RE: dig negs (Burkholder)
For what it's worth, I never took your observations as any sort of
attack so no problem here. It's natural that different methods have
their advocates and followings. So though your apology is a kind
gesture, it certainly was neither needed nor expected. And I hope you
don't get any more off-list notes (none of which were from me). ;^)
About the Zone System. I recall (note: name drop ahead) the first time I
assisted Jerry Uelsmann in Yosemite in the 1980's. A student asked him
how he metered. Jerry paused, looked down at his Bronica, pointed to the
shutter speed dial and said, "see the green A." Sorta put it all in
Camden Hardy wrote on 10/3/06, 9:42 AM:
> One more note, and then I'm done with this topic (I can hear your
> rejoicing now). :)
> My initial reply to this thread was written quickly, and as a result I
> think a lot of people (possibly everyone) misunderstood me.
> My post was in no way an attack of any sort toward Dan Burkholder. I
> the utmost respect for him, and think he's doing wonderful things in the
> I prefer PDN not because it's "better" per se, but because it works
> for me and my workflow. I can't stress enough that this is my own
> personal opinion, not scientific fact.
> This topic is somewhat analogous to the zone system debate that's gone on
> for decades. Some choose to use it, others don't. That's not to say
> one "camp" is right or wrong, but each person has found something that
> works for them. This is what I've been trying to articulate (albeit very
> I think it's futile and pointless to argue which is "better", because
> both have their advantages and disadvantages, but are both equally good.
> Again, this is something I should have been much more clear about in my
> first hasty reply, and for that I apologize.
> That's it, I'm done.
> Camden Hardy