<< I can state absolutely positively definitely and unequivocally that the
step
tablets tell you at a glance far more about what's happening, how
highlights are printing, what the precise range is, how shadows are
separating or not separating, smoothness of tone, etc. etc. etc.
Agree, agree, agree!
I have seen standard assignment in photography class where the students are
asked to make nine prints varying the exposure from -1 to +1 and varying the
development (of the negatives) from say -30% to +30%. When all are printed
and during the critiques, you would hear comments from some students like "I
like -1 exposure and +30% development," and anoother would say "I actually
like -1 exposure and -30% development." To me, students like that have missed
the point completely. The subject and the lighting condition may make them
like one combination over another, but they haven't really learned what they
should have in the assignment.
I think it would be much more beneficial (although it might sound boring to
some students) if the students are first assigned to do a copy negative with
a step tablet (in this case it would be a printed step tablet). Then by doing
the assignment with various degrees of exposure and development, the student
should be able to see how highlights, shadows, contrast, etc. are affected by
each combination. Only then the student can go ahead and do another
assignment on different subjects and lighting such as barn in a foggy day,
rainy day, under bright sunlight, etc.
Same thing is true for printing too. The effects of multiple exposure,
duotone, flashing, etc. can be studied with step tablet. If one is really
into control, even Sabatier effect can be measured with step tablet, but of
course, such is not necessary because in that kind of process, the
unpredictability is the desired effect, but I just want point out that the
test can still be performed if needed.
Of course my approach might be too stiff, probably because of my engineering
background. :P :)
>> Peter, sorry, I still do not see zone system as a way to "extract maximum
print quality." It's much ado about ordinary developer controls is the way
I see it. And the business about "pre-visualizing," which is the keystone
of the process, I consider deadly, a sure way to preclude what might be
called (pardon the expression) "creativity." >>
I don't think zone system should be associated with print quality at all
(unfortunately since this term is used originally, it has continued to be
used). It should be more related with design and control.
But I don't think it hinders or precludes creativity. You are still the
artist to control, decide, and judge the final effect you want. Whether one
wants to control the print in the camera, in the darkroom, on the computer
screen, etc., depends on his/her interest and skills/experience in each step
(of course the skills come from the interest too).
Each person has his/her own style. For example, if I look at a picture, I can
say I like it to have more constrast. In printing, I can use higher-grade
paper, or in alt. process, I can make an inter-negative with higer contrast,
or add/subtract dichromate in some processes, or use forced/reduced
development, or use Photoshop to adjust the level, etc. Or if I know in the
beginning (by measuring the important zones) that the contrast range is not
high enough for me, I can do N+1 development and get the higher-contrast
negative or positive in the first place. To me, they are all controls that I
can use, and I can use one or combination or all depending on the availabilty
and my experience in each step. I am still the one deciding what contrast
range I want, so the pre-visualizing doesn't really hinder my design process
or creativiity.
David S.