And Jones would not really disagree with you, Max. As long as you can make the print you want out of the negative, not much else matters. This must be the case, since great prints can be made, and have been made from poorly controlled negatives - which is testament to the flexibility of the process and our materials. The theory here is not to tell you what a correct negative is. It is to help one understand how what we see in front of us translates to the negative and then to the print. There is a series of steps in the end to end process, yet many practitioners of applied densitometry methods keep these steps (exposure, negative, print) in silos.
Assuming you have no interest in applied sensitometry, ok. But - exposure and tone reproduction theory probably should be of at least some interest to all the people out there who do use the ZS, BTZS and whatever else, because while these systems give people the sense they are in control of the results, they may not actually be getting the negatives they think they are. Again, the flexibility of the process often allows us to unconsciously work around these issues (especially if we refine our printing skills) but why not try to understand a little more about what's going on? Why do we find a personal EI that differs from box speed? Do our expected shadow exposures end up where we think they do? How does our perfect negative translate to the paper? Or at the very least, if someone has no interest in how these things actually work, don't write a book or with all kinds of misinformation.
Note Stephen had his own reasons for the thread so I'm not putting words in his mouth. These are just my views.
Last edited by Michael R 1974; 04-07-2013 at 05:14 PM. Click to view previous post history.