Digital BW, The Print

Ah yes! Paul,

It's an interesting conversation on the zone system as well as the BTZS.
They both were basically expansions of the old adage to expose for the
shadows and develope for the highlights and ,where feasible, bracket
exposures as well. Film yet today is incapable of recording the range
of reality always so ,to an extent, the same considerations as of old
prevail. One can meter in a number of ways toward exactly the same
endpoint. It's more consistency than method that is required IMHO.

My reading of AA regarding the "previsualization" thing has never been
much in line with the "throw away anything you didn't preconceive
mode" and if one looks at AA's printing history I don't think he was
slavish about it either.

You are absolutely correct in saying we have so much more in the way
of tools to work with now. As Adams did say something about the
negative being only the score and the print the performance ,I think
he too would have agreed that you capture everything you can get up
front in whatever way works.

As to compression/expansion of tones ,as far as I can see there is but
a single way to get a fully noncompressed image scale upon a wall.
It's called a window and it best be open.

Duane


<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> >you commented in an earlier message that the zone system is obsolete 
> >now that we have histograms. you are right when the procedure 
> >you describe here works.
> 
> For some the ZS helps in visualization.  So, that's real useful.  I just
> don't think in those terms, having trained myself more in terms of
> characteristic curves and spot meter readings.  I think the old Kodak F5
> publications on B&W film are about the best, most concise treatment
of the
> realities of how film and paper deal with dynamic range compression and
> expansion.
> 
> > but in many cases, the dynamic range of the scene extends beyond 
> >the dynamic range that can be recorded.  in that case, information 
> >at one end of the dynamic range must be sacrificed.
> 
> Of course that's true if you're talking about many films and shooting
> procedures.  On the other hand, I'm reminded of an old (Norwegian, I
think)
> saying that there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad
clothing.  Not
> only do I capture 12 stops per frame on B&W film, but I also bracket
> exposure and put the frames together in PS.  So, I don't find there
is much
> of a limit on the dynamic range I can capture these days.
> 
> > my understanding of the zone system is that it addresses exactly 
> >this issue: not how to get the whole dynamic range on paper, but 
> >rather how to select the exposure to 'focus' on the 
> >part of the image you care about. what ansel adams showed us was 
> >how to make that selection reliably. a histogram alone won't help 
> >you do this: 
> 
> >at the very least you need a spot meter to determine the 
> >luminance of particular points in the scene.
> 
> Even though I don't always use one now, I think the use of my 1 degree
> Pentax spot meter was a major learning tool for me.  I even taped a
small
> graph of my film's characteristic curve on the top of it.  That way
I knew
> exactly where on the density scale each spot was going.  It's a
tremendous
> learning tool that I highly recommend to all.  I've often said that
I think
> there are 2 basic exposure techniques:  (1) spot metering and (2)
guessing.
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /daniel
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> 
> wrote:
> 
> > With the histogram, the basic idea is to fully utilize the 
> >dynamic range of the file and printing medium without clipping off 
> >the highlights or shadows...
> > If you want to fully utilize the dynamic range of the medium 
> >(and I do and so did A. Adams), prints should have some pure black 
> >(0 on the 0-255, 8-bit digital scale, but also referred to as 100% 
> >in terms of the ink load) and very little pure paper white 
> >(255 on the 8-bit scale, and 0% ink).
> >...