Digital BW, The Print

>
>
> I never had a personal interaction with him.  Probably is better I
> didn't.  I wasn't interested in hero worship, just wanted to learn how
> to make good prints,

exactly- me, too.  I just wanted to figure out how film and paper  
worked so that I could print well.  I was fascinated by printing.  My  
idea of photography was to get a negative so that I could print.   
Consequently, I became a better printer than photographer.  (And so  
was Fred.)  Then more work was needed on the photographic side, and  
so it went- a stairstep effort of printing, photography, printing,  
photography.  Then
digital printing  came in and screwed everything up :  )

> and he certainly provided me with a good path
> through the Zone System minefield.

Well, in the course of this exchange, I went to some Fred sites and  
read a little about what his approach was.  I had forgotten.  And I'm  
surprised: his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't how  
b&w photography works, as far as I know.  His rationale is to, in  
musical terms, fix it in the mix.  The whole concept of exposing for  
the shadows and developing for the highlights is really a weakest- 
link thing: the shadows have the least light reflecting from them,  
therefore make sure that you have adequate exposure to record.  Then  
keep the highlights in line with development.  To expose for the  
highs and let the shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to  
me.  Of course, he's right that one size does not fit all when  
dealing with roll film; the zone system works best one sheet at a  
time.  Ironically, his advice might work out better today, with  
scanning.  Scanners far prefer thin negs to dense ones.

> For that I'm thankful.

The end does justify the means :  )

> Rest In
> Peace, Mr. Picker.

Absolutely.

James