From: kcarroll@koko.pathology.washington.edu (Kris Carroll)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
Subject: Zone response II
Date: 28 Jan 1993 02:27:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington
NNTP-Posting-Host: koko.pathology.washington.edu

In article <1993Jan27.231851.1424@pmafire.inel.gov> geoff@pmafire.inel.gov  
(Geoff Allen) writes:
> >Conventional wisdom says expose the negative for the shadows,  
> >develop it (convert the silver to the proper density) for the  
highlights.  
> 
> This is the standard one-sentence description of the procedure, but of
> course, there is more to it.

should I have retyped all five books?

> 
> >Keep in mind that the natural tonal range of say a landscape would be  
> >longer (more tones) than the film could record. 
> 
> Actually, black and white film is quite capable of recording most
> scenes, and may in some cases even require what is called ``expansion''
> because the contrast range is too low for the intended result.  Color
> negative film is also pretty good at recording things.  It's only color
> transperancy film that has problems with ordinary scenes.

actually most landscapes are longer.


> This is a pretty accurate description of the theory behind the Zone
> System (though roman numerals are generally used to designate the zones,
> for whatever reason).

speaking of anal....

> 
> >Ideally, there should be no area as black black, or white  
> >white without any detail at all. 
> 
> Not necessarily.

yes, according to Adams and company anything else is careless.
 
> >This perfect 4x5, 8x10, 11x14 negative  
> 
> There's no law that says it has to be a 4x5, 8x10 or 11x14 or that it
> has to be contact printed.  Most are enlarged (it's kind of tough to
> carry around a 16x20 camera ;^) ).

Where I come from 33mm is considered subminiature. And again, could I not  
be forgiven for not listing every possible size neg?  And most of the  
Adams groupies contact print, purists that they are - the point I was  
trying to make.

 
> Well, perhaps some ``Zone Facists'' think this, but Adams merely used
> the technique as a *means* to the end of producing the photographs that
> he intended to produce.  What's the difference between a photographer
> knowing about the materials and their properties and a painter knowing
> about the various effects of using oil or watercolors, or a sculptor
> knowing about various materials and various ways of working them?  The
> goal is to produce what is in the artist's mind.  Photography may be a
> more tehnical/scientific pursuit than painting, but I don't see why that
> invalidates it.

recognize the trap, though

 
> Adams did color.  He didn't care for it as his primary medium, but he
> did color, and said the Zone System was ``invaluable'' for color
> photography.

well kept secret for many years and not stuff he exhibited during his life  
time, Adams considered color unstable control freak that he was



> > >no Polaroid fun. 
> 
> Adams did Polaroid, quite a bit, actually.  He even did some SX-70!

can you say prostitution......


> Adams often maintained that none of his prints were ``straight'' or
> ``literal''.  He used whatever manipulations and techniques were needed
> to get the result he wanted.

what chapter of the Good Book says that?

> It sounds like your beef is with landscape photography, rather than with
> Ansel Adams.  So be it.
>

actually not true, a good lyric landscape is a treat, in earlier posts I  
even retracted an Adams slam by admitting I was fond of several of his  
images


> I'm not sure you ``got it.''  The Zone System is a technique for getting
> the results that the photographer wants to get.  No more, no less.  It's
> merely an attempt at a practical explanation of the physics and  
chemistry of photography. 
> So do ``students with vision'' just fire off exposures, hoping that one
> will be something worthwhile?  (I'm not knocking experimentation, but I
> don't think it should necessarily be standard practice, either.)

the point was not to become a slave to a system, any system. 


> Well, I hope someone finds these comments enlightening, and at least
> somewhat a coherent defense of the Zone System.
> 
> Geoff ``I shoot color, so what do I know?'' Allen

me too, enjoy....

> 
> p.s. I was tempted to cross-post this to rec.photo, but figured I'd be
>      nice and spare rec.arts.fine from an entire thread of this.  If you
>      want to know more, go there, or to Adams' books. 

spare us from the camera buffs, please
Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine