> for example: I just shot off a really contrasty roll of ilford's new
> infrared film. I shot it at the rated speed, and developed it normally, in
> the developer most highly recommended by the ilford literature. Driving home
> from work I had a great discussion with myself about how creating contrast
> with light differs/relates to creating contrast thru development. They
> played back on themselves. I know, not a direct analogy, but close enough
> given the point i'm trying to make...
>
> Judy: do you ever relate the information you gather from step tablets to
> what you know about the zone system?
>
> Carson: do you ever relate what you gather from the zone system to what you
> know about d.r. and step tablets?
(question: "d.r." = "density range"?)
An important component of the zone system is to make one more sensitive to
the contrast of the light in a scene and the contrast implied by one's
previsualization. These are, respectively, the density ranges that
exist in the scene and the range of tones you want on the final print.
A further extension of this comes in evaluating the print. If you have an
idea of where you started (d.r. of the scene) and where you want to go
(previsualization), then you have a basis for evaluating the success of
your attempts to get there, and better yet, a clue as to how and what
to change to get them if you haven't gotten what you want.
The step tablet is another tool you can use to achieve this end. As I
said in my previous post, it is hard to put a gray scale (like from a
MacBeth Color Checker) in a scene that you are shooting unless it is
completely static, though it is very helpful when you are printing
something like a gum or platinum print and can print the negative and
the step tablet side by side. I think that both the zs and the step
tablet are tools with different strengths that give you essentially the
same information when used appropriately.
BTW: I think you are asking a really good question, and I especially
like your musing about how light vs development create contrast
differently. My answer to that question would be that while density is
density (sort of like the commercial a few years back for chicken
pieces - "parts is parts") that there are subjective differences that
might produce a different "looking" image. Well perhaps not even
subjective, as the way light reflects within a scene can actually cause
small density differences in localized areas that might not be
measureable given the right situation.
>
> Is it not possible for a knowledge of both to play back on eachother (and
> then throw both out the window, as some on the technique vs. creativity
> thread might recommend :))?
Well, I'm an advocate of knowing the rules before breaking the rules.
I'm willing to admit that the distinction might be all in my mind, but
in my work it has always been an important distinction. My personal
use of the Diana (plastic toy) camera really didn't start making
sense to me until I had a solid working understanding of the zone
system. It was my grounding in and advocacy of thoughtful craft that
allowed me the freedom to use a camera that denies most of this craft.
Sounds strange, I know.
Thanks for your question
Carson
carson@ileaf.com