Digital BW, The Print

Steve Kale said:

>Now I have picked on the Zone guys >here only by example.  (I did so 
> >because
>there are so often requests for a "digital >Zone system for dummies" here.
>It only takes a little effort for a great >reward.)

It does seem a little odd to pick on "Zone guys" as examples of 
photographers who don't wish to exert any effort to understand the very 
basic numbers you mention.  The zone system is easy to understand but it 
does take some time and effort to do so. Then making the tests needed to 
apply it takes more time and effort and finally it takes some experience 
(time and effort) to apply it to best advantage.

I'd be willing to bet that almost anyone who is sufficiently serious about 
photography to have made that effort knows or can easily figure out what 
dMax and dMin mean and can subtract 0.05 from 1.65, divide the result by 
.30, and come up with a density range expressed in log units. I'd also bet 
that  same person  knows or possesses the resources to easily find out that 
.30 log units represents one stop and so can express the result in terms of 
stops.

I don't think I'd pick on any particular group of photographers as examples 
of people who don't want to spend any time or effort at their craft , 
unfortunately that's typical of many photographers. But if I did zone system 
people would probably be the last group I'd choose as examples.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Will we be obsolete? More...


I think it's simply different strokes for different folks and in many cases
different strokes for different images.  Each has its place and neither is
better.  Some prints will be according to any particular individual better
suited to one or the other in the same way that some are "better" (always
only in the eye of the beholder) in sepia rather than cool.  But it is
worthwhile people understanding the properties of each. The dynamic range
(in density, Exposure Zones or f-Stops) of one vs the other is just one of
these properties.  With understanding comes better application of your
vision.

I'd like to think that Tyler won his competition, firstly, because he took a
damn good photo and, secondly, he chose materials and a means of
presentation that took the qualities of that image and made them shine.  I
don't believe that his win says anything about which format is better.  I
don't believe anyone can say one is better than the other.  What we can each
say, though, is which format WE like the most for a particular image and
come to understand and express why we like it.  This is artistic choice and
expression.

(I am reminded of my first wine tasting session when I was told that you
can't be taught what you like, only the means to identify why you like it
and thereby increase the probability that you can articulate what you like
and thus acquire more wine that you like.)

As for the numbers, people seem to forget that they allow us a means of
expressing to one another what results we get when we try something or
another.  Saying one is darkish but not quite as dark as the other doesn't
help much.  Measuring and quantifying certain aspects of what we see
enhances communication and understanding.  It is your choice as to whether
you prefer medium a with dMax of 1.7 or medium b with dMax of 1.8 (or 2.45).
The numbers are simply there to help you communicate.  We are fortunate that
the ICC has gone to great lengths to provide us with means of communicating
colour.

The issue with numbers is often people's apathy (a harsh word but likely
true enough) towards understanding them.  Such a Zone person, for example,
may hear the phrase "dMax=1.65 and dMin of 0.05" and can't fathom to
understand it - hasn't made the effort to understand that this is merely an
expression of what he/she already knows in a slightly different language.  A
little effort and this person would know that the phrase means a dynamic
range of 5.3 f-Stops and this person could also determine how stops were
above and how many below Zone V 18% reflectance could be reproduced.  The
same Zone System person might also struggle to find when he/she switches to
a digital camera from film why exposing for Zone V doesn't give him/her the
shadow detail they think they should get.  A little effort would show that
they are better off (due to the way a digital sensor works as opposed to
film) "exposing to the right" and fixing mid grey at their desk. Just a
couple of examples.

Now I have picked on the Zone guys here only by example.  (I did so because
there are so often requests for a "digital Zone system for dummies" here.
It only takes a little effort for a great reward.)  The point of my argument
is that the numbers allow expression and understanding.  The artistic use of
this understanding is entirely up to you and your personal preference.  To
be honest, if you had true artistic integrity you would not care whether 30
people preferred the "glossy" (I would likely hate it BTW) over the "matte".
It's which one best allows you to express what you feel is in the image that
matters.

Congratulations Tyler on seeing what must have been a beautiful image and
taking it to fruition so that your vision can be shared!  If only we could
all see the print.