royfisher

One of the many disadvantages of Roman numerals is the inability to express fractional values. Should something that falls on Zone 7.5 be rounded up to Zone VIII or down to Zone VII? Somewhere, Adams specifically addresses fresh white paint and he notes that it is somewhat shiny, the degree depending on the paint's glossiness; therefore it is not an entirely diffuse reflector, which allows it to fall higher than Zone 7.5, depending on the angle of the light. The same holds for snow, being comprised of tiny ice crystals.

It occurs to me that the terminology that's being used has become conflated, leading to a bit of confusion. Here's a clarification from the Foreword of the 1964 edition of The Negative: As a result, my understanding is that relevant terms are: 1) Exposure Zones (scene referred, always a fixed difference of one stop between Zones); 2) Density Values (translation of the exposure Zones to negative densities; determined by the film's characteristics, exposure, and processing); 3) Print Values (translation of negative densities to print densities). The progression is: Exposure Zones (scene) --> Density Values (film) --> Print Values (presentation). These terminology changes were formalized in print nearly 60 years ago!

Kiron 105/2.8, Nikon D3

These were popular as boutonnieres, back when boutonnieres were popular. D3 with a Vivitar 70-150/3.8.

The thing about shots like those, though, is that they are of limited value. It's a bit like visiting an exotic tropical paradise and returning home with only macro shots of the beach sand. If I were to summarize the important characteristics of an enlarging lens based solely on my understanding of the points you have outlined above, they would be these: 1. Can be adapted to fit on a digital camera 2. Has been dropped not more than once 3. Is not marked "Made in Japan"

Strictly on the basis of those images, I would have to wonder why anyone would prefer the Rodagon over the Neonon. I have a question, though: Does this mean you have switched horses and are now using the Neonon instead of the Rodagon?

Kiron 105/2.8 macro, Nikon D3. This was originally intended for the Tabletop Closeup thread, but by the time I figured out why the books were leaning, the thread was too old to post it there.

Dawn of To-Morrow

Incognito

Vivitar 85-205/3.8 Close Focusing zoom (Kino, 1977) on a Nikon D3.

The fun is just getting started! Somewhere on that page is a phrase something like "other versions" along with a link to an external web page hosted by OpenSUSE: < Install package graphics:darktable / darktable > On that page are listed several Linux distributions, none of which is Mint. However, Mint 20 is based on Ubuntu, so click on that selection. (Ubuntu, in turn, is based on Debian, but don't click that one.) The page scrolls up slightly to reveal "Add repository and install manually" and "Grab binary packages directly". Click "Grab binary packages directly". The page scrolls up a little more to reveal several versions of Ubuntu. If you are running Mint 20, at the bottom of the Mint 20 "What's New" page (on the Linux Mint site) is the note that is it is based on the Ubuntu 20.04 package base, so you will want to download the version for "xUbuntu 20.04" (the 'x' denotes that it is for all of the Ubuntu variants). If you have a different version of Mint, check the notes on the Mint site to find out which version of Ubuntu it is based on. (I'm still on Mint 19.3, so the package I download is the one for "xUbuntu 18.04".) After the file downloads, just double-click it from the file manager and it will run the installer. You might need to uninstall the current version first; the installer will notify you if it thinks it's necessary. If you don't want to go through all of that at first and your system has Darktable 2.8, that version is stable and it should allow you to become acquainted with how the user interface works. However, if your system has version 3.0 or 3.1, I recommend updating to 3.2.1. (Version 3 was a significant update under the hood, but there were some "oopsies" that needed to be ironed out.) As to the versions shown in the software center: Ubuntu keeps the software versions in each package base fixed for the lifetime of that distribution. If version 20.04 is to be supported for 5 years, for example, the software versions shown in the software center will, at the end of five years, be the same as they were at the beginning. Security and stability updates to those versions are kept current through the system updater.

That's pretty much what I do for basic photo editing. I use Gimp or Photoshop to do things that Darktable won't do or doesn't do as well, like compositing and pixel-level manipulations. As long as they are Windows or Apple based (Adobe products don't run on Linux, none that I'm aware of, anyway).

Gimp's interface is definitely an acquired taste. When exporting a file, it isn't necessary to pick a file type from the big list. If you want to save in a format that's different from the suggested default, just type in the extension for the new file name (e.g., replace picname.png with picname.jpg). The big list is handy if you don't already know all the supported formats and extensions. Rescaling and changing the resolution are done with the Image/Scale Image menu selection, and can be done simultaneously there. Gimp will (frustratingly) "help" you if you change them in the wrong order. Cropping is a separate operation, though, (as far as I know). I use Darktable much more than Gimp for working with photos. The current version (3.2.1) is pretty good. Versions before 3.0 are not as good. Version 3.0 had a habit of crashing, locking up, and becoming confused. I gave up on RawTherapee. You may also be interested in DisplayCAL, which is a display calibration application. Some documentation links (in case you haven't found them already): Gimp: www.gimp.org/docs Darktable: www.darktable.org/resources/ DisplayCAL: www.displaycal.net/

Chairobscurio

Nikkor 105/2.5 P.C

...somewhere...

D200, 55/3.5 Micro Ferocious

Nikon D200, Vivitar 70-210 Series 1 (Komine)

It is probably worth observing that the unexposed film edge in the f/22 and f/32 examples is most definitely not black. If the levels are adjusted to make the unexposed area black, and the steps on the Kodak gray scale are probed and their values measured, it becomes apparent that the f/22 example is correctly exposed and the f/32 example is underexposed. (The f/22 image may be slightly overexposed, but it's pretty close.) However, the steps on the gray scale are too light through the mid-tones and too dark in the brighter tones. My guess is that the camera (JPEG?) and Photoshop are probably contributing significantly to this. Consequently, I would be very reluctant to judge development times based on these images.

Nikkor 105/2.5 P.C on Fuji S5

Fuji S5, Nikkor 105/2.5 P.C (severe crop)