Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/15
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well...no one needs to defend themselves, this isn't a trial! Perhaps my reading of his post was a bit too superficial, and I might have missed his point. I took two workshops on the Zone System. One was taught by an old geezer who has used the ZS since time immemorial, and we spent days hunched over a densitometer, taking reading after reading of test films. And when the dust settled and we tried to actually make some prints, they looked like crap. I then took another workshop, taught by a different (and from a much younger generation, and whose own portfolio was wonderfull) teacher who kept us away from the densitometer. We did all of out testing with our eyes. We judged Zone VII with our eyes, and we judged Zone III with out eyes. And if it wern't for the distraction of attractive models from a concurrent fashion workshop coming and going, making me mess up my development timings, perhaps my photos would not have also ended up looking like crap. Umm...what was the question again? Oh, yeah...I think (perhaps incorrectly) that Mike was saying in his post that too many people were relying on photographic technology without bothering to use their own eyes in judging print quality. Perhaps I'm completely out too lunch here. No problem.... Dan C. At 02:28 PM 15-11-00 -0500, Martin Howard wrote: >Dan Cardish jotted down the following: > >> What you seem to be implying here is that the sensitometry route a la Phil >> Davis is not the way to go, that it is preferable to put away the >> densitometers and simply use your eyes to do the testing. > >Huh!? OK, Mike doesn't need defending by me, but how on Earth did you >manage to draw that conclusion from what he wrote? Mike wrote about how >people prefer to speculate and conjecture, rather than gathering facts. >They'll use opinion, heresay, or myth as the basis for their own decisions, >rather than actually putting a lens to the test, doing a small study, or >otherwise try to find some factual basis. Sensitometry falls under >gathering facts. As opposed to, say, using split-filtering Multigrade fibre >developed in Kodak developer, and bleaching each print because that's what >Famous Photographer X was reported to always do. > >M. > >-- >Martin Howard | >Visiting Scholar, CSEL, OSU | Science: To question reality. >email: howard.390@osu.edu | >www: http://mvhoward.i.am/ +--------------------------------------- > > > >