Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,921   Posts: 1,584,939   Online: 1060
      
Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 109
  1. #81
    fil
    fil is offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Clinton Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by phfitz
    Do Not believe me. Go to Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Agfa, ect. and see if you can find a shoulder on their H&D curves.
    OK, so I did this. And I find indeed that for TMax 100, even the small tank curves are straight line linear through about 2.5 log D (or 25 dB since I'm a radar scientist and think that way, which is about 8 stops if I have it right). Based on those sensimetric curves, I can't find a reason to doubt the basic arguments put forth by phfitz. As long as you don't screw up the "expose for the shadows" rule of thumb and use more developer than the bare minimum, you should nail it.

    So what problem do others see that I don't??
    ----
    good light

  2. #82
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by fil
    OK, so I did this. And I find indeed that for TMax 100, even the small tank curves are straight line linear through about 2.5 log D (or 25 dB since I'm a radar scientist and think that way, which is about 8 stops if I have it right). Based on those sensimetric curves, I can't find a reason to doubt the basic arguments put forth by phfitz. As long as you don't screw up the "expose for the shadows" rule of thumb and use more developer than the bare minimum, you should nail it.

    So what problem do others see that I don't??
    Only if you limit yourself to 35mm and shoot many different lighting types. That is the problem in herent to the number of frames on the 35 before you change rolls to a new roll and shoot a defferent lighting situation. that is not a problem of the zone system. phfitz is a single size person with a extrapolation that matches the problem of 35, trying to foist it off on all formats. equipment limitations are not a reason to dump on a metering system that works for most that know how to use it.
    Non Digital Diva

  3. #83

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Well, you know, even a broken watch is right twice a day...

    This is the problem, phfits, aka MS, aka HB, and many other names, cannot understand that even though films might no have a shoulder anymore, papers do have a finite scale they can accomodate. Doing simple sensitometric tests can determine the best fit between paper and film. As it is usual with this bufoon, it is not that he is wrong, many times he is correct, it is that he would not allow any other viewpoint other than his own. The zone system is a good methodology, and for its time it was a brilliant way to try and quantify and explain the "mechanics" of producing a good negative. Nowadays, I find the BTZS far superior, but that is not to say the the ZS has become worthless. Given the choice between doing trial and error, as this fools advocates, or doing ZS testing, the ZS is a far better option.

    phfitz, we ran you out of here once....you better behave or we will do it again.

  4. #84
    bmac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    2,156
    Images
    9
    Perhaps the reason the zone system doesn't work for you is that you are confusing it for a piece of equipment.



    Quote Originally Posted by phfitz
    Happy New Years,

    Flat out, hands down winner with no contest:

    The Zone System

    enough said.
    hi!

  5. #85
    c6h6o3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    3,194
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    As it is usual with this bufoon, it is not that he is wrong, many times he is correct, it is that he would not allow any other viewpoint other than his own.
    Has any of us seen any of this guy's photographs? That's my only gauge of credibility, or lack thereof.
    Jim

  6. #86

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    4,530
    Quote Originally Posted by c6h6o3
    Has any of us seen any of this guy's photographs? That's my only gauge of credibility, or lack thereof.
    I have seen some un-interesting but well exposed 35 mm shots he has taken. For what he does and likes to photograph he has his technique very well controlled.

    As I said, it is not that he is a bad photographer, it is just that he fancies himself an expert on everything related to 35 mm film using data from the 60s..it is weird....

  7. #87
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Jorge
    it is just that he fancies himself an expert on everything related to 35 mm film using data from the 60s..it is weird....
    He quoted 40's reference manuals. You are updating him.
    Non Digital Diva

  8. #88

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    540
    Good evening people,

    The links below should be current. The original .pdf file I had saved was dates Nov 2001 and is slightly different showing a C.I. 1.00 and D-max 3.90, rather close to slide films and perfect for scanning. The new specs are slightly lower.

    The problem with the Zone System is that it is incomplete and incorrect. It has never tested for developer depletion or the over-exposure point for film. By changing dev. times then moving the charts to the left to align you are losing track of the actual exposure intensity of the highlights. The actual speed point for the film should be set between .1 over base fog and the actual over-exposure point which is a hard point of the film.

    It is easier and safer to use the factory speed rating and use a larger volume of developer. There is less likelyhood of dropping the shadows and you cannot blowout the highlights. You will have denser negs and slightly longer print times but printing will be easier.


    T-Max films pdf
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...4016/f4016.pdf

    T-max web page
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...23.18.16&lc=en

    T-max 100 H&D
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0440ac.gif

    T-Max 100 contrast
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0444ac.gif

    T-max 400 H&D
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...002_0512ac.gif

    T-Max 400 contrast
    http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...009_0449ac.gif

  9. #89
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    Wasn't prozac invented for phfitzes disorder?
    Non Digital Diva

  10. #90

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Århus, Denmark
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,102
    Images
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by phfitz
    The problem with the Zone System is that it is incomplete and incorrect.
    If the zone system works for somebody then the zone system is correct for them. I, myself, like Rodinal and that is the right developer for me as I can make the photos I like with it. One could argue that Rodinal is a bad developer because of the grain, the tones or anything else. But I don't care because I get a result I like from it. I have tried other devs, but didn't get results I liked better than with Rodinal.
    If you think the Zone System is incorrect, then do not use it. Let other people use it if they want to. Let them do whatever they want if it works for them.

    Morten

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin