jose_angel

Actually, the question is somewhat ... incomplete? Think, for example, of painting: "I want to try fine art painting and I have questions. Which artist's oil/acrylic painting would be best for landscapes and what colors would be useful? In fact, it doesn't matter at all. You can do it with almost any brand of artist quality colors (or even student quality), and the choice is mostly related to an experienced artist. I would say that "Fine arts" refers to the message as opposed to mere documentation. So the subjective idea is the goal, the means are not that important at all. "Classic", "fine art landscape photography" as it looks to be known has been (probably) done with larger, fine-grained films and "darkening" sky filters. Good advice above. I bet the answer has been built with a pinch of sarcasm inside... or just a complain that I can understand. But let's go the other way around... Can all landscape photographs taken on fine-grained large format film and darkened skies qualify as "fine art"? Surely not, and perhaps a similar percentage.

Nice job. I am not using Beselers lately, but I did make some boards with a three point alignment axis (screws). Same as yours, but the lens is mounted on a smaller (thinner) floating plate, attached to the 4x4 "plate with three Allen screws. There is a 1/4" neoprene foam material between the two plates for allow such an adjustment while maintaining light tightness. I think it was Delta who was selling boards already made this way (aluminum). This makes the alignment job much faster and easier than using the system provided by the Beselers.

Hmmm, your profile is familiar to me ... painting can fill the void that photography is unable to fill. And the challenge is much greater as well as rewarding. I don't know whether to tell you to try it or not even think about it ...

I think the system is quite useful to have the highest control specially while shooting LF film, but quite uncomfortable if you don't shoot a lot or if you just want to have some control and fun when shooting different formats and materials. The process of testing is quite long and boring and very likely with operator mistakes. You need a lot of materials and a densitometer. So I never advice to follow this method at first. Just learn how exposure works, and how development affect the density of exposed areas. Start using standard ISO and developing times, and adjust them to your needs on the run. Adams books help a lot to understand this topics. You don't need to go to the extreme. Just build your own procedures for some basic scenarios as you may need it, e.g. like shooting high contrast under direct sunlit scenes (overexpose and underdevelop), for indoor portraiture in a given studio (depending on the light you use). You'll notice if you need more or less contrast, or if the film is under or over exposed. Important to take notes of everything...

Looks like real coating (low) damage, not an issue at all. I use to shoot with a fungused lens and still try to see how or where the image is affected. Same with coating damage. But I think it's just a scam. Any pro vendor know how to check a lens, and how to describe it... some know that missing a couple words means way more profit. Or funny, some overdescribe the items with words like "... it doesn't affect image quality... ". I have seen real paperweights described this way.. I have suffered some scams like this one. "Mint" is mint, and this is not mint. It have obvious damage (relevant or not). Some sellers know that buyers in most cases will accept this kind of deception to avoid extra costs or problems, specially if they are located overseas. Sadly, if the buyer accept, the seller will be proned to do it again and again. So I think you are acting wisely. But please leave a comment on the platform to let others know about this seller. And think that another typical trick is to ask you to contact the seller before posting a negative comment ... so they have a second chance to maintain a high percentage of positive experiences despite being deceiving their customers.

Although I think the 1 stop = 1 Zone description issue mentioned here is irrelevant to the practice of the Zone System, there must be an original reason to use that "definition" ... Personally I consider it is plenty clear, but I understand that could not be "the clearest". We know there are different opinions (and reasons) about that. I think to know the real answer we should have a deep knowledge of Adams` very personal procedures and results (that I don`t have), probably beyond what is written on the "trilogy" (or "tetralogy")... We are translating an objective metering of the scene into relative contrast values on paper, an outdoor scenario with variations in brightness to printing materials that could be quite different from one brand to another... it is a complete process developed many decades ago that cannot be analyzed disjointedly or uncontextually without falling into somekind of "legal fraud".

If anyone still interested, looks like St. Ansel wrote his own answer in the introduction of "The Print" (1982). I read: "... I wish to dispel here any thought that my approach is rigid and inflexible. I cannot repeat this too often! I have found that many students read descriptions of procedures in a rather strict way, and are then consumed with the effort to produce exact relationships between subject luminance values, densities and print values. No matter what he does the photographer cannot violate the principles of densitometry, but densitometry is a tough discipline and will tolerate a good amount of bending without breaking!"

A 90mm f1.4 Micro-Nikkor would be worth a fortune! :p

Agree, it may be that the (film) Zones description needs to be adapted to other materials ... for example, if you can get much more shadow detail using a digital camera with the same exposure, the game changes... It will depend on the usable latitude range of each material. But I wonder if it'd be practical anymore... to me, the charm of the Zone System is attached to film, specially on a LF camera. On digital, the histogram is the only thing I need. Maybe any kind of custom adjustment on it could be perfect.

I cannot believe I'm writing this with my poor english... please be indulgent! :D A definition is "something, typically expressed in words, that attaches a meaning to a word or group of words... " (Wikipedia). So IMHO, the aim of Adams` definition is not to make an obvious scientific statement, but to make an inseparable relationship between two facts, the metering (range) of a scene and the way this scene "should" look on the printing paper. I see some abstraction in Adams` definition: "We define a one stop exposure change as a change of one zone on the exposure scale, and the resulting gray in the print is considered one value higher or lower on the print", we cannot take some words apart just because all are part of the definition. Let`s analyze Adams`words: -We define a one stop exposure change,.. he is giving the basis or starting point of his idea, the action of subject measuriement. -... as a change of one zone on the exposure scale,... looks pretty obvious, but may be not... as explained in the post #119, one mark in the meter is not related to the measuring (although it could seem obvious) but to the idea of print density (the abstraction). In the same way we cannot explain historical facts from a current point of view, to know how they used to work could help to understand the real sense of his statement. Cannot remember if it was Adams or another who used to literally stick some gray shades on the meter for that reason. I think many people have their meters this way, and some print homemade dials as well. -... and the resulting gray in the print... so there is a conjunctive fact/result direct relationship or correspondence between that exposure scale mark and the print density. -... is considered one value higher or lower on the print. to clarify the idea of working in full steps (not f stops), which will be called "values", and will be the equivalent to that stops on the (real) scene. Agree, in a "normal" range scene, three stops above the Zone V doesn't match the print Zone description (please notice that I use that "abstraction", I mix the purely objective meter data with the somewhat subjective "Zone value" idea) The question is, should it? So I personally think that the definition is one way only, it cannot be taken in the opposite direction. One Zone value separation on the print don't necessarily have to be one f stop difference in the scene. And if so, it'd be contrary to the aim of the method, so it wouldn`t make sense.

The main benefit (for me) of your 35 / 1.8 is the compact size and the maximum aperture at f1.8. It allows you to take photos with a noticeable shallower depth of field compared to the zoom, that is, the subject is in focus while the back and front areas are out of focus. Or call it "selective" focus", you can emphasize a sharp interesting subject surrounded by blurred objects. The 18-55 zoom is ideal for almost everything; it allows you to change the view, from wide to moderately narrow. You can choose to widen the field of view indoors to keep everything into frame at short distances, or to select a narrower view for portraits or distant details. Friends who were at the same point as you, appreciated a longer zoom, usually a 55-200 or 55-300. Similar as yours but with a much higher reach, making possible to fill the whole frame with distant subjects; ideal for closer portraits, distant objects, sports, etc.

Although I have never done something for that task, I think in a similar same way center filters are made for LF wide lenses, some kind of mask can be made (placed over the negative) to avoid vignetting. Anyway, it has never been a problem for most. I assume vignetting has been measured with a (clear) negative on the carrier ... the way it should be checked.

Same here. I also enjoy traditional black and white photography, but I wouldn't even think about traditional color printing. I find it expensive and complicated, even to achieve mediocre results. I prefer to scan and work on digital.

Right, I have ruined lots of prints trying to separate the sheets from the metal plates. I hated this process. But the final print, if sucess, was great. I think I sometimes used some kind of high glossy finishing product to avoid problems. Not so long ago, I tried to replicate the same process with MG FB paper... the paper doesn`t got stuck to the metal plate, but there was no change on the glossy surface. And the paper was not even flattened, so it doesn't work anymore.

Although I sold most of them long ago, I still keep the ones I didn't sold... decades ago my gear buying policy was different than today, so I plan to keep this lenses in use as long as they work for me. They may be not as sharp and fast as the latest ones, but the images I get with are perfectly fine. I bet nobody can distinguish if the photos I take are done with an early AF or a much recent AFS lens.

No. I'd say one stop is right. My 150mm lenses also show a considerable amount of vignetting. I don't have 135mm lenses so I can't tell what the vignetting difference is, but I think to avoid vignetting only the center of the sweet spot should be used ... so quite a long lens. On 5x7" I use a "short" lens (180mm), and I`d say with a similar amount of vignetting. Not bad, I use to burn the borders a bit to "frame" the image on most prints. Another issue is the field curvature... I find it to be somewhat insane on some lenses. Reading Alan`s comment I remembered the old saying that "the best lens for enlarging is the one used for the take" ...

Very good photo. I can feel the gloomy and gloomy atmosphere. I don't know what you're looking for, but I would work a bit more on editing, not just on the pipeline but on the depth. It would increase the contrast in the nearby areas and decrease it in the later areas. I would like the catwalk to invite me in. It would also make it a bit more dramatic. Maybe this way?... ? (I overemphasized it to make it easier to see)

On page 49, he says: We define a one stop exposure change as a change of one zone on the exposure scale, and the resulting gray in the print is considered one value higher or lower on the print. Still plenty clear to me. So the useful range of seven zones (or eight), still apply... Is actually the meter reading of a textured snow out of that range? Maybe, not sure. I think there are different types of snow, and different reflective characteristics, depending on the thickness and base. I'm a fan of backcountry skiing, so for sure I'll get the meter when the season rolls around... (Provided that the Covid and our beloved authorities allow it!!)

As far as I know, in the early days Adams based the Zone System zones on the dial of the Weston meter that he used to use: This meter consider the useful range of a normal subject in seven stops, so from textured white to textured black. The dial has eight marks, that is, seven blank areas. The mark on the right says "O" (overexposure) and the one on the left says "U" (underexposure). But for whatever reason, Adams used the marks as steps, rather than separating points. It seems that Minor White used to do the very same thing. So they considered eight zones instead of seven stops. It could seem unscientific, maybe, but it is his system. After that, he added two more zones, for black and white, without texture. Ten zones, from 0 to IX. I understand that the original Zone System is a symmetrical black-to-white system, "texture-based" is the goal of the method. And it is important to know that Adams executed it in a practical and very personal way. In "The Negative" (12th ed.), I can read on the description of Zone VIII (page 60): Whites with texture and delicate values; textured snow; highlights on Caucasian skin. I cannot see where it doesn`t match the aim of the system and the origin of their proposal. It`plenty clear to me that snow "should" fall as a Zone VIII on the print, whatever the distance from the middle grey the meter say it is in stops. Snow reflectance can vary somewhat widely, depending on several factors... even so, you may be right if we were talking about the Munsell`s scale. But we are talking about Adams Zone System...

Hmm... with a digital camera you can make great (fake) Polaroids, with a real Polaroid, you can't.

Agree. The thing is to have enough space for these workstations. I ended with the same approach (using an old scanner and a fast Snow Leopard iMac), but Covid forced us to improvise four desks with their own working updated computers for school and office online work. Literally, software updates killed the speed and capabilities of the computer... thanks God I still keep the Snow Leopard Installation CDs to return to the original state.

William, I notice I should have not posted my comment here, my excuses. I accidentally took your response as a moderator to place my suggestion, just because there are other threads (i.e., the one that follows in the list right now) that demand a film or digital clarification, the answer could be different or more specific depending on the media. I get it, thanks.

To the OP: More pixels is simply more resolution. It could be a benefit or not, depending on the needs. I'd say the higher the pixel count the better, but as mentioned above at a cost. That expense could be not worth it.

If so, I wonder if it could be a good idea to rename the forum with a clarifying title, such as "Black&White Film" or so. Or maybe pnet`s intention is to keep it related to a black&white creative approach, either traditional or digital... not clear.

5. The printing process is equally important. As in painting, saturation or local contrast can be increased to enhance and give three-dimensionality to specific areas. It's surprising how many successful images come from really mediocre negatives. -- I still don't know if this college questions are related to traditional or digital photography. It'd be nice to know.