Jorge,
1.The meter compensates for both absorption and variations in color 2.no your way isn't as good because it doesn't compensate for color variations. 3.How is it that I don't grasp the concept of filtration? 4. the proof is in the pudding as they say, lets see your work.
LOL...if I dont wish you argue with you any more, what makes you think I am going to get into a "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" deal?? 1.- since you rely on a gizmo to do your thinking, I have no interest on either showing you my stuff or knowing your opinion. Please read my statement about arguing with a fool! 2.- I have admited to all you are correct, so this will be my last post on this matter, have a good life Mark!
If Mr. Lindsey makes a living from what he shows on his web site, I would think that he would starve.
I'd actually enjoy seeing this "Big Shootout" and would be willing to toss in one or two of my own, just for laughs. I wouldn't expect to win, have no great secrets to pass on, there's no pressure on me, so what the heck. Just be warned, I'm a stubborn SOB who's been playing with film since the late 50s so no matter what, I will still do things my way. Now, how do we do it?
Enjoying reading this thread. I learned a lot. One question though:
Am I correct that published filter factor is based on Zone V ? And we usually expose for Zone III/IV ....
An accurate filter factor should be the one that makes Zone III/IV as it should after a filter is applied ....and it certainly is not the published factor, Yes ? No ?
Regards, C.J. Wong
C. J. Not necesarily, if you wish to test for your factor I would test for zone III or IV since these are the zones with the most important information, in addition I would do it in the shadow to recreate the color most likely to be present when you photograph. When I did this I used a color chart and it was great for information so I would use this too. I did it for Zone V because I calibrated my printing times to ZOne V as opposed to Zone I as most people do.
Hahaha I see another argument in the makingFor *negative film* the general approach is to meter for Zone 3. You decide which area is the darkest one for which you want to keep detailed. Then, you adjust the development for the highlights. This is what Ansel Adams says in his books. For slide or transparency film, the general practice is to meter Zone 7. If you are as lazy as me, then measure the dark area and the light area, see what the spread or "scene brightness range" is. Then depending on the spread, decide what you are willing to block up, blow out, turn into mud etc. Let the games begin!
Actually Steve I agree with you, and when I am in a hurry I do the same as you, check the spread and decide on developing. I guess I should not have assumed C.J. was using B/W neg film. With transparency you are correct and should meter for the highlight thus CJ would have to tailor his method depending on what he is using.
Well, you said you calibrate in order to get a good print. That's the whole idea anyway, so you are right. It seems a lot of people are using color slide film though, so that's why I brought it up. When there is a chance to get an exceptional picture for showing off at work, I generally use TMax 100 and before shooting, my favored way is to meter, double check, take a test Polaroid (Polaroid 54 is a nice proofer for TMax 100), and then shoot. The two films don't have exactly the same characteristics, but this makes for a good "sanity check". Tmax is sort of sensitive to changes in development time/temperature though, so consistency is a must.
Yes I calibrated with both TMX and TMY, but now after I tried ACROS on 8x10 I am getting away from TMX. It does not blow the highlights as easily as TMX does, the only problem is I have not been able to find it in 4x5 which is my format of choice for enlargement. BTW ACROS with filters looks great, you are going to get beautiful skies if you use an orange or red filter.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks