From: TERRY KING, 101522,2625
TO: Mike Coslo, INTERNET:mjc5@psu.edu
DATE: 27/06/96 20:08
RE: Copy of: Re: Density Range
Mike
This is just the point Judy is making. The zone system is specific. If you are
using the term more widely, you are misusing it.
> Your definition of the zone system is entirely too strict. If you were to
extend the
> logic to alt. processes, you and Terry K. are not performing any processes
that could be
> named the same, as your discussions of your techniques attest to.
That is the converse of tjhe point. There are variations on different processes
which could be given different names. I have a bit of fun thinking up names for
them but these are a small part of the whole. You are trying to apply the name
for the small part, to the whole. Not only is this illogical but it causes
confusio0n among practioners and students who find themselves having the zone
system shoved down their throats when all they wanted to do was develop a film.
>
> For my own use, I haven't made a graph or plotted a curve in about 5
years. And the
> "testing" I do on new papers and emulsions is minimal, usually takes only a
couple rolls
> (yes rolls) or sheets. But I do take multiple meter readings, adjust contrast
and if my
> prints don't print with the selected areas at the zones I want, I go back and
find out why.
>
> Now does this mean that I am following some process that should be named
the Careless
> Zone System? I suppose that you could, but what would be the point? It is the
zone system
> nonethless.
>
You are just doing what photographers have been doing since long before the zone
system was invented.. Its called 'developing and printing'.
Terry King