-------------- Original message from Mark Rabiner <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: --------------
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Marvin"
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, February 18, 2010 1:03 PM
> > Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Plus X -PX 125- and Microdol X
> > discontinued Alan
> >
> >
> >> Eric, Mark is spot on. N+1 is zone system speak, it means
> >> increasing the
> >> overall contrast in the negative by 10%. Each zone should
> >> have 10% more
> >> density so when its printed on a grade 1 paper or say
> >> becomes a platinum
> >> print it should represent a normal scence, which zone
> >> values placed in the
> >> correct value. i.e skin zone 6 which was zone 7 in the N+1
> >> negative.
> >> Adams was not changing the ISO in any way shape or form,
> >> which would have
> >> defeated the whole purpose of the zone system.
> >
> > I am not sure you are saying what you intend. If all
> > densities are increased by the same percentage the contrast
> > remains the same. The idea of the Zone System is to adjust
> > contrast to match the requirements of the scene and adjust
> > exposure to maintain the density range of the film. That is
> > exactly what one gets from conventional sensitometric
> > principles, i.e., increasing contrast required decreasing
> > exposure and vice-versa. '
> > I have serious questions about the Zone System because
> > I think it ignors the characteristics of human vision. It
> > seems to be concerned with the ability of the system to
> > record the full range of brightness of the original scene on
> > the print. Since reflection prints have a very much shorter
> > range of reproducible densities than either the original
> > scene or film, or than the eye, some compression has to be
> > done for high contrast scenes. Converseley, low contrast
> > scenes are stretched. Either will result in tone rendition
> > which is seen by the eye as un-natural despite having good
> > detail in both shadows and highlights. The eye judges scene
> > contrast mosly by the mid-tones. If those are reproduced
> > linearly the overall image will be acceptable. Some
> > compression of highlights and shadows by local control,
> > i.e., burning and dodging, will bring out details in both
> > that are beyond the normal range of the paper. As long as
> > the mid tones are OK the eye will accept the image as being
> > natural looking. I am quite sure Adams and the other
> > founders of the Zone System knew this. It is interesting to
> > compare the approach of the Zone System to that of Kodak
> > researcher Loyd Jones, who did extensive work on tone
> > reproduction over a thirty year period. Jones was
> > responsible for the speed measuring method originally
> > adopted by the ASA. While that system is no longer in use
> > the DIN system, adopted about 1958, and which is the basis
> > for the current ISO speed method, was modified to take into
> > account Jones findings about minimum exposure for good
> > shadow detail.
>
>
>
> I will say that development expansions and contraptions became less and less
> a big deal with Adams and a lot of zone system practitioners and I can for
> sure speak for me. I stopped doing it at all decades ago.
> Using a higher contrast paper for lower contrast negs or a higher contrast
> printing filter seemed like just as good of an idea instead of the idea of
> making all your negs print on the same grade paper. Which is in the end not
> such a big deal. And even might have some negative aspects. When I teach
> the zone system to people I don't go in the the contractions and expansions
> so much as people find them confusing and I think its not so necessary. But
> its nice to know how film works.
> Giving your negs more development is going to make you have to reach for
> lower and lower contrast paper before it does anything to increase your iso,
> din, or ASA. Film speed. Which is measured by density in the shadows.
> People will put down the zone system but I've never heard much negative
> stuff about it from people who have put an effort into figuring it out....
> Reading much about it and trying it out a bit. Even if its in the far back
> of your mind it tends to be thought of as a lesson well learned - and
> appreciated. At first at school I ignored it with a few finds of mind
> sitting in the back of the class saying it had no application to 35mm
> photography which was basically what we were doing. But that was ignorance.
> A few months later after that photo class in college I got a job as a
> printer in a black and white custom printing lab. My boss told me to bring
> up zone III to IV. I spend the weekend pulling all nighters reading my
> textbook. On Monday I was ready to know what he was talking about.
> I have to see understanding the zone system made me feel like I understood
> photography for the first time I'd been floundering in the darkroom since I
> was 13. I've never heard it expressed that sensomitry and the zone system
> were at odds. That textbook by the way was Arnold Gasson Handbook for
> Contemporary Photography there was as much zone system stuff as sensitometry
> For every zone he had a sensitometric number.
>
> [Rabs]
> Mark William Rabiner
>
>
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>