Ansels The Negative

[monochromeFan]

Contradictions ive found in my first reading of it..


1. He says that film is intended to print as a grade two on paper, when used with the 18% middle grey value set by the light meter. IE use the meters reading directly, no alteration to it.


2. Several times, he makes it out that the zone system is only of use for scens with massive variations in light intensity in it.

3. Several pages are spent going over the proper use of an incident light meter.. but for some reason he makes much use of a BLACK card to illustrate proper use, vie the hand holding black card against adobe wall.

4. He tells us that holding an incident meter on top of a grey card, held against the object to be photographed will provide a more accurate meter reading than if the grey card was not used.. how is that even possible, outside of personal belief?

5. His description of the reflected light meter and the checker board, ive never seen anyone really talk about how a 30* meter will skew to the darks.

[Mark Sampson]

Which edition do you have? There were several (considerably different) ones, ranging from the 1950s forward.

[BrianShaw]

I’m struggling a bit trying to understand what you think are contradictions. Would you please elaborate? And references would be helpful for anyone who wants to review the context and help you understand.

One of your observations has me equally puzzled, #5. Okay, #4 also.

[Mark Sawyer]

Contradictions ive found in my first reading of it..


1. He says that film is intended to print as a grade two on paper, when used with the 18% middle grey value set by the light meter. IE use the meters reading directly, no alteration to it.

2. Several times, he makes it out that the zone system is only of use for scenes with massive variations in light intensity in it.


#2 answers #1. Most images require normal exposure and processing, so yes, just follow the meter and standard processing instructions. The Zone System is for improving the negative's printability in especially overly or underly contrasty situations.

[Tin Can]

#2 answers #1. Most images require normal exposure and processing, so yes, just follow the meter and standard processing instructions. The Zone System is for improving the negative's printability in especially overly or underly contrasty situations.

Been waiting a long time for truth

Thank thank you both

[Tin Can]

I meant to thank you also!

I am adjusting my life or is it Death






QUOTE=monochromeFan;1705772]Contradictions ive found in my first reading of it..


1. He says that film is intended to print as a grade two on paper, when used with the 18% middle grey value set by the light meter. IE use the meters reading directly, no alteration to it.


2. Several times, he makes it out that the zone system is only of use for scens with massive variations in light intensity in it.

3. Several pages are spent going over the proper use of an incident light meter.. but for some reason he makes much use of a BLACK card to illustrate proper use, vie the hand holding black card against adobe wall.

4. He tells us that holding an incident meter on top of a grey card, held against the object to be photographed will provide a more accurate meter reading than if the grey card was not used.. how is that even possible, outside of personal belief?

5. His description of the reflected light meter and the checker board, ive never seen anyone really talk about how a 30* meter will skew to the darks.[/QUOTE]

[Drew Wiley]

Meters are calibrated to 18% gray. Most gray cards allegedly are 18% too (but don't take that for granted). But placing an incident meter atop a gray card facing the light must be some kind of misunderstanding. I don't recall ever reading that. His Negative book does contain a number of clumsy explanations. I gave away my copy, so can't look it up for myself.

The Zone System allowed you to standardize on any grade or grades you chose to. AA might have used mainly Grade 2, and then altered procedure as necessary. I chose mainly Grade 3 instead. But exactly what specific grades meant differed somewhat between manufacturers; and today, few graded papers even exist anyway.

The Zone system was applicable to any scene contrast range, not just to strong contrast. Often low-contrast scenes need a boost in development; and your light reading would give a clue to how much. And I'm certain that was explained in The Negative as well. I don't think in terms of the Zone System anymore. After awhile, it all gets intuitive anyway.

[sharktooth]

I just happened to buy a copy of Ansel's "The Negative" at a thrift store last weekend ($3). I hadn't looked at it yet, but your questions prompted me to have a look.

It's clear to me that you are completely misunderstanding his explanations for use of the light meter. He shows a grey card held up in front of a white adobe wall. He explains that using an incident meter positioned in front of the grey card, and aimed at the camera, will give you the correct exposure to get the card and adobe wall to look right in the final print. He also shows another picture beside it taken with a reflected light reading of the same shot. The grey card now looks black since the exposure reading from the reflected light meter errs to underexposure, since it's reading a lot of the bright white adobe wall. These are completely logical explanations. He's NOT saying that you need to have a grey card behind the incident meter, or that the grey card will have any influence on the incident light meter reading.

Maybe you should start by looking at other explanations of how incident meters work. At this point, you're misunderstanding the fundamental concepts, so maybe another source will cause the lightbulb over your head to turn on. I thought Ansel was pretty clear, but that obviously doesn't work for everyone.

[BrianShaw]

@sharktooth makes a great point. There are many better ways to learn basic photography exposure concepts than Ansel’s writings. His works are best understood after the basics are well understood.

[Michael R]

Assuming the Zone System makes complete sense, The Negative isn’t a difficult book at all. I don’t get why people make it out to be complicated. It does contain some incorrect information about meters and other things but the concepts are simple - simple enough that the whole thing really needs little more than a few pages. If you don’t get it, dispense with it. You’ll get basically the same results either way.

[Tim Meisburger]

Assuming the Zone System is makes complete sense, The Negative isn’t a difficult book at all. I don’t get why people make it out to be complicated. It does contain some incorrect information about meters and other things but the concepts are simple - simple enough that the whole thing really needs little more than a few pages. If you don’t get it, dispense with it. You’ll get basically the same results either way.

I agree. People used to say it was complicated, but when I finally read it I found it quite simple, if a little dry. He was a very famous teacher, so you would expect his text to be clear. I gained a lot of foundational knowledge from his books.

[Mark Sawyer]

The grey card now looks black since the exposure reading from the reflected light meter errs to underexposure, since it's reading a lot of the bright white adobe wall...

That's why people using the Zone System use spot-meters.

[monochromeFan]

5. the checker board,,, here is cut and copy

onsider as an example a large checkerboard pattern of black and
whit e squares. If the checkerboard has the same numbe r of light and
dark squares, a general meter reading will give about the right exposure setting to record it as whit e and black areas. If, however, the
surface is predominantly black with only a few whit e squares, we
will get a different average reading from it, since it will appear to the
mete r as a "darker " subject; an average reading will thus indicate
more exposure required. Conversely if the surface contains mostly
whit e with only a few black squares, the meter will indicate a higher
average luminanc e level and less exposure required. Th e problem
that arises is that, in photographing each of the three checkerboard
arrangements we would usually want the black areas to appear black
in the final print and the white areas white. Only one of the three
exposure readings — the one from the norma l checkerboard — will
provide an exposure setting that is appropriate to achieve tha t result.
To repeat: the meter assumes it is reading an average subject, as it
was in the case of the normal checkerboard. When the distribution
of light and dark areas is not average, the meter has no way, in itself,
to compensate

Not something I have ever seen before, not even in the MANUAL for my light meter

[notorius]

5. the checker board,,, here is cut and copy

onsider as an example a large checkerboard pattern of black and
whit e squares. If the checkerboard has the same numbe r of light and
dark squares, a general meter reading will give about the right exposure setting to record it as whit e and black areas. If, however, the
surface is predominantly black with only a few whit e squares, we
will get a different average reading from it, since it will appear to the
mete r as a "darker " subject; an average reading will thus indicate
more exposure required. Conversely if the surface contains mostly
whit e with only a few black squares, the meter will indicate a higher
average luminanc e level and less exposure required. Th e problem
that arises is that, in photographing each of the three checkerboard
arrangements we would usually want the black areas to appear black
in the final print and the white areas white. Only one of the three
exposure readings — the one from the norma l checkerboard — will
provide an exposure setting that is appropriate to achieve tha t result.
To repeat: the meter assumes it is reading an average subject, as it
was in the case of the normal checkerboard. When the distribution
of light and dark areas is not average, the meter has no way, in itself,
to compensate

Not something I have ever seen before, not even in the MANUAL for my light meter

I am not sure If I can see what you seem to not understand here. This is really the basics of exponometry to the very core. Any lightmeter is calibrated to "see" average middle gray and tend to give you "wrong" results when metering a scene which tends be darker/brighter than average. This applies to reflected metering everytime. If you want to get correct exposure, you have to compensate or use incident metering. That is the easier way. The other is spot metering, which will give you full control.

[jnantz]

I am not sure If I can see what you seem to not understand here. This is really the basics of exponometry to the very core. Any lightmeter is calibrated to "see" average middle gray and tend to give you "wrong" results when metering a scene which tends be darker/brighter than average. This applies to reflected metering everytime. If you want to get correct exposure, you have to compensate or use incident metering. That is the easier way. The other is spot metering, which will give you full control.

Exactly.. I just recently helped restore what seemed to be 35mm p/s prints taken in the Middle East30-35 years ago .. extremely bright and the average ambient meter obviously didn’t allow for any manual over ride to compensate for the wrong reading. the resulting original prints looked OK for what they were. my friend told me it was all kodak color print film. beautiful combination of soft muted almost pastel, bright colors and wicked almost runaway contrast, I've never seen/worked on anything like it. Probably could have used an extra 2 or 3 stops at the shooting stage but kodak knew that that's why consumer print film is almost fool proof. Us manual lens manual meter manual development don’t know how good we got it….

[j.e.simmons]

That's why I began using an incident meter.

[John Layton]

...methinks the skeptic is becoming unmasked, and will soon truly be able to see (and judge) the light! :cool:

[Michael R]

I think OP should read a basic photo technique book. There are a few decent ones. I mean basic stuff (ie 99.x% of what is ever needed), not Zone System or the myriad of gobbledygook nonsense books that came after. Even something like Kodak's Basic Sensitometry Workbook might be beneficial (in fact that would have done many people some good).

Properly exposing and developing film is not complicated stuff. It just isn't. Especially if one were to learn at the outset that "control" of negatives is largely a zero-sum, and that the way great prints are made is instead by working on printing, which is where the real control and skills/techniques come into play.

If one then wants to go deeper into exposure and/or tone reproduction theory, that's interesting/enlightening too (Zone System is not good for this either).

[djdister]

When I was attending RIT in the late 70's, they did not teach the zone system, and we did not use Ansel's books as our textbooks. And looking [way] back, I would not tell anyone to start with Ansel's books...

[John Layton]

I think it was 1990 or thereabouts...I had my Basic Photo students outdoors near the photo lab, each equipped with a light meter and gray card.

What I had not predicted was that results were all over the map...with my students left skeptically scratching their collective scalps - and eyeing me with some suspicion.

Turned out that it was a sunny day...and those gray cards (photo dept. budgets being almost nonexistent) were very cheap - and "shiny" enough that they could actually be quite "specular" if you get my drift.

Lesson learned, next session I brought my "personal" gray card in to class - which I believe was called "The Last Gray Card" (made by Beseler I think) - which was quite bombproof and had a truly nice matte surface. At any rate...this gave me a "teachable moment" after which I was so very fortunate to have regained the class' trust and confidence!

[Michael R]

Incidentally (pardon the pun), 18% is not quite correct, nor is the K-factor explanation in The Negative...

[BrianShaw]

… apparently nobody read the instructions that came with the Kodak gray card.

EDIT: This is, perhaps, the best demonstration of the effect of gray card angle I’ve ever seen. See post 3:

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/kodak-grey-card-usage.135637/

[John Layton]

Ha! Thirty four years ago...likely guilty as charged!

I would like to state that I'd discussed this specularity "issue" prior to that class, and that students either did not understand completely or were just careless - but to be honest, I cannot remember doing this.

Edit: but there are indeed situations (incidences:rolleyes:) where being able to orient a gray card in a way which might put it at risk of exposure to some degree of specularity is otherwise advantageous. Sometimes this is not possible, in which cases an incident light meter or spot meter is always a safer bet.

[paulbarden]

I think OP should read a basic photo technique book.

I agree. The Adams books are only going to create obstacles and difficulties to someone early in learning to expose and develop film (and understand their results!). Learn to walk before you try to run - ya know?
Go back to Henry Horenstein's beginners/semi-advanced books and start there.

[BrianShaw]

…
Go back to Henry Horenstein's beginners/semi-advanced books and start there.

That’s a good one. There are also some exceptionally good tutorials offered by the meter manufacturers.

[Michael R]

That’s a good one. There are also some exceptionally good tutorials offered by the meter manufacturers.

Even something like the old Time Life photo book series is plenty good enough.

[Ulophot]

monochromeFan, the example given by Adams has been used by other writers, but as others here have pointed out, it seems that your eagerness to learn as much as possible about photography quickly may be outrunning you a bit. But no big deal; we all have some areas we grasp more readily than others.

I don't know if I'd discard reading the Adams books so easily; I have always found his writing to be very good, and I think you will find them valuable as you get your bearings a bit more. However, it may help you at this point to "cross-reference" that reading with a book such as David Vestal's The Craft of Photography, or some other, which you can get through the library (maybe interlibrary loan) or buy used for less than $10. Each author approaches fundamentals and advanced technical aspects in his or her own way; one may clarify for you what another doesn't quite get across.

Understanding how a light meter works does not necessarily come instantly. We think of meters as reading some kind of "absolute" level -- how many degrees hot or cold, how many decibels of sound, etc. The light meter does read levels, but it averages them out for the purpose of providing exposure suggestions that will often work well. Before there were meters and sensitivity-calibrated films, more guesswork was involved.

Imagine two thermometers reading the temps of two breakers of water, side by side: one cooled to 40 degrees F, the other heated to 100 degrees F. Each thermometer would read its own temp, but the average, you could compute, would be 70 degrees, right? Now, if you poured the two beakers into a larger one that would hold the water from both, a thermometer placed in it would read 70 degrees, all other things being equal.

That averaging is what a light meter does as it takes in whatever view it is taking in, whether it's an incident meter, a 30-degree reflected meter, or a 1-degree reflected meter. The "spot" (typically 1 degree) meter just allows you to choose a much smaller area to read, but it's still averaging whatever it sees. And what it reports to you, is a set of combinations of shutter speed and aperture, based on the sensitivity of the film (ISO number) that you have set on the meter, all of which will give you a medium gray -- an "average middle tone," you could say. This is adequate for many situations, but a scene that is primarily either dark or light (e.g., a snow scene on an overcast day) will end up gray instead of white if you simply follow the meter's suggested exposure.

I hope that helps.

[bob carnie]

I just purchased Photography by Phil Davis for my assistant to do the same drills I did some 50 years ago.

[darr]

Ansel excelled as a master photographer and was highly regarded as an instructor. However, the books he authored that sit on my shelf have never appealed to me. To call them dull would be putting it mildly, but the images in them are great.

[Tim Meisburger]

Think of it this way. Your meter loves middle gray in a very deep and very unnatural way. Say you have four tiles on a wall in direct sun; one white, one light gray, one dark gray, and one black. You stick your meter close to the white tile and take a reading. The meter says to itself, "that tile is white, but I like gray, so I will tell him to add two stops, so instead of f16 at 1/100, I'll tell him f8, and when he prints that negative the white tile will be mid-gray. Ha ha." You don't like that neg, so next time you meter the black tile. The meter knows the tile is black, but she prefers gray, so she tells you to stop down two stops, so instead of f16 at 1/100, she tells you to use f32, and laughs, because when you print, that tile will be mid gray ("Ha ha, got you again!") So, you can see where this is going:

For the white tile, f8 yields mid gray
For the light gray tile, f11 yields mid gray
For the dark gray tile, f23 yields mid gray
For the black tile, f32 yields mid gray

Since you are cunning, and jealous of your meter's affection for mid gray, you step back a bit, and get all four tiles in your meter's view, and declare victory! Now the best she can do is average the readings from each tile, and give you f16 at 1/100, which she does, but then sulks the rest of the afternoon.

So an averaging meter works well on an average scene, but will overexpose a white house in snow, and underexpose a black horse in the dark.

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...

[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.

[darr]

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.

+1

[Vaughn]

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

True, but if someone says on this forum they just want to make a negative that is 'good enough', they get criticized for not trying hard enough. It's a tough world. :cool:


IDK seems perfect negative would just need a simple light, and exposure and no burning and dodging at the printing stage.

That is what I aim for...no crop, no burn, no dodge...all that is taken care of in the scene selection, and the exposure and developing of the negative. The craft comes in with making and using the printing material to match the light I experienced and the qualities the negative.

[Michael R]

Making negatives is relatively trivial. People reading Adams would probably do better starting with The Print.

[paulbarden]

True, but if someone says on this forum they just want to make a negative that is 'good enough', they get criticized for not trying hard enough. It's a tough world.

I don't know that I've experienced that here, but I can imagine it happening. There are always going to be those who think "perfection" is the only goal worth pursuing, and they're happy to tell others when they fall short! I guess that's human nature.
Me, I don't care if I meet the standards of others. I'm just doing what I do to make ME happy.

[Michael R]

Ouch. Boy has this gone off the rails.

[Ulophot]

Tim, better lay off the wine, or check that the waiter doesn't slip a mickey into your drink. For some reason, you're telling it all backwards, or upside down, if you prefer. I have no doubt you know much better.

[Vaughn]

... I'm just doing what I do to make ME happy.

Perfect!

[Drew Wiley]

Joseph - light meters can be very consistent, and should be. I've currently have four Pentax digital spotmeters and they all read exactly the same over their full scale. I once had a Minolta Spotmeter F which read identically too. I periodically test them for match. If there was any drift I'd send it off for recalibration. That happened only about once a decade. And some of you can go on and on about how careless one can be with black and white film and still get results. Well, I cut my teeth on color chrome film and Cibachrome prints, and there was damn little wiggle room for error. My first use of sheet film was for masking purposes where high accuracy was necessary. I'm glad I started out that way. Try calibrating a color process with a gray scale target out of whack, and that will make you think twice.

But no, The Negative does not address any of that, because the Zone System is in fact quite elastic. Ansel tried thinking in Zone terms with color film too, but the shoe just didn't fit.

As far as invoking Ansel this/Ansel that, and what he did; well, some of his negs were hell to print, and the resultant prints miserable to retouch. "Moonrise" was particularly a nightmare - one of the reasons he later intensified the neg and printed the sky ink black - to hide all the blotchy unevenness due to water bath development. It certainly wasn't an ideal neg.

[Joseph Kashi]

Joseph - light meters can be very consistent, and should be. I've currently have four Pentax digital spotmeters and they all read exactly the same over their full scale. I once had a Minolta Spotmeter F which read identically too. I periodically test them for match. If there was any drift I'd send it off for recalibration. That happened only about once a decade. And some of you can go on and on about how careless one can be with black and white film and still get results. Well, I cut my teeth on color chrome film and Cibachrome prints, and there was damn little wiggle room for error. My first use of sheet film was for masking purposes where high accuracy was necessary. I'm glad I started out that way. Try calibrating a color process with a gray scale target out of whack, and that will make you think twice.

But no, The Negative does not address any of that, because the Zone System is in fact quite elastic. Ansel tried thinking in Zone terms with color film too, but the shoe just didn't fit.

As far as invoking Ansel this/Ansel that, and what he did; well, some of his negs were hell to print, and the resultant prints miserable to retouch. "Moonrise" was particularly a nightmare - one of the reasons he later intensified the neg and printed the sky ink black - to hide all the blotchy unevenness due to water bath development. It certainly wasn't an ideal neg.

Hi, Drew

Thanks for the kind note. I have read your posts, as well as the back and forth with many others, with interest and appreciation.

Yes, I've heard that about Moonrise and some other shots that AA did. Of course, there were likely a number of extenuating circumstances back 80+ years ago.

I agree that the Pentax and Minolta spot meters are usually right on. I have a digital Pentax, a Pentax V, and a Minolta F and in fact those three meters do agree with each other within a small fraction of a stop, so I use those interchangeably as my calibration standard.

However, I also use a number of other meters in lightweight carry-in-car LF kits, including a Sekonic L-438, two Luna-Pros, etc. Even after adjustment and fresh batteries, some of these can be off enough that I adjust exposures to compensate for the meter.

The Zone System is a great approach, but for serious consistency, my own belief is that everything in the process needs to be calibrated to everything else, from start to finish. So, I doublecheck my meters periodically along with verifying continued shutter accuracy at all speeds ( I have a Calumet tester), verify that apertures open to the correct noted size, and all the rest.

Over the decades, initially in experimental physics and then over the past decades as a trial lawyer, I have worked hard to develop "OCD" regarding attention to detail as a "survival skill" <GG>. The trick for me, at least, is to avoid letting attention to detail squelch creativity. That's in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

[Drew Wiley]

Well, I'm glad I learned how to accurately shoot and print color chrome film first, and necessarily had to explore and refine a number of tight parameters to do that well.
But actually, my learning curve was fairly quick. After that, something like the Zone System was simple. But even the ZS is in the rear view mirror for me now. After awhile, exposure and processing decisions are second-nature and almost subconscious, but not forgotten. That frees one up to indeed give precedence to the matter of composition and esthetic feel itself, without encumbering mental complication.

My first Pentax spotmeter is almost 50 yrs old, and still reads correctly, even though it's such a battle-scarred veteran that it's now held together with electrical tape! I'll probably give it to a grand-nephew who just acquired a Pentax 6x7, along with a couple of older duplicate lenses.

[6x6TLL]

Well, that uis quite likely, hic...

Monochrome Fan,

another way of thinking of it is like this:

Whatever you point your (reflected) meter at, it will give you the exposure value that you need to make whatever you're pointing it at middle grey (Zone V) in your negative. It cannot know if whatever you point it at is light, dark, mid grey or whatever - you have to know that. It just tells you the aperture and shutter speed that will result in middle grey for whatever you point it at. Nothing more.

So with a standard reflected meter (say 30 degrees), you will get an average reading of most of your scene usually. In many cases this will be pretty far off, but it will depend on your subject and the overall contrast of the scene. With a spot meter, 1 or 5 degrees, you can find something in your composition that you want to be middle grey - Zone V, and measure that with your meter. Measure something very dark and very light to set your Zone II and VIII (or I and IX if you prefer) and see whether the contrast of the scene fits within the 11 total Zones. If you only have a few zones of contrast (foggy day) you might want to consider expansion (it's in the book, N+1 or N+2), if you have more than 11 (bright sun and lots of contrast) you might want to consider contraction (e.g. N-1).

To make it easy on yourself (what I often do, spot meter or not), point it at the palm of your hand (in shade for negative film, in sunlight for positive) and reduce the given exposure (either aperture or shutter speed) by one stop (Caucasian skin is typically Zone VI). Only works if you're an old white guy :rolleyes:

If you have an incident meter (or a dome for your reflected meter, most come with one), even easier is to simply point the dome from the subject (or light that matches how your subject is lit, if it's far away) towards the lens of your camera, and in more cases than not you'll have a perfect exposure. Not always, but most of the time. Again, if you're shooting slides, measure with the meter in the light, if using negative film measure in the shadow. This helps avoid blowing our your highlights on slide film and ensuring enough shadow detail on negative film.

As several other's have pointed out, you may be overthinking things. While Ansel's books are great references, they're not the best place to start if you're just getting into this, they are for when you have a solid foundation and some experience with the camera and in the darkroom. Thankfully negative film is pretty forgiving, and a great way to learn.

Hope this helps!

[BrianShaw]

“So with a standard incident meter (say 30 degrees), you will get an average reading of most of your scene usually. In many cases this will be pretty far off, but it will depend on your subject and the overall contrast of the scene.”

It seems that “reflective” was intended here rather than ‘incident’.

I beg to differ with the “many cases” and suggest “in some cases”. In a “normal scene”, general coverage reflective meters (or incident light meters) work just fine to get into an acceptable ballpark for negative film. The concept many seem to miss in these kind of discussions is understanding what is a “normal scene” and when advanced metering techniques are beneficial.

[willwilson]

In my experience, digital has been helpful. The instant feedback and the ability to adjust exposure instantly has been a great learning tool. I've applied this thinking to making black and white negatives. My goal is to capture the information I need to make the print I want. I might not know exactly what I want in the field and in that case, my goal is to capture as much information as possible on my negative.

If the scene has a large brightness range it might need compressing to "fit" on the negative and thus capture more information.

It might be low contrast (small brightness range) and I want to print it at a higher contrast. You may be able to do this with just printing but it may also need expanding on the negative. This case is more of a creative endeavor, the information would be well captured on the negative without expansion, you may just not be able to print it in a darkroom setting the way you would like. You might have to scan and manipulate in PS or similar.

Nailing shadow density is most important. Not enough exposure robs the shadows of information that you can never get back. To do this well, I have found I need to test my materials and my meter, with the zone system process being a helpful guide.

The zone system is definitely helpful when thinking about contrast too. Our eyes (brain?) are sneaky. They can adapt to an amazing range of light conditions and we need tools to see like the film we are using, instead of being tricked by our amazing eyes!

A negative that prints easily is quite satisfying.

[bmikiten]

Making negatives is relatively trivial. People reading Adams would probably do better starting with The Print.

I spent years teaching both the Zone System and BTZS to students and would politely disagree. We saw more issues with poor exposure (due to using the camera metering or incorrect use of handheld meters) resulting in useless negatives. I found that teaching with an incident meter - properly used - was the most effective and simple way of teaching exposure. Most people can print a well-exposed negative.

[bmikiten]

“So with a standard incident meter (say 30 degrees), you will get an average reading of most of your scene usually. In many cases this will be pretty far off, but it will depend on your subject and the overall contrast of the scene.”

It seems that “reflective” was intended here rather than ‘incident’.

I beg to differ with the “many cases” and suggest “in some cases”. In a “normal scene”, general coverage reflective meters (or incident light meters) work just fine to get into an acceptable ballpark for negative film. The concept many seem to miss in these kind of discussions is understanding what is a “normal scene” and when advanced metering techniques are beneficial.

You've made an important point here. Normal scenes are, indeed suited for most metering (reflective on a gray card or an incident meter). What people seem to miss is that the incident meter doesn't care if you are photographing a black horse on a white background or a solid white wall. It is not looking at the subject but instead the light on the scene. You can move the meter into shadows for exposure and then make adjustments which is why many students make incorrect readings with spot meters - placing shadows much lower or higher than necessary. There are many times we saw students standing next to each other taking shadow readings with a spot meter and being 1-2 stops in variation.

[Jim Jones]

Digital often has one great advantage over traditional metering: a histogram. Judging from some photos I've noticed on this site, the histogram is sometimes neglected. Even after decades in photography, checking the histogram sometimes shows the need for adjustment.

[Tin Can]

Normal

sometimes we want not normal

for effect, affect

even scientist may expose a film for correct usage

[Michael R]

If the scene has a large brightness range it might need compressing to "fit" on the negative and thus capture more information.

This is one of the key sensitometry/tone reproduction errors people make in the Zone System (and other systems).

[Michael R]

I spent years teaching both the Zone System and BTZS to students and would politely disagree. We saw more issues with poor exposure (due to using the camera metering or incorrect use of handheld meters) resulting in useless negatives. I found that teaching with an incident meter - properly used - was the most effective and simple way of teaching exposure. Most people can print a well-exposed negative.

Indeed, no agreement here. Learning to expose film is relatively simple, and most people will make crap prints from the most perfect negative. Often it seems people get the impression these so-called well controlled negatives will print themselves, or that less work will necessarily be required to make a great print.

[jnantz]

Indeed, no agreement here. Learning to expose film is relatively simple, and most people will make crap prints from the most perfect negative. Often it seems people get the impression these so-called well controlled negatives will print themselves.

I don't know about that. I've left a few eggs on the kitchen counter left the room and when I got back I was eating an omelette. I've left (empty of film) cameras in my basement, came back months later and found film in them ready to process .. im sure something similar might happen with negatives if left in the right circumstances.

[djdister]

I don't know about that. I've left a few eggs on the kitchen counter left the room and when I got back I was eating an omelette. I've left (empty of film) cameras in my basement, came back months later and found film in them ready to process .. im sure something similar might happen with negatives if left in the right circumstances.

Sounds like the infinite monkey theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) at work...

[jnantz]

Sounds like the infinite monkey theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) at work...

if it works I don't mess with it!

[Mark Sawyer]

Sounds like the infinite monkey theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem) at work...

"The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type any given text, including the complete works of William Shakespeare."

According to the Theory of Evolution, it already happened.

[6x6TLL]

Yes, thanks for the correction.

[Corran]

Personally reading The Camera and The Negative cover-to-cover before exposing my first sheet of 4x5 or developing any film ever put me well ahead of the curve. While I definitely had to learn a lot of things simply from experience, I didn't start by questioning Adams' statements (nor did I notice anything contradictory on first blush).

IMO it's time to just start practicing. Expose some film.

[John Layton]

...no, I think its called the "100th monkey theorem," where if there were 100 monkeys typing on into infinity...they would indeed come up with Shakesphere's works. Then again...if you think about it - would not this still be the case if it were but one monkey...typing into infinity?

[Drew Wiley]

Well, Michael, scene contrast compression ala Zone mantra minus development DOES work, and does vindicate the methodology, but unfortunately, not in a manner either you or I seem to like esthetically. I'd rather choose a particular film to suitably fit the actual range rather than stomp the intermediate tonality flat using heavy-handed minus development. We've discussed this often before, so no sense belaboring it again. But it is one of the aspects which I find unappealing about classic Zonie dogma.

Then there's alway supplemental masking, a versatile tool indeed if you want to keep your cake, contrast-wise, and eat it too.

Mark and John - that's what all this new Artificial Intelligence imaging technology is for - creating way more monkeys way faster.

[jnantz]

...no, I think its called the "100th monkey theorem," where if there were 100 monkeys typing on into infinity...they would indeed come up with Shakesphere's works. Then again...if you think about it - would not this still be the case if it were but one monkey...typing into infinity?

whatever they are, 100, 1,000,000 or a monkey doing AI. Shakespeare is easy I'd rather read a million monkey version of a Borrough's Cut-up ..

[Michael R]

Well, Michael, scene contrast compression ala Zone mantra minus development DOES work, and does vindicate the methodology, but unfortunately, not in a manner either you or I seem to like esthetically. I'd rather choose a particular film to suitably fit the actual range rather than stomp the intermediate tonality flat using heavy-handed minus development. We've discussed this often before, so no sense belaboring it again. But it is one of the aspects which I find unappealing about classic Zonie dogma.

Then there's alway supplemental masking, a versatile tool indeed if you want to keep your cake, contrast-wise, and eat it too.

Mark and John - that's what all this new Artificial Intelligence imaging technology is for - creating way more monkeys way faster.

Ok but my point was minus development doesn’t increase the amount of information in the negative. It can really only decrease it.

[Drew Wiley]

Yep, that is certainly true, although it all depends on just how badly the sandwich was squished. For example, when making enlarged duplicate negatives, it's important to somewhat overexpose yet under-develop the internegative for sake of cooperative full information, and then boost the contrast back up when making the second final printing negative itself. And by all means, use a film with a relatively long straight line like FP4.

But all too often Zonies are taught to place shadows way up belt high on Zone III, and then to handle that gross overexposure by seriously under-developing. Well, there goes all the life and sparkle of the midtones and upper highlights, which is exactly why neither you nor I like that approach. There are partial remedies, like buying Farmer's Reducer in 55-gallon industrial drums, to brighten up all the blaah highlights.

[Mark Sawyer]

But could a million monkeys photographing with a million 8x10 view cameras for a million years replicate the portfolios of Ansel Adams?

I think we're working on it...

[jnantz]

Koko was pretty good, didn't use a meter.

[willwilson]

Well, Michael, scene contrast compression ala Zone mantra minus development DOES work, and does vindicate the methodology, but unfortunately, not in a manner either you or I seem to like esthetically. I'd rather choose a particular film to suitably fit the actual range rather than stomp the intermediate tonality flat using heavy-handed minus development. We've discussed this often before, so no sense belaboring it again. But it is one of the aspects which I find unappealing about classic Zonie dogma.

Then there's alway supplemental masking, a versatile tool indeed if you want to keep your cake, contrast-wise, and eat it too.

Mark and John - that's what all this new Artificial Intelligence imaging technology is for - creating way more monkeys way faster.

Drew and Michael, I agree. I think a more nuanced description of compressing the scene is needed. This approach, overexposure and under development with a high contrast scene, can result in a negative with a more balanced distribution of tonal information across the dynamic range of the scene, compared to a normally exposed and developed piece of film. However, it is worth noting that the total amount of "information" isn't necessarily more; perhaps it's more accurately described as more "usefully distributed" information. If the highlights blocked up you may have less info, but usually you just get a neg that is to high contrast to print without employing other techniques like you mentioned.

At this point we are at the experiment stage of things, just gotta do what works for you. This is one of the reasons I love photography.

[Andrew O'Neill]

I started with Ansel Adams Guide: Basic Techniques of Photography (the first one), way back in '92. That led to Adams' The Negative, then, The Print. I also got The Camera shortly after. The Negative is well thumbed through, with lots of dog-eared corners. I learnt a hell of a lot from that book. The Print was very helpful. Barely looked at The Camera. The Ansel Adams Guide mentioned earlier, is an excellent book for a beginner.