Digital BW, The Print

Hi Roger,

> I admit to being both an old fart and a traditionalist and insist
> that if you describe something, such as the Zone System, it has
> specific meaning.

Yes, but someone may use different aspects of "The Zone System" as they
need.

> Just for argument sake I would suggest that if
> people having problems with their negatives were to go through
> the exercise of determining their "personal" ASA and development
> time they would have far fewer problems.

That is called "calibrating your system" and something I always do, as well
as encourage others to do as well.

> Learning a
> film-developer combination until one can predict just how it will
> act under varying circumstances is a side benefit. Constantly
> changing this or that in search of the grail simply doesn't work
> and ends up in utter confusion.

Hence my standardization of few films and two developers.

> I don't know what you mean by cram. ... There are times when a scene
> requires N+ or N- development but I usually find it isn't worth
> the effort to try to squeeze a good image out of bad lighting but
> there certainly are exceptions.

It's not always bad lighting.  When the exposure range of the scene exceeds
the exposure range the film can contain, you adjust your exposure and
development to "cram" those extra stops on the film.  It is not uncommon to
get 12 stops on standard B&W film.  This, of course, reduces the tonal
discernability, but since the film contains more tones than can be used,
this isn't an issue.

> I don't know how a roll film photographer successfully
> can develop for N+ or N- exposures if there are normal exposures
> on the same roll. No problem with a view camera but with a 35mm or 120??

I do it no problem.  I have multiple backs, one for normal, one for N+1 and
one for N-1 (or what ever).  I use a 205FCC Hasselblad, which has a built-in
Zone compensation metering system.

> No question that a good scanner can reach into shadows and via
> manipulation bring out something that may be concealed in the
> murk. That doesn't necessarily make for a better image.

Of course not, but for me it more than not does.

Regards,

Austin