Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Notices

Go Back   Film and Darkroom User > Reviews > Books

  ***   Click here for the FADU 2015/2014 Yearbooks   ***

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 15th August 2013, 08:31 PM
Brock's Avatar
Brock Brock is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: St Andrews
Posts: 698
Default

Thank God I'm not the only one who didn't think much of the book. The copy I have has a soft cover and the quality of the photographs on thin paper stock is poor. You can see one photo shining through the back of another. The text was reasonably interesting but nothing special. I agree that a lot of the pics are cold and lifeless. If I ever see another slot canyon it will be too soon. Give me Eddie Ephraums of Tony Worobiec any day! :-)


www.theonlinedarkroom.com
__________________
The Online Darkroom
www.onlinedarkroom.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 16th August 2013, 12:04 AM
alexmuir alexmuir is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Glasgow, Scotland.
Posts: 2,668
Default

I bought this book about a year ago and I have to say I liked it. His general point about exposing film seemed to be that more exposure is better than less. I have to say that I agree with this. I have produced, and seen, lots of negatives which failed as a result of under exposure. An over exposed negative, on the other hand, has to be really bad before it becomes unprintable. I also enjoyed some of the images in the book. Amazon contacted me weeks after I bought it to see of I wanted to trade it in. I decided to keep it as a useful reference. Alex
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 18th August 2013, 11:50 AM
dsallen's Avatar
dsallen dsallen is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les McLean View Post
As a matter of interest on what grounds?
Hi Les,

His 'discovery' of placing dark shadows on Zone IV for example.

My understanding of the Zone system is that it is based on the range of tones within a particular part of the image (a Zone) that you want to render as a particular grey tone in the final print but with the understanding that within this zone there will actually be a range of tones whose average equates to the tone of grey that you want for this area on the final print.

As an example, in my photographs, I identify an area that I want to render as a dark shadow with detail. I go in close with a Weston meter and it will supply me with an averaged value for the area that I have metered. If this area is a tree trunk, for example, there will be small highlights on the bark and also darker shadows. Placing the average on Zone III will give the area an overall rendering of a dark shadow with detail and this will be enhanced by the range of luminosities within this zone (what Barnbaum refers to as 'texture').

Barnbaum's arguments are:

1. The concept of placing your shadows on Zone III come from sensitometerists using step wedges. Whilst many books have been based on this approach, Ansel Adams developed the Zone System using real world practical tests. As you will be aware, ISO standards are based on findings resulting from the use of sensitometers to provide a reliable and measurable standard method of testing. It is for this reason (they are not from the 'real world') why so many photographers do not use 'box speed' because it does not deliver the results that they are looking for.

2. Despite his argument in Point 1, he then uses a characteristic curve to demonstrate that the average of tones within Zone III results in part of these tones falling lower on the toe of the curve and, therefore, the result is the loss of tonal separation. However, the whole point about undertaking real world tests to determine your own personal Exposure Index (that reflects your way of metering, your way of processing, your equipment-specific levels of internal flare, etc.) is to ensure that Zone I will be placed at the point where the toe meets the straight line section of your film/equipment/developer's resulting characteristic curve. In other words, if you test correctly, none of the averaged tones that make up a Zone III area will ever land on the toe of your personal characteristic curve and, therefore, there will be no compression on the luminance within Zone III.

Hope that explains what I was getting at.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de
__________________
David,
d.s.allen, fotograf
dsallenberlin@gmail.com
http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 20th August 2013, 10:00 AM
Graeme's Avatar
Graeme Graeme is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sunderland, UK
Posts: 377
Default

Agree with Les, very useful book, and I'm just going through it again.
__________________
Best Wishes, Graeme


http://graemestarkphotography.blogspot.com/
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 20th August 2013, 11:44 AM
Les McLean's Avatar
Les McLean Les McLean is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Northumberland
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsallen View Post
Hi Les,

His 'discovery' of placing dark shadows on Zone IV for example.

My understanding of the Zone system is that it is based on the range of tones within a particular part of the image (a Zone) that you want to render as a particular grey tone in the final print but with the understanding that within this zone there will actually be a range of tones whose average equates to the tone of grey that you want for this area on the final print.

As an example, in my photographs, I identify an area that I want to render as a dark shadow with detail. I go in close with a Weston meter and it will supply me with an averaged value for the area that I have metered. If this area is a tree trunk, for example, there will be small highlights on the bark and also darker shadows. Placing the average on Zone III will give the area an overall rendering of a dark shadow with detail and this will be enhanced by the range of luminosities within this zone (what Barnbaum refers to as 'texture').

Barnbaum's arguments are:

1. The concept of placing your shadows on Zone III come from sensitometerists using step wedges. Whilst many books have been based on this approach, Ansel Adams developed the Zone System using real world practical tests. As you will be aware, ISO standards are based on findings resulting from the use of sensitometers to provide a reliable and measurable standard method of testing. It is for this reason (they are not from the 'real world') why so many photographers do not use 'box speed' because it does not deliver the results that they are looking for.

2. Despite his argument in Point 1, he then uses a characteristic curve to demonstrate that the average of tones within Zone III results in part of these tones falling lower on the toe of the curve and, therefore, the result is the loss of tonal separation. However, the whole point about undertaking real world tests to determine your own personal Exposure Index (that reflects your way of metering, your way of processing, your equipment-specific levels of internal flare, etc.) is to ensure that Zone I will be placed at the point where the toe meets the straight line section of your film/equipment/developer's resulting characteristic curve. In other words, if you test correctly, none of the averaged tones that make up a Zone III area will ever land on the toe of your personal characteristic curve and, therefore, there will be no compression on the luminance within Zone III.

Hope that explains what I was getting at.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de
David, many thanks for the comprehensive and technically correct answer to my request. Please let me tell you why I agree with Barnbaum.

Some 40 years ago when I started to make photographs I was encouraged by a friend to use the Zone System of exposure so I bought the books written by both Ansel Adams and Minor White, did all the tests and arrived at my personal film speed which was different from the box speed as you noted in your reply. For many years I was perfectly happy with the negatives I produced, detail into the darkest shadows etc., Then I noticed that my negatives were somewhat "thinner" in the shadows showing less than satisfactory detail so I tested again, arrived at the same result but still produced thin shadow detail in my negatives. After giving this problem some thought I decided to experiment by placing my shadows on Zone IV and adjusted the development to compensate for extra exposure in the mid tones and highlights. Bingo, I had full separation in the darkest shadows and good highlight detail controlled by the development. I have placed my shadows on Zone IV ever since that day.


Around this time I was involved with Nikon and happened to be speaking to a technical guy who mentioned the problems that they had encountered in the metering system of the latest 35mm Nikon camera, I think it was the F5, apparently the shadow detail was less than satisfactory. They solved the problem when they discovered that for some reason there was significantly more blue light in shadows and it was causing the metering system to underexpose the shadows. I mentioned my problem and he suggested that my meter, a Soligor Spot Meter, was also affected in the same way. He could not tell me why there was a general increase of blue light in the shadows. I was happy at this point for I believe that he had given me the answer to my problem and that I had taken the right steps to cure it. When I purchased the first version of Barnbaum's book and read his views on metering and exposure I was further convinced that I had taken the correct action.


Some years later I met and spent significant time with Barnbaum during which time we argued quite a lot about our views on aspects of photography, sometimes we agreed and others we strongly disagreed. However, I have great respect for him and we have remained friends despite many argumentative and stimulating nights spent talking photography. Incidentally he uses compensating development quite extensively.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 20th August 2013, 12:45 PM
dsallen's Avatar
dsallen dsallen is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Berlin
Posts: 521
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les McLean View Post
David, many thanks for the comprehensive and technically correct answer to my request. Please let me tell you why I agree with Barnbaum.

Some 40 years ago when I started to make photographs I was encouraged by a friend to use the Zone System of exposure so I bought the books written by both Ansel Adams and Minor White, did all the tests and arrived at my personal film speed which was different from the box speed as you noted in your reply. For many years I was perfectly happy with the negatives I produced, detail into the darkest shadows etc., Then I noticed that my negatives were somewhat "thinner" in the shadows showing less than satisfactory detail so I tested again, arrived at the same result but still produced thin shadow detail in my negatives. After giving this problem some thought I decided to experiment by placing my shadows on Zone IV and adjusted the development to compensate for extra exposure in the mid tones and highlights. Bingo, I had full separation in the darkest shadows and good highlight detail controlled by the development. I have placed my shadows on Zone IV ever since that day.


Around this time I was involved with Nikon and happened to be speaking to a technical guy who mentioned the problems that they had encountered in the metering system of the latest 35mm Nikon camera, I think it was the F5, apparently the shadow detail was less than satisfactory. They solved the problem when they discovered that for some reason there was significantly more blue light in shadows and it was causing the metering system to underexpose the shadows. I mentioned my problem and he suggested that my meter, a Soligor Spot Meter, was also affected in the same way. He could not tell me why there was a general increase of blue light in the shadows. I was happy at this point for I believe that he had given me the answer to my problem and that I had taken the right steps to cure it. When I purchased the first version of Barnbaum's book and read his views on metering and exposure I was further convinced that I had taken the correct action.


Some years later I met and spent significant time with Barnbaum during which time we argued quite a lot about our views on aspects of photography, sometimes we agreed and others we strongly disagreed. However, I have great respect for him and we have remained friends despite many argumentative and stimulating nights spent talking photography. Incidentally he uses compensating development quite extensively.
Hi Les,

Thanks for your clear explanation. It has set me to reflect on the use of spot meters and how they might affect one's approach to exposure.

I have always used Weston Master light meters which, as you will be aware, have a wide field of view which produces an averaging result. I have tried several spot meters over the years but never got on with them primarily because I found the field of view too narrow and I tended to get underexposed negatives. Before giving up on spot meters I tried to identify what was causing the problem:

The first thing that was clear to me was that, because the spot meter used a lens, there would be a difference in the meter's internal flare and the camera's internal flare. However, I surmised that practical exposure tests should compensate for these differences.

The second thing that became quickly clear was that one of the older spot meters that I was trying out had the older type sensor (as per early cameras with TTL metering) which did not respond to light in the same way that film did. This problem was easily solved by proceeding with my tests only using the spot meter that had a sensor that matched films response to light.

The third thing I considered was that, for every lens that I used, I used either a lens hood or, if using the 5 x 4, a lens hood and shielding the front of the lens hood with the dark-slide. The spot meter had no lens hood and the front of the lens was pretty exposed. In the best tradition of DIY, I decided to attach the inner core of a toilet roll (held in place with that great photographic accessory - BluTack) and repeat my tests again. This, I found, made a huge difference with all negatives being correctly exposed.

Perhaps what is happening here - we both get the results that we want but I meter the shadows and place them on Zone III and you and Barnbaum meter them and place them on Zone IV - actually represents a fundamental difference in how one needs to approach exposure depending upon the light meter that one uses?

In your post you wrote that
Quote:
For many years I was perfectly happy with the negatives I produced, detail into the darkest shadows etc., Then I noticed that my negatives were somewhat "thinner" in the shadows showing less than satisfactory detail so I tested again, arrived at the same result but still produced thin shadow detail in my negatives.
and I was just wondering whether you have always used a spot meter or did the loss of shadow detail coincide with a change in meter?

By the way, I have also always used a compensating developer for my personal work - in the form of various two-bath developers. For the past years (at least 8 I think) I have used Thornton's formulation which I find 100% reliable, very cheap and also very easy to source the (minimal) ingredients.

Interesting subject regarding exposure styles.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de
__________________
David,
d.s.allen, fotograf
dsallenberlin@gmail.com
http://dsallen.carpentier-galerie.de
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 20th August 2013, 07:05 PM
Alan Clark Alan Clark is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 1,426
Default

One thing that occurs to me after reading Les' interesting post is that , despite being called panchromatic, regular modern films are slightly more sensitive to blue light, causing, among other things, blue sky to come out too dense on the negative, and too pale on the final print, unless some of the blue light is blocked by, say, a yellow filter.
Given this extra blue sensitivity, would this not help to put extra exposure into the shadows if the shadows consist of extra blue light?
And , in effect, reduce the problem that Les described.

Alan
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 21st August 2013, 09:38 AM
Terry S Terry S is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Southend on Sea, Essex, England, UK
Posts: 3,796
Default

Just bookmarking to read later.

Terry S
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 21st August 2013, 12:25 PM
Les McLean's Avatar
Les McLean Les McLean is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Northumberland
Posts: 383
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dsallen View Post
Hi Les,

Thanks for your clear explanation. It has set me to reflect on the use of spot meters and how they might affect one's approach to exposure.

I have always used Weston Master light meters which, as you will be aware, have a wide field of view which produces an averaging result. I have tried several spot meters over the years but never got on with them primarily because I found the field of view too narrow and I tended to get underexposed negatives. Before giving up on spot meters I tried to identify what was causing the problem:

The first thing that was clear to me was that, because the spot meter used a lens, there would be a difference in the meter's internal flare and the camera's internal flare. However, I surmised that practical exposure tests should compensate for these differences.

The second thing that became quickly clear was that one of the older spot meters that I was trying out had the older type sensor (as per early cameras with TTL metering) which did not respond to light in the same way that film did. This problem was easily solved by proceeding with my tests only using the spot meter that had a sensor that matched films response to light.

The third thing I considered was that, for every lens that I used, I used either a lens hood or, if using the 5 x 4, a lens hood and shielding the front of the lens hood with the dark-slide. The spot meter had no lens hood and the front of the lens was pretty exposed. In the best tradition of DIY, I decided to attach the inner core of a toilet roll (held in place with that great photographic accessory - BluTack) and repeat my tests again. This, I found, made a huge difference with all negatives being correctly exposed.

Perhaps what is happening here - we both get the results that we want but I meter the shadows and place them on Zone III and you and Barnbaum meter them and place them on Zone IV - actually represents a fundamental difference in how one needs to approach exposure depending upon the light meter that one uses?

In your post you wrote that and I was just wondering whether you have always used a spot meter or did the loss of shadow detail coincide with a change in meter?

By the way, I have also always used a compensating developer for my personal work - in the form of various two-bath developers. For the past years (at least 8 I think) I have used Thornton's formulation which I find 100% reliable, very cheap and also very easy to source the (minimal) ingredients.

Interesting subject regarding exposure styles.

Bests,

David
www.dsallen.de
David, this does make an interesting subject for discussion re methods of determining exposure.


I used a Weston IV when I first made photographs but the friend who guided me to the Zone System also suggested I would be well advised to use a spot meter so I did as I was told and purchased my Soligor Analogue meter for £59, what a bargain and my friend was right. I still use the same meter. My Zone tests were done using the spot meter.


You are right on the mark regarding the problem of flare when using a spot meter, luckily I spotted the problem quite early and solved it simply by shielding the lens with my left hand by cupping it around the top of the lens as I made my reading. I still use that method today, perhaps I'll nick your toilet toll core dodge but ensure that you get the credit Flare on the spot meter lens could result in underexposure by as much as two stops.


Please bare with me while I explain another reason why I think placing shadows on Zone IV produces a better negative, particularly in the shadows.


Imagine we are making a photograph of a passage with a closed, black gloss painted panelled door at the end of this longish dark passage also with dark painted walls. The passage is lit by natural light from one small window on one side wall. The black door does reflect a little of the window light which does not directly light the door. I metered the darkest part of the door and placed it on Zone IV. I could not meter the darkest area in the picture even with a spot meter because it was too small, but for me it was essential that I show difference in tone between the door and the small area of darkness between it and the frame. I also metered the lightest area I wanted in the final print simply to determine the contrast range which governed how I would develop the film.


The resulting negative enabled me to make a print that showed the subtle differences in tone on the black painted, dimly lit door and quite clearly showed the black rim of darkness between the door and the frame. I had total separation in the shadows and an image on the paper that had quite considerable depth because of that separation. Placing the readable shadow on Zone III would have resulted in no separation at all and a negative that would have been very difficult to print. I always read my shadows in that manner and place them on Zone IV for there are dark little corners in shadows that are so easily lost at the metering stage.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 23rd August 2013, 02:28 PM
Adrian Adrian is offline
Friend
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Yateley in Hampshire
Posts: 206
Default

I've read this book and love it. Not wishing to get too involved in the Zone-IV debate (being a complete novice compared to you guys), one thing I did question though is Bruce's film speed testing i.e. Zone 0 = no density at all, Zone-I = trace density.

In my film testing, I get the faintest trace of density above FB+F through Zone-0 and Zone-I - virtually the same for 0 and I - the toe of the curve, flat as expected. It doesn't start to lift until the bottom end of Zone-II and is well off the toe by the bottom end of Zone-III. I expose at +0.5 to +2/3 but that's probably irrelevant to other folk with different light meters, cameras and processing.

Comparing Adams and Barnbaum, to me they both end up recommending 2/3 - 1 stop extra exposure - but possibly from different starting points.

Regarding Soligor Spot Meters and blue light - that's an interesting one. I have a Soligor Spot-II which appeared to be out of calibration compared to my Canon film camera (EOS3), averaging light meter and DSLR. So, I re-calibrated the Soligor Spot meter using the EOS3 in spot-mode with a 50mm lens as a reference. (I "reverse-engineered" the Spot Meter's circuit so figured out what the trim-pots do and therefore how to adjust them correctly, but that's another post for anothe time!) I found variations between colour - significant variations with the DSLR. I tested using grey targets in shade on a sunny day and white targets in full sun too - so blue light in the shadows and whites reflected from the sky. I got it spot-on (no punn intended) compared to the EOS3 over a wide range of light levels and some colour variations which have an effect (e.g. red brick wall, green grass, blue sky). The fact that I could adjust the Soligor meter to be so close to the Canon EOS3 over a 17 EV range suggests to me that that the optical differences between the spot meter and an average camera+lens are small enough not to worry about.

And that brings me full-circle with Barnbaum and metering. At the end of the day, I think all these differences of opinion, metering and exposing technique etc are just a guide - once we characterise our own process from metering right through to lighting the final print and get results we're happy with it doesn't matter.
Reply With Quote
Reply
Support our Sponsors, they keep FADU free:   AG Photographic   The Imaging Warehouse   Process Supplies   RH Designs   Second-hand Darkroom Supplies  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Zen Photography cliveh Art and aesthetics 26 23rd April 2011 10:31 AM
Lo-fi Photography MartyNL Photography in general 33 28th March 2011 11:10 AM
Zen Photography cliveh Photography in general 23 13th September 2010 08:16 AM
Is Photography Art? Dave miller Art and aesthetics 33 14th December 2009 11:03 AM
The 'why?' of photography les dix Photography in general 18 29th November 2008 05:39 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.