jose_angel

I have several easels, and find that three bladed ones work fine, although better with angled enlarger columns. The french Ahel made it in two sizes, I think. I wonder if it is the one you dislike, as it makes a soft side for that reason. I have seen the same easel under different brands. I have the small one that fit your size (I think it is one size bigger than 8x10"). It has a practical centering system that works. It is (IMHO) by far my most practical one, superior to my huge, four bladed Saunders. But I'm afraid that for straight column big enlargers, four bladed is preferred. The best european ones are quite expensive and scarce. Two bladed easels doesn't work for me; as a cheap solution they are fine, nothing else. I have several ones, made by LPL or maybe knockoffs. Never used borderless ones.

LOL, I actually wanted to mean "evolve". But you are right, I like that mix with "convolute"... thanks :D

From Wikipedia: The word "photography" was created from the Greek roots φωτός (phōtos), genitive of φῶς (phōs), "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light". And photograph is defined as "the art or practice of taking and processing photographs". So basically, if there is a registration device, and light, it is photography. There are variants, as a succession of consecutive photographs that is called "film", "movies", video or whatever. And so on. The main issue here is if we like it or not. I assume the most photoshopped, assembled, modified images are considered real photography by their authors. This topic is a quite ordinary reaction to what is changing or is new. We don't like it, and we negate it. It's not exclusive to photography, nor to arts or many other things. What Steve said above... Realism or Pictorialism? Is Impressionism pure painting? For sure some could think that it was pseudo-painting, made to be fast and cheap for the incipient social classes in the time. For others, it is the art in its highest purity. What about abstract painting? Is it art too? I sincerely think that humans evolute to their own self-destruction, so everything must run in accordance, art included. But technical advances are not bad at all... they use to great things (although it may seem contradictory). I take the most of them, although my heart is with what I first discovered when I was a child, I'm just so basic...

I certainly have two clearly different approaches. I shoot B&W for two reasons: First, monochromatic images make me see not realistically, they use to open my imagination. They are incomplete, unreal, timeless... so I like to wonder about the images I'm looking at. The images I take in B&W use to be for a long term viewing, to produce the very same feeling that a vintage photograph makes on me right now. Also for more neat images, what people use to call "fine art", mostly for decoration. Second, I exclusively shoot b&w on film to be fully processed at home. I do it the way I like, which is far easier (also faster and cheaper) than ordering them at a commercial lab. I shoot color for the opposite, always digital, for profesional documentation, events or just for speed and mostly for convenience. Also familiar images, since they tend to like more than black and white. The imagination part is not that strong, For whatever the reason I cannot feel the charm of B&W traditional photography while shooting color or digital. I order a very small percentage of this images, almost all are seen at screens, or given in digital storage devices. Although digital archives seem to be better for almost everything, I find them somewhat overwhelming because the backups, the storage, printers, and specially, the huge amount of images we can have... Enjoy your course! :D

Let's take a practical situation: There is a given scene, e.g. a close portrait on a badly lit scene. Check the sketch below. You start the metering process, and you get the readings as follow: Background at left, 3 EV, face 4 EV, background top at right 6 EV. The scene is low in contrast, but you want to get the best printable negative. You want to place the background on the Zone III (quite normal); so the face will fall in zone IV (still too dark), and the back brightest area in the Zone VI. It is, one stop difference from Zone III to IV, and two stops difference between IV and VI. Right? So we plan to proceed. According with Adams` Description of Zones, -Zone III is right as a background, we want to start it dark but with a little texture. As Adams` description. -Zone IV is definitely too dark for my taste, I'd like it at least on Zone V. Adams say caucasian faces are Zone VI. -Zone VI is still too dark for a highlight, I want it in Zone VIII, as Adams say. So separation is of eight steps or Zones, I`ll check my testing charts and I'll expose and process the film accordingly. What does your argument say in this case? Well, I haven`t measured the difference between a dark face (how dark?) and at fallen snow (damp or cold?), but I'd take it as approximate...

The Mamiya 7, although perfect, is not a reflex camera :D The Hasselblad, although you dislike the squared format, is the best 645 camera ;) Depending on the place you live, repair and parts become harder these days. I use Mamiya and is a real issue. I believe in the US is not that bad. The big Mamiyas are great, but as you say not portable. Looking at your list, I'd say the most adjusted to your enquiries is the Hasselblad (format aside). A Mamiya 6 could be also a good option (but it is a "true" 6x6). And not free of "issues" as well. And RF. Cannot say about Bronicas, but in the film days they were the main competitors to Hasselblad. What about a GS-1? Looks smaller than Mamiyas. Sadly you don't like RF cameras, there are some Fuji options that I like a lot, and a quite small Bronica too.

"Description of zones" (table of), I mean.

Yes, of course you are right here. Tests must be done to get the tones or values, with precise spacings, one stop exposure differences to get each Zone. This is actually the closest relationship between the Zones and the one stop exposure in the scene; but think that all the tests must be done under controlled conditions and with the same grey card (towel or whatever), where the real scene is quite variable, so the "Definition of Zones" cannot be taken as a precise metering reference.

Well, you have gotten me at the semantics. I don't feel comfortable here, my english is not as good as I would like. Personally, the word "Zone" is always related to the print, or what is the same, to the grey shaded scale that are the Zones, from 0 to X. It is always the print. When I'm at the scene, I think (visualize) the scene in terms of Zones. So when I said I`m obviously saying that the stops belong to the scene metering and not to the Zones or description of Zones. There is obviously a relationship, but not closed or precise, this is the important thing. After reading your posts I assume there must be an Adams phrase that states what you say (don't have the book here), but even if so, Ctein`s words came into debate... the one-stop-equal-to-one-Zone is "by definition", it must be taken with a pinch of salt. And, what if so? It doesn't change Adams` Zone system. The method is perfectly feasible, being -or not- one zone=one stop (step of gray shade/exposure, I mean). I think Adams had a printed grey scale attached to his own meter (Weston?), or he recommended to have it this way. So I assume the aim was (very likely) to visualize the values with an easy, practical method. But think on it... does it makes sense for any other reason? And again, what if the meter, instead of reading 18% reflectance is actually reading 12%? And the most important, does it change the sense or the usefulness of the Zone System?

As it has been mentioned above, there is no b&w film specialist for poratriture... some prefer fine grained, soft looking, others prefer harsh grained images, etc. So I'd instead search for a b&w film with optimal scanning results. I only scan film in low res for archive purposes, so I cannot say about the best film to be scanned. But I have experienced that some films scan better than others. I'd say fine grained softer films work better with my scanner (V750Pro) than the opposite... there are films that are ugly for scanning. I use to wet-print my negatives so cannot say with confidence. If I were right, a film like FP4+ sufficiently exposed, and correctly developed in D76 or similar to avoid burnt highlights should work. If you establish a portrait routine in a controlled environment, say a studio or whatever to keep the right contrast, and a tested development, results should be satisfying. This way you can easily modify your procedures for the best scans if needed.

Thank you Alan. Citric acid is used for the stop bath, a chemical that is widely used by the food industry (eg duct cleaning) so I don't think it is a problem at low volumes. The one I use can be consumable (preserves, etc.), it is food grade. --- About septic systems; It could be a real problem, depending on the location and surroundings. The location of these septic systems could be of concern if there are springs or natural water reservoirs relatively nearby that could become contaminated.

Thank you Alan, very valuable info. I wonder if there is any additive to neutralize that chlorine dissipation action of the fixer... I'm thinking on personal actions at very small villages that could have weaker sewer plants.

Forgot to mention that the relationship between net densities and Zones in the appendix are also related to the print, not to the scene. He describes the correspondence between a given density and the Zone value on the print.

Right; to be more precise, that description is ascribed to the Zones as a visualization aid, that is, to visualize how this real life objects *should* appear on the print. But it doesn't mean that in the scene there must be one stop metered differences between the Zones (or real life objects) mentioned in that description. When you meter a scene, real life objects show their own luminance... whatever it is. It is not the purpose of Adams` table "Description of Zones" to coincide with that meter readings. About the grey card; don't know who made the first 18% reflectance "grey card"... I'd not be surprised if it was Kodak. I`d say it makes more sense a 45ª reading than an on-axis reading, so the card is fine. Anyway, a real Lambertian type card could be overkill for photographic purposes. The cost of manufacturing and/or materials could make it not worth it. Cheap cardboard ones work. So the only debate I see here is about the so called 18% reflectance "neutral grey" card, or the spreaded idea of the mentioned reflectance as a reference.

So, I understand your argument is, that when looking at the final print, the snow would`t be three times more reflective than the neutral grey?

Of course it is. You open three stops to get three zones above on the print. Two and a half stops should be at a middle point between zone VII and Zone VIII. You read the scene, say, you want the grey card at Zone V. Then look at the e.g., snow, white paint or whatever. Take a reflected metering of the snow; as you say you find it falls 2 and a half stops over in your meter. Now think; do you want it with the brightness of the zone VII in your printed scale Zone, or maybe on the Zone VIII? (... or maybe in Zone X !!!). So you`ll need to expose and develop the film accordingly, with normal, expansive or compressive development, depending in your own tests and materials, to get a printable negative with the snow on the right zone. As you say, the snow may be not three stops over (in your meter) -as Adams table says-, it may be (actually) 2 and a half... it does`t matter. Adams said that snow, to be realistically rendered, *should* be rendered in zone VIII (the printed scale) to look right -on the print-. In Adams words, the table gives "t... he approximate values for various types of subjects... " etc., and also "... to emphasize, again, however, that one of the great advantages of the zone system is that it does not require a literal rendering, and we are entirely free to depart from the description in the chart as our visualization demands". Kodak grey card reflectivity looks to be 18% in an on axis reading, but it is reduced by a 30% (approximate) at a 45º angle (that is, near 12% reflectivity). Kodak`s literature recommend to use their grey cards at that angle. I have the original instructions who came with mine somewhere. Most meters seem to follow the ANSI standard, which is near 12% (a slight error margin is permisible).

FWIW, I stopped shooting color film or chromes just because the pain of finding a capable processing lab and to avoid the silly auto everything printers with their "cheapoplasticy" papers. Of course, there are good professional printing facilities (if you have the time and ability of to find them in a foreign country) but expertise have a cost that make it unsuitable for other than professional photographers. So, when I`m on travel, I either shoot color (only digital) or b&w (film) to be processed in my own darkroom. Just in my experience, but I warn that I keep shooting primes, and also b&w film since late sixties (so I must be a geek, a hipster, or so... ). BTW, Fuji digital cameras use to have presets for film emulation (Velvia, Provia, Astia, etc. ).

Agree, I took this route and I haven't regretted it. Since then, I rarely use DSLRs on trips (D850). I have the F. The hybrid viewfinder is a feature I like a lot on the Fujis. I mostly use the OVF, but there is an EVF as well if needed. The viewfinder activator works fine, and the image quality at 24Mp and base ISO is quite good. It`s not a have-it-all kind of camera, but great for shooting tons of jpegs on trips. If needed, there are a wide and a "tele" converter which adds a minimal bulk (compared to any other camera). I was waiting for the new "V" version which add some nice features, but it stubbornly keeps the AF-ON button in the wrong place (actually AEL-AFL), as well as the silly "Q" button, so I won't upgrade.

I`m sorry I have no clue on scanners... maybe the scanner has not enough "elasticity" or "leveling speed" to jump from an opaque silvered area to a "normal" density one... by eye, high density differences are hard to notice. Maybe other digital specialists could help.

Obviously I wanted to mean a brighter area, not a shadow.

My take: You have a scale with the different zones. Think on a printed scale, from black to white with different gray levels, to have it graphically on mind. You are in front of the scene, say in front of a huge wall, and you take a meter reading of it. If you expose the film with that reading, you are exposing for Zone V in the scale. But if you want this wall in the next, brighter step on the scale, you have to expose at one stop wider than the meter says... so you are then exposing for Zone VI. There is certainly "... a one stop exposure change as a change of one zone on the exposure scale". But, a one zone difference (that is, looking at the scale, from that zone VI to Zone V), doesn`t mean the exposure has been of one zone difference... you may have exposed for say, a Zone V, and gotten any subject in the scene (e.g. a shadow) in the zone VII, not VI. After the proper compressive development, this zone VII goes to the zone VI... so there you have that one zone difference, without exposure changes. The thing is to understand (as Roy said above), that we have a "scale Zone" (the scale) that refers individually to the three steps (metering or luminance, negative density and print value).

It seems to me like a reflection, but I'm not sure. It looks like something is wrong with the film; the scanner(s) seem to be fine. So I wonder about the way it is scanned: -Is the film perfectly flat? -Is the emulsion side of the film pointing to the scanner optics? But specially in the shape of the film, -Is it extremely overexposed and/or overdeveloped? I wonder if there is too much density on the film...

Which holder are you using? I assume it's a "naked film" type.

When this discussion started, the typical color wheel used by painters come to my mind. Everybody knows that primary colors are used to make all the colors in the spectrum; my kids learnt that they were yellow, red and blue. Now in a higher course at school they know they are yellow, magenta and cyan. Plain red and plain blue are not primary colors (obviously). So we can still argue about which cyan is primary or not... What difference does it make? The chromatic circle still works.

As said (cannot remember if it was Ctein, I may be wrong), the one stop difference between zones is just... "by definition". Just this. Even the Zone V could be for some but not for others... it all depend on each one`s materials and testing. The Zone V is just the medium point between the zones with texture, shadows and highlights. The Zone System has been evolving since the very first days with Minor White. Even the number of zones changed along the time, from 7 at first to the current 11, they used a meter and applied their experience to this specific meter... (we can also argue that current zones are a nonsense). I think that (just IMHO) we must take the Zone System not as fixed rule but a practical method. And there is the 18% grey card thing... 18%, or... 12%... ? Right, Adams mention the 18% reflectance several times. And it has been teached everywhere all along the world. Now we know it could be wrong, too.