Visual Basic. Not that impressive.
Originally Posted by Michael R 1974
Here's a screenshot of the main part. .
Have you been able to track down those Haist examples?
Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-17-2013 at 08:59 PM. Click to view previous post history.
If you go back a few posts I think Ron was referring to the Sensitometry chapter at the end of Volume 1 (he posted a few examples). But there isn't really anything about tone reproduction.
We used to use these in 3 colors to get an understanding of color reproduction. This is an old tool. Grant Haist showed monochrome reproduction (as did Mees). I have posted Haist's method above and Mees is in his Revised Edition for those interested.
This very right. In 'The theory of the photographic process, 4 th edition' T.H.James this subject has been treated in detail. Nrelson in the tone reproduction , clarifies that zones are an approximation only ( crude). Elsewhere in the same book it has been shown that a tone as perceived by the human eye is not a simple thing like a zone; it will depend on the microstructure. A microstructure that will seen in modern photographic optics. But the human eye fails to see that. This called: ' Do not believe your eye'. The eye is misleading. A modern lens is not misleading. PE uses crude for this difference.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
All this is nothing new. Leonardo da Vinci knew already that de 'invisible' details are important. His brushstroke inthe Mona Lisa are hairthin and 2mm at a maximum.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Exactly, Zones are non specific. They are referrences which makes their use in quantifiable testing questionable. There's this line from Doctor Who where he's attempting to describe time travel, "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff." How does one plot an "ish" with any precision?
Originally Posted by Jed Freudenthal
Seriously, I've always thought the using Munsell values to define the print Zones would be a good idea. Jack Holm has linked zones to he defines as
Preferred Reproduction Density" for a print (reflection hardcopy).
Notice Holm has two different columns for preferred reproduction densities for transparencies. That's because densities are perceived differently under different viewing conditions. The same as with prints. There's that subjective reproduction again.
Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-18-2013 at 07:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Well, you're all going just a little bit too far. Sorry. You're characterizing the Zone System through the unfortunately poor re-writes, bastardizations, "additions" and "improvements" to Adams made over the years by people who want to sell books. I would also point out Adams seems to have been as aware of, and interested in subjective considerations as Stephen. Mees appears to have endorsed the Zone System as it originally existed. Finally, a careful reader of Adams will note he does not claim any of the transmission/reflection densities, Zones etc are absolutes. It is just an introduction to applied sensitometry, and all introductions and simplifications are 'crude'. They have to be, because most people are crude and have no interest in detailed learning.
I agree Michael.
The drawing I started this thread with was meant to illustrate a simple concept & show a conceptual truth not necessarily a mathematically perfect model.
It is an expression of Adams ZS, visualization of print idea, with alternative film exposure options, it is a way for me to visualize how I might or can make a negative to get me from a to b.
Adams basic visualization concept is really strong in an artistic sense and easy for most to grasp, the details and measurements drag it around and beat it up because the more rigidly a system or idea gets defined, the more it becomes a one trick pony. Even Adams falls prey to this because of the subject matter he chose. If Karsh had written those books instead the world's perceptions of ZS principles might be very different.
I try to remember that personally I'm not a machine taking pictures of documents or laboratory cultures, I'm a human taking pictures of humans and of emotions and of ideas
Mark Barendt, Beaverton, OR
"We do not see things the way they are. We see things the way we are." Anaïs Nin
I think this could make for a very interesting discussion some other time and in a different thread.
Mark, that creative vs technical argument is the same one that people who find the Zone System too technical use against the Zone System, and I don't think you'd agree with them. It's simply a matter of degrees. Yes, ultimately it's about creativity and personal expression. I don't think anyone path to art is intrinsically better than another, however, if the intention is to communicate technical information to others, certain methods don't measure up as well as the more scientific ones. They are all just tools.
Last edited by Stephen Benskin; 04-18-2013 at 09:53 AM. Click to view previous post history.
My answer would be the quote from my boss "we sell pictures not curves". He meant that we got hard data via curves which were then compared to pictures so that we could optimize a product with some scientific basis.
One of the basic methods is shown by Mees in his chart on "first acceptable print" compared to a sensitometric curve.
Boo Hooooo, my EG&G Sensitometer failed last night.