind my Toyo 4x5. He knew it would be days before I even developed the film. He showed me the photo and commented about how good and quick it was. I asked him to make me a print to hang over the mantel.............yeah....no.

My friends also comment on how long it takes me to setup, compose, focus and finally take the picture. By the time I take one or two, they have been pacing around ready to leave. It was so bad at one point one of them said when asked to go to another area, sure as long as you don't bring that damned camera.

Also commented that when he went on workshops with Michael Reich an that he would have got upset with me because I take my time photographing a scene. He said he shows up, points camera takes picture and moves on. One thing I notice is impatience of digital only photographers. When I shoot digital, it is an easy trap to fall into though I admit.

[jp]

I mean I categorically reject the idea that the zone system does not apply to digital work, not I categorically reject digital.

Thanks for the clarification. Plenty of curmudgeons reject digital.

[Jim Noel]

[QUOTE=jnanian;1465629]sorry to ask, but do you use the zone system when you expose chromes or paper negatives
or if you shoot WP ... with tintypes/ ambrotypes?


I do, or have done all of these and more. There are only a few of the old processes (alternative) I don't utilize from time to time. I utilize the Zone System for all in camera exposures making allowances for emulsion speed, scale, etc.
I guess I am old fashioned since I have been doing LF photograph since the middle 1930's.
I do not use electronic imaging (digital) because although I have worked with some of the premier workers in the field, I have never found it to equal work produced from film or plates. A few years ago I taught a workshop with one of the 2 or 3 best in the field of digital imaging. When asked if he could produce images like mine his answer was,"If you want to make images like Jim you have to use the same methods he does."

[bieber]

But exposing to the right does produce optimal images on a digital medium. It's a way of compensating for the fact that while we think of exposure in terms of stops, the medium used to store a digital exposure is linear and therefore the amount of dynamic range available to you drops by half with every stop you go down from the right edge of the histogram. Situating the brightest part of your scene on the right side of the histogram, therefore, allows you to capture the most possible data about your subject vs. leaving that information-dense right edge empty.

I think the better question is why, if your friends are producing images they're happy with, you're so intent that they should refrain from using the current state of the art in technique. The zone system was new once too, do you suppose you would have been chided by older photographers for using it back then, even as it helped you make art you were happy with?

[John Olsen]

Any time that I find myself not in the minority it's a cause for reflection. What we have learned from the zone system for film is helpful for setting up digital shots where we manipulate lighting ratios, no matter what medium.

[jnantz]

I tend to use whatever tool wil work and parts there of. Even though the zone system isn't designed arou d anything but a negative bw image, there are elements that work witb slide film, etc. For example, i look at a scen, and decide what I want to have detal, meter it then either shoot or decrease/incrwase exposure to place it where I want. For example snow if you just meter and shoot it comes out gray. So I meter then increase exposure time 1 or 2 stops. The zone system way of thinking helps me. And since I am going to print most of my images either by scanning developing in PS or LR and then print or in a traditional darkroom I think about my scenen and how I kneed to expose tk achieve my vision for the he final pri ted image thru the method I choose.

I find he zone system and parts of itand other methods relevant for not only film, but digital capture as well. I use all formats available, but there is a certain satisfaction from making an image that involves the old ways.

thanks, you never know until you ask :)
cause as i said, i have found the ZS to be
useless for anything i am doing ( LF CN, BW diapositive, and sensor stuff )
... but then again i don't consider looking at the scene and deciding
what i want to photograph part of the ZS i just consider
that to be part of reading the scene .. IDK, maybe i am using some
version of the ZS intuitively / without thinking about it ...



John, you’re a hoot! I can’t imagine trying to apply the zone system to wet plate collodion work. Most days I’m grateful that an image appears on the plate at all!

thanks paul! yeah i was kind of half joking when i was wondering about WP work
but then again, you never know, some folks might have figured out some sort of
ZS work around, to work with the 1 stop latitude :) you know, a speical developer made from
cane sugar harvested at a certain time of year from a certain field found on a certain island
sprinkled in after the first 3 seconds of development :)
i know i haven't figured out a meaningful use for the ZS, but then again, compared to some im a hack ...

[Mark Sawyer]

There's a slight bit of a difference between wet plates over-exposed/under-developed and those "properly" exposed and developed, so I guess you could say there's a zone system effect at work there. (Mind you, one can't over-develop wet plate without the image getting chalky. Wet plate always involved tap-dancing on the edge of disaster.)

On film, I learned the Zone System with some discipline when I worked for the NPS and had access to a densitometer. Years later, after getting into compensating/stand developing, everything changed, and while I didn't do the math, it still informed my decisions.

The Zone System is really pretty simple, like changing the time/temperature variations in cooking. (Puffy pastries? Hot and fast! Smoked salmon? low and slow.) Low contrast/flat lighting? under-expose, over-develop for a stronger negative. Harsh light, high contrast? Over-expose, under-develop for a mellower negative. Development time controls contrast, exposure controls density. The real trick is, for most people in most situations, it's normal exposure, normal development, and trying too hard with the Zone System just gets you in trouble...

[cowanw]

I think a lot of people conflate the Zone system with routine metering and exposure decisions.

[Sirius Glass]

Garden Party
Ricky Nelson


Went to a garden party to reminisce with my old friends
A chance to share old memories and play our songs again
When I got to the garden party, they all knew my name
No one recognized me, I didn't look the same
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
People came from miles around, everyone was there
Yoko brought her walrus, there was magic in the air
And over in the corner, much to my surprise
Mr. Hughes hid in Dylan's shoes wearing his disguise
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
Played them all the old songs, thought that's why they came
No one heard the music, we didn't look the same
I said…
But it's all right now, I learned my lesson well.
You see, ya can't please everyone, so ya got to please yourself
Someone opened up a closet door and out stepped Johnny B. Goode
Playing guitar like a-ringin' a bell and lookin' like he should
If you gotta play at garden parties, I wish you a lotta luck
But if memories were all I sang, I rather drive a truck
And it's all right now, learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself

[Steven Ruttenberg]

But exposing to the right does produce optimal images on a digital medium. It's a way of compensating for the fact that while we think of exposure in terms of stops, the medium used to store a digital exposure is linear and therefore the amount of dynamic range available to you drops by half with every stop you go down from the right edge of the histogram. Situating the brightest part of your scene on the right side of the histogram, therefore, allows you to capture the most possible data about your subject vs. leaving that information-dense right edge empty.

I think the better question is why, if your friends are producing images they're happy with, you're so intent that they should refrain from using the current state of the art in technique. The zone system was new once too, do you suppose you would have been chided by older photographers for using it back then, even as it helped you make art you were happy with?

I never intended in preventing them from using any method that works for them. I have ezposed to rhe rigjt as knebis supposed to and even with post-processing, yhe ages looked like crap. Another falsehood is if you don't ettr then your not getting all the information which is patently wrong. Ettr is a tool and too many former film phitigraohersand digital only photographers believe it a holy grail for perfection. It isn't. It is a tool like everything else and if used properly will provide good results.

I was commenting on how I can mention something about an anolig technique like exposure and they become defensibe and tell me the error of my ways and the 50 reasons why I am wrong. That is what I was commenting on, I don't force anything on anyone. Except when I had to arrest someone then you did what I told you. ��

[DG 3313]

My friends also comment on how long it takes me to setup, compose, focus and finally take the picture. By the time I take one or two, they have been pacing around ready to leave. It was so bad at one point one of them said when asked to go to another area, sure as long as you don't bring that damned camera.

Also commented that when he went on workshops with Michael Reich an that he would have got upset with me because I take my time photographing a scene. He said he shows up, points camera takes picture and moves on. One thing I notice is impatience of digital only photographers. When I shoot digital, it is an easy trap to fall into though I admit.

What I neglected to say (type) was that my friend used his phone for the photo and not a DSLR. Must admit it was a nice image of what we saw that day.

[Jeff Conrad]

I think a lot of people conflate the Zone system with routine metering and exposure decisions.

I think a lot of people conflate the zone system and religion ...

I’ve always had a more prosaic view, treating it much like calibrating an instrument or something like a chart recorder: set the zero and range and try to keep the luminance values within those limits so that you maximize the capture of information. If the luminance values won’t fit, you try to visualize how you want the image to appear, and make a command decision on what to sacrifice (or with digital, perhaps you make more than one exposure). If the score is intact, the performer can make the necessary refinements, but if parts of the score are missing, yer screwed. This approach has always struck me as pretty similar to Fred Picker’s: he calibrated on Zone I and Zone VIII. With minor adjustments, this approach seems to work with any medium. In many cases, it’s compatible with “expose to the right,” provided that you don’t fry the high tones—usually a greater concern with chromes and digital.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Digital is not very forgiving in the hohlights. Not much better in shadows. Alrhiugh very linrar between the cutodfs wjere either no information recorded or where thwee is saturation in the highlights. Unlike film, once digital hits those points you're done since digital will no longer be able to record info. Film bwcause it is non-linear at the points digital cutS off, it continues to record info well beyound what digatal can and with proper technique can be revealed.

I often think of it this way, the raw file is the same as a piece of undeveloped film. Film is developed using a myriad of techniques to get an image that contains everything needed to make an image that can be printed.

Digital raw is run thru a raw developer like Adobe ACR or manufactures program to provide an image with everything needed to make an image that can be printed.

From this analogy One can then apply the zone system in whole or in part or any other technique desired between film and digital.

I also can see ettr as nothing moee than a version of the zone system. For film, one first decides how they want scene too look. Meters to ensure proper placement of shadow details for area of interest, makes exposure then develops and processes for print. Ie, exposes to the right to provide proper exposure letting highlights fall where they may. For digital it is the same. Ettr to get shadow detail desired, however, highlights cannot be allowed to just fall where they may. The use of grad nd filters to tame highlights and ensuring that the highlights are not blown out so one may need to back off exposure (ettl) if filtering not enough and hope they can pull out shadow detail desired by having had to back off exposure to avoid blowing out highlights. Backing off in digital has analogy in film of metering a detail and saying I want it in zone III. This requires ettl.

So, to me, ettr has to be used intelligently and can be used as a digital version of the zone system. One could also say meter for highlights then adjust exposure to put highlight in zone they want and let shadows fall where they may, but that doesn't work so well in digital a lot of the times.

I shot a scene digitally that required something like 8 stops to tame the skies and have shadow detail where I wanted so I could have image I desired. Made post processing image easier as it was almost there. If I had followed the wisdom of ettr the highlights would have been okay, but shadow detail would have been lost as black. And even if detail was recorderd, the noise would have been ridiculous. And hdr would not work as clouds were moving too fast.

So my point is ettr is a tool and needs to be used intelligently or you will end up with junk same as blindly following the zone system for film. Each method is similar to the other and can be applied to both mediums effectively.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1934/44738996144_8b9cee4a23_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2bar3Su)Bridge in Palouse. 5DMKIII, Canon 45mm TSE, 8 stops of grad ND. (https://flic.kr/p/2bar3Su) by Steven Ruttenberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/157376714@N08/), on Flickr

[invisibleflash]

OP, you are talking to the wrong people. Zone is not of interest to street shooters or the smartphone crowd. Talk to large format people.

I looked at your site. From the little I saw you have some nice work. Sadly, very slow to load so I gave up after only seeing a few pix.

[Kevin Crisp]

Interesting post, I’ve had quite the opposite reaction. So many digital photographers don’t understand the basics. They don’t really know what an f stop is or what it means, for example. When they see a LF camera, like my shiny 1930s 5X7 Deardorff or my Canham, they are in awe and eager to ask questions. Which I am happy to answer.

Photographers who lack a thorough knowledge of the basics are quickly out of their depth if they attempt a “this is so I much better” argument. For the rest, there is no counter to “I enjoy working with this camera.”

[Steven Ruttenberg]

OP, you are talking to the wrong people. Zone is not of interest to street shooters or the smartphone crowd. Talk to large format people.

I looked at your site. From the little I saw you have some nice work. Sadly, very slow to load so I gave up after only seeing a few pix.

Not sure why it is slow to load. It is zenfolio. They might be having a problem. Never heard of site being slow. I wil email them to find out. If it is flikr, I don't know about that either. I just use that to post images here and other places.

Thanks for compliments on wbat you were able to see.

The friends I am talking about though are long time photographers who either started digitally or cknverted over tk digital. One was large format and stil uses movements with his digital work, but wants no part of film anymore. Same with another he was a 35mm guy, but converted and now doesn't want anything to do with film. Perhaps the crowd I hang oit with zhould be LF types. 35mm digital group are an impatient lot.

[jnantz]

The friends I am talking about though are long time photographers who either started digitally or cknverted over tk digital. One was large format and stil uses movements with his digital work, but wants no part of film anymore. Same with another he was a 35mm guy, but converted and now doesn't want anything to do with film. Perhaps the crowd I hang oit with zhould be LF types. 35mm digital group are an impatient lot.

hi steven

you are always going to run into people like that. they use a different camera now and don't really want
to talk about or have anything to do with what they left behind. best thing to do is just not talk about this sort of
stuff with them since you now know what sorts of comments/commentary &c they will provide. i'd just do your thing
and let them do theirs. i also have friends who were long time film users, and now they like using electronic stuff and
if you mention anything emulsion or technique to them they get all defensive about what they are doing &c
.. not worth the aggravation to bring up the subject ... if you know what i mean
have fun!
john
ps i loaded your website, enjoyed the images and had no troubles with the load speed .. sometimes the inter webs is weird ..

[Steven Ruttenberg]

hi steven

you are always going to run into people like that. they use a different camera now and don't really want
to talk about or have anything to do with what they left behind. best thing to do is just not talk about this sort of
stuff with them since you now know what sorts of comments/commentary &c they will provide. i'd just do your thing
and let them do theirs. i also have friends who were long time film users, and now they like using electronic stuff and
if you mention anything emulsion or technique to them they get all defensive about what they are doing &c
.. not worth the aggravation to bring up the subject ... if you know what i mean
have fun!
john
ps i loaded your website, enjoyed the images and had no troubles with the load speed .. sometimes the inter webs is weird ..

I agree and have resigned myself to not having comversations of interest. Which is a shame given intellectual conversation is always fun.

Thank you. I need to get it organized and paired down to the best of the best.

[MAubrey]

Digital is not very forgiving in the hohlights. Not much better in shadows. Alrhiugh very linrar between the cutodfs wjere either no information recorded or where thwee is saturation in the highlights. Unlike film, once digital hits those points you're done since digital will no longer be able to record info.

The dynamic range of a digital sensor and the way bit depth works means that the highlights *can be* forgiving, but only if you can successfully achieve getting the maximum number photons in the pixel wells without clipping. And that means learning your sensor. When you achieve that, and it can take significant testing, then you'll get very lovely highlights. And this is the only way to achieve the best shadow details, too. If you have 14bit RAWS, you'll get:

|-- Black <---> Shadows <---> Midtones -Highlights <---> White --|
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, 4096, 8192, 16384

Because of the way tones are mapped to bits, you get the most tonality data in the highlights and the least tonality data in the blacks.

The zone system needs to be adapted to this. If you've got a scene with an dynamic range of 12 stops using a a good sensor with 14 stops of dynamic range, you'll want to exposure your middle gray at zone zone 7 instead of zone 5--ideally as high up the dynamic range without clipping the highlights. This will give you the most information on your sensor for when you post-process the image back down withe tones brought back to their appropriate zones along with applying a non-linear tone curve. When this can be achieved you'll get the best shadow detail possible for your camera and a lovely roll off in the highlights.

Also: unfortunately, Canon has been behind inf sensor dynamic range for going on ten years now.

Just my two cents.

I'm a young kid around here, only 34. Most of my friends just think my LF camera is pretty cool, but don't what to say beyond that.

[John Kasaian]

The issue I see is when discussing film with most of the photographers today, they get that deer in the headlights look.
There are many good things about digital photography, but with high school and college Art dept.s scrapping their darkrooms, I understand how traditional photographers might feel jaded.
The solution of course is to take anyone who shows an interest into the field and into the lab and show them.
Then you'll have at least one more person to have intellectual conversations with:cool:

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes, Canon is behind. I am sure they will catch up ny the time I am reincarnated. The key as you poinyniutnis to not clip highlights the followong scene I shot and exposed to get shadow detail I wanted. I used a 3 stop grad nd. Should have used 5 or 8 stops though. This scene had well iver 10 stops of difference between shadows and brihjtest sky parts. If I had not used grad filter these highlights would have been toast. Shot with Canon 5DMKIII. As I show, I enjoy dugital as well but I also soend more time to compose and meter than many. Also, when looking at this scene prior to post processing, it looked like crap as I expected, butnthatbis to be expected when exposing to get all the information desired. I also compared to an image tjat was more traditionall exposed. What you find is while uou can make them look similar, the shadow details are horrible with color noise etc. Hence exposing for shadows in digital world also has advantages.

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1952/31608523198_6c9c2fd0e3_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Qa8WHU)Grand Canyon North Rim cape Royal (https://flic.kr/p/Qa8WHU) by Steven Ruttenberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/157376714@N08/), on Flickr

[MAubrey]

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1952/31608523198_6c9c2fd0e3_o.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/Qa8WHU)Grand Canyon North Rim cape Royal (https://flic.kr/p/Qa8WHU) by Steven Ruttenberg (https://www.flickr.com/photos/157376714@N08/), on Flickr

That's a lovely photograph.

[Tin Can]

Yes very good Grand Canyon!

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Thanks! I hope my film versions come out even better. My goal for the Grand Canyon photos I take is to take ones that are unique and not like the 10 million that are out there. I hope this was not one of the 10 million.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

One thing I always think about is that we hear how digital like Nikon has 14 stops of dynamic range. But that is 14 stops from like Z = 0 to Z = XIV. But as was pointed out earlier on, if you are metering your scene say for Z = V and then adjusting to say Z = III or Z = VII (if you metered highlights) Then you no longer have an actual 14 stops, more like 2-4 at the most towards highlights and maybe the same in reverse. So, in reality a scene when exposed to capture detail in the shadows for example, will only yield about 3 stops to the highlights (depending on camera capability) and maybe that much to the dark side. Film has a much better response in this respect from the few shots I have made. So, the 14 stop dynamic range that is advertised can be mis-leading to the average photo hound. It just means that it can record data from Z = 0 (0 for brightness) up to Z = XIV (255 for brightness) which is interesting since regardless of dynamic range, the brightness values are always 0-255 for 8 bit (to make it simple) But you certainly do not get 14 stops from say middle gray (128) to the bright end of the scale, nor even 7 if you assume that is middle of exposure range.

Why one should test their camera to see just how many stops they truly have from Z = V to the highlight end and to the black end. Obviously same for the film you are using. That knowledge is really helpful. And of course film allows you to do things to squeeze out even more from pre-flashing the film to how it is developed and the use of filters at time of shot. Can't do that with digital!

[Duolab123]

I went to Yellowstone and Tetons this summer, I was the only film shooter. Lots of nice dedicated digital cameras. I wanted the look of our old vacation slides, so no large format. I almost took a Hassleblad to shoot 6x6 slides. Ended up w Nikon F5, 90% used 85 Af-D 1.4. Shot auto bracket, aperture priority.
I love film. Digital is amazing as well. Seems like with digital I take a lot of pictures of my cats.

Favorite is a Fuji 6x9 and an 8 exposure roll of TMY 2, incident light meter. Take a couple contrast filters along.

[pgk]

And that means learning your sensor.

Personally I think that sensor characteristics are very similar to film/processing characteristics in that they need to be learnt and fully appreciated. Different sensors certainly yield different results due no doubt to the manufacturer's interpretation of the sensor output data prior to writing it to the RAW file. Whilst there has been an immense amount written about dynamic range, ETTR and exposure, I still find that with digital sensors it can sometimes be difficult to do anything other than place the mid tone where it should be, even if this is at the expense of highlight/shadow detail because the tonality can shift otherwise and sometimes take a great deal of adjustment and even so still produce an inferior file. This does depend on the camera manufacturer and sensor. FWIW I find the files from a Leica M9 to be surprisingly malleable, more so than those from a Sony A7II at times. This is partly due to the tonality and partly due to the characteristics of its noise which whilst there can be relatively unobjectionable. But this needs learning by experience and adopting a workflow which suits both oneself and the camera.

I absolutely believe that photography is a practical operation and you have to have a good understanding of what is going on, apply it and then learn what works best for you. I consider that this applies to both film and digital and I abhor the snapshot mentality which unfortunately all too often accompanies digital. Being individualistic and thus in a minority suits me fine.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

so true pgk

[Duolab123]

I know that digital will blow out highlights just as well as slide film. I still think negative film has the edge over digital in dynamic range. But in practice the low light capabilities of digital is quite amazing.

Still here's the rub. A kid can for less than the cost of an Apple phone can buy a 4x5 camera, enlarger every bit of darkroom sundries. And, if he or she has the talent, can produce silver gelatin prints, on fiber base paper, that are worthy of the finest museums.

[jnantz]

i was watching videos of moriyama daido and he looks like he currently uses a
little digital point and shoot .. and seems to be doing quite well w/o the zs ..
different coats for different boats.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have just decided to not discuss this with my friends and when they talk about some new bs about digital being better than anything else, I will just nod my head up and down in agreement like an obedient Pavlovian dog. :)

[Andrew O'Neill]

I'd change friends. Friends should be supportive. Used to have a friend who shot film then switched to digital and became anti film. Got tired of him calling me a loser on line because I still use film. Why would I want to hang around with someone like that?

[jp]

Got tired of him calling me a loser on line because I still use film. Why would I want to hang around with someone like that?

Correct! The same mindfulness also requires us to not be film snobs that speak poorly of those practicing photography with digital.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I figure it isn't worth giving up friends. They have their viewpoints and I won't change that. So as lo g as they are haply with their choices good for them. Now if they start insulting me, it's a different story.

[SergeyT]

Neither film nor digital is the answer to everything. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Combining them together expands the possibilities
Zone system has almost no value even for film photography if the end result is digital printing. Scanners can easily chew through any negative density, so no need to bother with +- development.
Same for a dedicated light meter. A digicam is a way to go as it instantly shows brightness ranges and their distribution in a scene, plus much more

[Corran]

What I've learned talking to both film and digital, young and old, 35mm up to ULF photographers, is that everything I am doing is wrong and they are the most important expert in not only how but what to photograph.

Ignore the bullshit.

[Tin Can]

+1.

[Alan Gales]

All that really matters is the image.

I find that most of the photographers who put down other photographers are usually not very good themselves. If they are good, well there are always closed minded people out there. I've found that being closed minded stunts your growth as a photographer. I think most if not all of us have been guilty of it at one time or another. I try to be open minded. You learn more that way.

[faberryman]

Everytime I try to talk to my friends about the zone system, especially its relevance to today's photography including using it with digital cameras I get a beat down if you will about how it was good then but not now, how it doesn't work today and how digital is so much better than film, etc. What I find interesting is my friends who started in film are the most anti film anything, although they try to say they like film, it is obvious from their arguments they have rejected film anything.

Things like the zone system won work for digital, which I categorically reject, the adoption of expose to the right for digital, which I also categorically reject, but try to show them how it can work for digital they almost get angry for even suggesting such heresy.

Or maybe it is just me, as the older I get, the mo e I am flinging I am rejecting technology and yearning for the "old" ways. I wish I could apprentice with an artist from the past.

Another thing I find is that old school photographers were smart people. They had to be to keep there equipment running in good order. I just overhauled my Durst CLS450 he d I just b ought with a Laboratory CE 1000. That was kinda fun.

Why worry what others think? Just use the knowledge and experience you have built up over the years to further your work.

[Drew Wiley]

Why put up with it? I'm capturing nearly eighty square inches of photons at a pop; they might be bagging less than one square square inch, or even much less. I can rub that fact in their face. Or I can just whack em with a sixteen pound maple tripod with spike feet like I do to nettles laying across the trail. But the fact is, I nearly always get respect for what I do, even if it's just because my gear looks cool. I'm not personally impressed, however, by someone rattling off Zone dogma. It's like talking about the moon. Everyone knows it's there; no need to make a religion about it. It's just one tool among many.

[LabRat]

Ever felt in the minority??? NO...

Cool is for fools, and am finding my own path to discovery...

No minority complex here...

Steve K

[Jac@stafford.net]

Scanners can easily chew through any negative density

I do not think that is true.

[Joe O'Hara]

Steve, you are in the minority from the start because you take photography seriously. I mean, seriously as an expressive medium.

I joke that 99.9% of people have never heard of fine art photography, and the other 0.1% are photographers. This is only a slight
exaggeration.

Part of the problem is that images are ubiquitous these days, and almost always about the subject matter. Images that reflect
"what else it is", to use Minor White's phrase, confuse those who are expecting something else. This is not to disparage technical,
commercial, or journalistic photography. They use the same basic technology but the purpose and intention is different and
perfectly valid in its way.

Follow the work, it gives you all the feedback you need. You will know when it is true and yours alone. Occasionally,
you may even see certain others get it too.

Having said that, seeking out the comments of accomplished photographers whose work you respect can be helpful
to seeing what is in plain sight (or lacking) in your work, especially when you are starting out. Even then, you have a right to decide which
advice and comments to take to heart and which to leave aside.

[germansaram]

I'd change friends. Friends should be supportive. Used to have a friend who shot film then switched to digital and became anti film. Got tired of him calling me a loser on line because I still use film. Why would I want to hang around with someone like that?

Why would people call other people losers because of what kind of photography they prefer? That's just ridiculous and not what I call a friend.

[jim10219]

Everytime I try to talk to my friends about the zone system, especially its relevance to today's photography including using it with digital cameras I get a beat down if you will about how it was good then but not now, how it doesn't work today and how digital is so much better than film, etc. What I find interesting is my friends who started in film are the most anti film anything, although they try to say they like film, it is obvious from their arguments they have rejected film anything.

Things like the zone system won work for digital, which I categorically reject, the adoption of expose to the right for digital, which I also categorically reject, but try to show them how it can work for digital they almost get angry for even suggesting such heresy.

Or maybe it is just me, as the older I get, the mo e I am flinging I am rejecting technology and yearning for the "old" ways. I wish I could apprentice with an artist from the past.

Another thing I find is that old school photographers were smart people. They had to be to keep there equipment running in good order. I just overhauled my Durst CLS450 he d I just b ought with a Laboratory CE 1000. That was kinda fun.

I find retired people are the worst about lecturing me on why digital is better. People who shot film most of their lives. Young people tend to love film these days, and everything else "analog". Young people were brought up in a digital world and for whatever reason, prefer the grain of film and the crackle and hiss of vinyl. They love to lecture me on why analog is better. The truth is, they're both better at different things.

I shoot both, film and digital. I will say that I don't see much use in 35mm film these days due to digital. But medium and large format film still has it's place. I embrace technology. I also embrace the "old ways". I especially embrace the combination of the two. I don't get caught up in the technology debate. They're just tools. You pick the right tool for the job. Two weeks ago I went on a road trip and stopped off at Carlsbad Caverns. I took my digital camera with me in there, because the low light and terrain made more sense with a digital camera. When I went to the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, I pulled out my Speed Graphic mostly. But I did run into some wildlife, for which I went back to digital. They move fast, and I don't have time to set up and meter a large format camera before they're gone. Plus, I don't have any ultra long lenses for my 4x5.

Young people are just as smart, and dumb, as old people. Some don't know how to work on anything. Others know how to work on everything. I'm the kind of guy who feels comfortable working on 100 year old shutters and SMD electronic components. I prefer to fix things myself, rather just throw them out or send them off for service. If I don't know how to fix them, I learn. Thanks to the internet, that's fairly easy to do these days. I've got some friends who are good with software and always writing programs to do interesting things.

One of the things I've learned in life is that every generation thinks they are different, but in reality, they're really all the same, just at different stages of their life. Old people will always be grumpy and hate change. Young people will always be lazy and disrespectful. Middle aged people will always be too focused on work and social status. The world will always be chaotic.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I find retired people are the worst about lecturing me on why digital is better.

I am retired, and I welcome anyone. Some of us are too old to stand by an enlarger, have become impatient, or are in some kind of persistent existential crisis. Old age ain't for wimps.

Hang in there. When it comes to experiencing others' work, all is good!

The only people, old or young I find disturbing are those who have, probably through no fault of their own, stopped growing and learning.

[dodphotography]

It’s absolutely a minority... being a famous photographer is like being a famous plumber, only Plumbers know other plumbers.

I studied with Nick Nixon, helped make pictures with Abe Morell, enjoyed coffee and looking at prints with Barbara Bosworth, scoured over edits with Laura McPhee.

If I sit down with 99.9% of the people in my life, even people who LOVE photography, no one knows who they are and some consider them giants in our world.

[Audii-Dudii]

As it happens, I'm one of the photographers/friends Steve references in his post.

For the record, my issue with Steve's use of the "Zone System" is that when he photographs digitally, he's not actually using the Zone System, which involves both determining the optimal exposure and compensating development accordingly.

Instead, he's using only the metering part of the Zone System to determine where he wants to place his middle grey tone and then ignoring the other part.

Which is fine by me -- Hey, whatever works, right? -- but to my way of thinking, his calling what is really just an exposure strategy the "Zone System" is somewhat misleading and/or inappropriate, that's all.

Yes, this might seem pedantic on my part and Steve is certainly welcome to meter any way he wishes, but I do admit to bristling a bit when people co-opt an existing, time-honored label to mean something else.

But that's just me and I meant (mean?) no harm. I certainly didn't realize the extent to which my comments about this bugged Steve and I hereby apologize for having done so.

As for my taking issue with his use of film, well, I'm a bit less apologetic about that. There are two sides to every story and clearly, we each see things rather differently here.

From my perspective, I'm not so much slagging on film and his use of it, but what I perceive to be his sometimes excessively enthusiastic proselytizing about it compared to digital photography.

His enthusiasm for film is commendable and even a bit contagious, but I believe he's conflating his use of film with his use of a view camera and the slower, more contemplative approach to photography they demand.

From what I understand, Steve came to film and view cameras from a history of spraying-and-praying with a DSLR (i.e., taking 14,000 photos at a single air show?!). He wants to both slow down his process and achieve better results, especially with larger prints, and he sees using both film and a view camera as instrumental to achieving these goals.

On the other hand, I came to digital photography from shooting color transparencies in an 8x10. Needless to say, my approach to photography was about as slow and contemplative as it gets!

And one of the reasons I eventually transitioned to digital -- besides the expense, which wasn't too bad when outdated and/or surplus film could be bought on eBay for a buck-a-sheet, but increased significantly when that supply eventually dried-up and it had to be bought new at $7-8 per sheet -- is because I ultimately found the process of shooting 8x10 color transparencies to be too slow and contemplative for my taste.

Whereas Steve had the option of slowing down his process with digital photography, I didn't have the corresponding option of speeding up my film photography and especially not when I was using an 8x10 view camera!

I did consider returning to running roll film through my 2x3 view cameras, as I had done for more than decade prior to stepping up to larger formats, but the benefits of shooting film instead of digital diminish as the format becomes smaller and the convenience of shooting digital ultimately won me over.

And me being me, it wasn't but a few years after I started shooting digitally that I found myself using a Contax 645/Phase One outfit. To my eyes, it significantly outperformed the results I used to get from roll film and was plenty good enough compared to the results from my 8x10 days that I stopped looking quite so fondly at the past and began looking with some excitement toward the future.

(As an aside, it turned out that medium-format digital, for all of its good qualities, proved not to be the best choice for the type of nighttime photography I started doing in 2008-9 -- and have been doing almost exclusively ever since -- and I gravitated away from it and have been working happily with smaller digital formats ever since.)

For Steve, using film was a necessary part of the changes he wanted to make to his overall process, whereas for me, it was necessary to transition away from film. It's not surprising that he's excited about what he's doing these days, including his use of film, but just as the Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz didn't need an actual heart to experience love, I don't think Steve had to embrace film to transition away from his spray-and-pray approach to photography, either.

Yes, it certainly helped -- even with Grafmatic backs, it's difficult to spray-and-pray when using a 4x5! -- but I don't believe it was as essential as Steve sometimes makes it seem. Or maybe it was ... for him.

As for his comments about his fellow photographers taking issue with his shooting film (presumably during our trip to the Palouse last summer, because on our local outings, we rarely shoot together but instead wander around on our own in the vicinity of each other), I believe he's overstated things a bit.

Speaking solely for myself -- because our mutual friend leans more toward the run-and-gun approach than I do and definitely can be a bit testy at times -- I had no problem with it at all. Heck, so far as I'm concerned, he can channel his inner Sally Mann and shoot wet-plate collodion if that's what floats his boat! ;^)

It was only when he wanted to shoot the same scene with both film and digital, one after the other, that I would become somewhat impatient with him. Of course, my nature is such that I generally prefer to photograph alone, so my tolerance for such things might be lower than it is for most photographers. <shrug>

All in all, reading Steve's posts in this thread -- which I stumbled upon over the weekend as a result of an online acquaintance pointing me to one he'd posted here about his DSLR-based film scanner -- have come as a bit of a surprise to me, as I thought I was being supportive of his decision to embrace film and use a view camera.

After all, he's using equipment (meter, lenses, film holders, dark cloth, loupe, etc.) borrowed from me and when he first got his camera, I accompanied him on a couple of outings to show him how to use it and help him develop an appropriate workflow.

Clearly, there is some miscommunication occurring between us and I suppose this means we need to get together for drinks one of these days so we can clear the air and resolve any misunderstandings.

Because I like to think of myself as being a gentleman and as my late father taught me, a gentleman never offends anybody unintentionally! 8^)

[Laminarman]

I wish I had a bucket of popcorn : ) There are a plethora of valid points here. I like analogies. A close friend argued with me ad nauseum telling me the bang for the buck is better with his Corvette compared to my 2006 Boxster S, it has more options, more displacement, goes faster...yadayadayada. I could only simply respond, "Yes, and you get more food at a buffet." I see digital in that light, but I don't see digital as inferior I simply don't enjoy it as much anymore. Yes Steve, you are in the minority, but you should relish that. I have always lived by the credo that you do what makes YOU happy. Personally I don't much give a crap what anyone thinks about what I do or how I do it. And I have had a similar experience with a commercial photographer (a good friend) just recently. If this isn't a blanket statement I don't know what is: "Digital is better in every single category you can name: resolution, speed, tonality, color, portability, support, technology..., film is D E A D" (yes he spelled it out). I can't argue with that, he's close minded. Of course, he's right on a LOT of those, but not perhaps on all. How did he end the comment? "I make a living doing this Andy, you don't..." So I can either choose to let it bother me, or load another roll of Acros in my Hassy and head out the door. Head out the door and do what makes you happy. One of the greatest mental freedoms is truly not caring what anyone else thinks of you.

[andrewch59]

Good for you, and I concur. We take time to stop and smell the roses.

[Paul Ron]

you cant criticize how an artist uses his brushes.

whatever it takes to create your image is irrelevant, the only thing relevant is the image itself.