[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmmtn4aj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well, I've learned how to properly estimate while using old AIS lenses with the D50 (non CPU so the camera's metering doesn't work), but I would've have with film due to the trouble and wait of developing prints. Don't have a university lab to borrow either. Then again, I was never interested in cameras until digital cameras came out, and it was the technology behind them that attracted me. To each his own I guess

But that is better! I have not heard of many people that had to estimate it because of using non-cpulenses. That is a nice way I guess to understand what you are doing. From what I have been seeing a lot is that people just shoot right on, check on their screen what the result is, but absolutely don't have any idea what they are doing and why it is good or why it isn't.
And indeed..to each his own.

 

[jrgeoffrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Adam's zone system is really an invaluable way to get the best highlights and shadows in a full tonal image. I think he would have really loved digital photography, as you can do so much more with development.

I don't disagree that starting with film may provide a better foundation... If you like the zone system, you should really try the Lightzone software by http://www.lightcrafts.com/

 

[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Plus you have great masters and teachers to guide you! 150 years of traditional film based photography vs 10 years of digital I'd recommend the Ansel Adams books to read while learning B&W. Adam's zone system is really an invaluable way to get the best highlights and shadows in a full tonal image. I think he would have really loved digital photography, as you can do so much more with development.

Adams' zone system is one of the most important things when I go shooting a picture that was set up. In advance you can totally calculate how much detail you wanna have in the highs and lows and so on. That is such awesome theory!!!!
I do think he would have been disgusted by the digital world though, cause B&W is fully manual and you have to rethink every step wich makes it so much more difficult. With digital most people just do something and don't even know what. If the picture is not exactly what they want it to be, they just run it through Photoshop and hoppa... (it's not always like that, i know) but that is one reason I still like working with B&W film. As for the B&W I will always be using film for that. Love to get my hands dirty in the dark room, developing my films and waiting till I get to see the result.

 

[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrgeoffrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't disagree that starting with film may provide a better foundation... If you like the zone system, you should really try the Lightzone software by http://www.lightcrafts.com/

But that is software. It's much interesting if you try to get it right while you shoot. At least for me. That is photography, otherwise it is just more adjusting things on a computer in order to gtr the desired result. But that's imo cause I just love doing it like that.

 

[fatcat28037]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flamerz /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to let you guys know, this thread has inspired me to get into photography. I've recently acquired Understanding Exposure and I'm nearly done reading it. My friend is taking a photography class at school, and he taught me the basics of using a manual film camera. However, I find that a digital camera will be miles ahead of film in terms of convenience for me. I have yet to actually take any pictures, so I expect a ton of trial & error initially. Plus, digital storage just sounds so much better to me. Anyway, I know digital is quite a bit more expensive, and I'm currently completely broke. I'm looking to get a job right after spring break (which is this week), so in about a month or so I ought to have enough money for a budget camera system. I've done a little research and have a bit of an idea of my options, but what do you guys recommend I get on a very tight budget? Jeez, this place is horrible for my wallet.

Take a look at the Kodak website. their "z" series are two to three hundred dollars, loaded with features and very reliable. I've been shooting with an older Z7590 for about 3 years and love it.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQueri...requestid=6416

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif I do think he would have been disgusted by the digital world though, cause B&W is fully manual and you have to rethink every step wich makes it so much more difficult. With digital most people just do something and don't even know what. If the picture is not exactly what they want it to be, they just run it through Photoshop and hoppa... (it's not always like that, i know) but that is one reason I still like working with B&W film. As for the B&W I will always be using film for that. Love to get my hands dirty in the dark room, developing my films and waiting till I get to see the result.

I think he would have really liked the versatility of modern digital. Earlier digital cameras didn't have the light sensitivities of the current digital cameras it seems. He did some color work, which I find equaly breathtaking. He was Carter's presidential portraitist, and his portraits do seem more timeless then other photos of that era. He was able to get very subtle details and lifelike colors buy knowing what could be exposed on film and how it could be enhanced in the dark room. Being able to adjust color balance and sensitivity on the camera seems to be a big advantage with digital. He probably would be disgusted by the way some rely on automatic metering and such: but his principles of tonal range are still very important and makes a good digital photo as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrgeoffrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't disagree that starting with film may provide a better foundation... If you like the zone system, you should really try the Lightzone software by http://www.lightcrafts.com/

Yeah, I'm finding that's what makes shooting in RAW such a good deal. You can bring out your highlights in your "software based" developing. I have Photoshop CS2, which lets me do everything. I'm tempted to try to make a photo that requires me to bracket: then merge the layers in Photoshop. The zone system on steriods

 

[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Being able to adjust color balance and sensitivity on the camera seems to be a big advantage with digital. He probably would be disgusted by the way some rely on automatic metering and such: but his principles of tonal range are still very important and makes a good digital photo as well.

I totally agree with you! Thanx.

 

[jrgeoffrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contrastique /img/forum/go_quote.gif But that is software. It's much interesting if you try to get it right while you shoot. At least for me. That is photography, otherwise it is just more adjusting things on a computer in order to gtr the desired result. But that's imo cause I just love doing it like that.

Don't forget that most of Ansel's shot were on large format cameras that could hold only 1 "frame". The zone system was developed to extract the best tonal range in each individual image (of course the large format really helps with micro contrast that couldn't be achieve with 35mm film). This means that BOTH the exposure and development for EACH image was different. Unfortunately, that can't be done with 35mm unless all the images in the roll require the exact same development.

Since developing is as important as the exposure for the zone system, using the same principle with digital makes more "sense" (wrong word but that's as close as I can find to what I mean) since each image can indeed be developed individually than the next (which can't be done with a roll of film).

 

[jrgeoffrion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm tempted to try to make a photo that requires me to bracket: then merge the layers in Photoshop. The zone system on steriods

If you are interested in HDR, try Photomatix from http://www.hdrsoft.com. Rather than just "merging" the images, it extends the dynamic range as well as allow you to control the tonal mapping between the two extremes. They have a free trial...

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrgeoffrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif Since developing is as important as the exposure for the zone system, using the same principle with digital makes more "sense" (wrong word but that's as close as I can find to what I mean) since each image can indeed be developed individually than the next (which can't be done with a roll of film).

Plus the big thing about Adams technique is finding the best value ranges with your developing. I think some forget that with fine art photography, a lot of photographers spend more time developing to fine tune their photo then actual shooting. So why not do the same with digital: where you can do a lot more then just burn and dodge

 

[ericlikeseatin]

its quite easy to become snobbish about it all, saying that old school darkroom techniques are somehow more artistically superior to new school photoshopping, isnt it? i know i was that way for quite some time and only recently have i embraced digital photography, using point and shoots (gasp!) - oh the horror! this art is quickly evolving and change is always scary.

 

[Samgotit]

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrgeoffrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you are interested in HDR, try Photomatix from http://www.hdrsoft.com. Rather than just "merging" the images, it extends the dynamic range as well as allow you to control the tonal mapping between the two extremes. They have a free trial...

I may give that a try! thanks! I do 3D animation....so one of the things I'll be doing with my 5D is make HDR lightmaps. The main pain it seems is that there are so few graphics programs that natively support 32bit color channels (when that's what 3D programs feed off of).

But if it's just going to be a 8bit/channel color medium, I think Photoshop is great to fine tune and reveal different areas of each layer with a brush (whether those layers are different bracketed photos or adjustment layers).

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericlikeseatin /img/forum/go_quote.gif its quite easy to become snobbish about it all, saying that old school darkroom techniques are somehow more artistically superior to new school photoshopping, isnt it? i know i was that way for quite some time and only recently have i embraced digital photography, using point and shoots (gasp!) - oh the horror! this art is quickly evolving and change is always scary.

But if you had studied the zone system, you wouldn't have had that blown out background, and your main subject wouldn't be in silhouette

I certainly don't diss Photoshop, but I think KISS is really important in learning technique: starting off the basics with B&W will give you a good education in exposure.

 

[Contrastique]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrgeoffrion /img/forum/go_quote.gif Don't forget that most of Ansel's shot were on large format cameras that could hold only 1 "frame". The zone system was developed to extract the best tonal range in each individual image (of course the large format really helps with micro contrast that couldn't be achieve with 35mm film). This means that BOTH the exposure and development for EACH image was different. Unfortunately, that can't be done with 35mm unless all the images in the roll require the exact same development. Since developing is as important as the exposure for the zone system, using the same principle with digital makes more "sense" (wrong word but that's as close as I can find to what I mean) since each image can indeed be developed individually than the next (which can't be done with a roll of film).

Yep, you are right about that one. It does work best with large format negatives. Use that also. And to get it even more accurate you have to make a test with the film you are using to see if the asa-value of the film is what it really is. When I use B&W it is mostly for pictures I have completely thought out before making it. Wich means the subject on the film is the same. Therefor all images require the same development in order to see the differs.
It helps anyways to get as close as possible to achieve the kind of detail you want in the highs and lows in a shot.