Talk:Zone system
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to filmmaking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
 |
This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Moved "Zone System" content to this "Zone system" page...
... according to my understanding of how the articles should be named, then redirected the former to the latter. --NathanHawking 23:38, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)
[edit] My rewrite of the Zone system
I revised this page to improve flow and to use more accurate terms. True, terms like "B&W" and "dynamic range" and "previsualization" are often used, and were even used by Adams himself.
But "dynamic range," for example, is not a useful or even accurate term. "Range" itself has the connotation of "dynamic," and the dynamics do not "range" in any event. What "ranges" for photographers is the luminosity of a scene and the sensitivity of materials.
I also removed the external link. While it did give information about the zone system, it was clearly also a commercial website. My understanding is that external references should be only to noncommercial materials.
In addition, I uncapitalized "Zone System" because, while many (though hardly all) choose to capitalize it as a proper name, to the best of my recollection Adams generally used it less formally. I believe he would have felt the incessant capitalization of the term pretentious, but if anyone has any of his old zone system manuals perhaps they can drop a note to my talk page. --NathanHawking 00:31, 2004 Sep 29 (UTC)
[edit] Dynamic range
I think "dynamic range" is better than "sensitivity range" for this article. "Dynamic range" is in the vernacular of photography; the phrase has a meaning that is slightly different than the sum of its elements. To see what I mean, do a google search for both terms (with the quotes).
It has been twenty years since I've read Ansel Adams' book The Negative, and I don't remember the term he used- but I will try to find it and check.
Duk 21:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. True, "dynamic range" is in the vernacular in many fields, including photography. The problem is that it's a redundant term. In fact, "dynamic range" says nothing more than "range" alone says. It's OK if people want to use it idiomatically, and easily understood if used in a specific context. But in photography it's used in a half-dozen ways. If I say "the dynamic range of film," am I referring to the range its sensitivity to light, or to the range of its opacity to transmitted light?
- In a forthcoming contribution to the zone system article, I plan to list the variables photographers must recognize, including: luminosity range of the scene, sensitivity range of film and paper, opacity range of film, and reflectance range of paper. At various times these have all been called "dynamic range." This use of the term is worth noting in passing, but why not be specific in an encyclopedia article? --NathanHawking 22:09, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)
-
- Dynamic range means something very specific in music, where it refers to range in volume.
- --Dfeuer 05:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Frederick Scott Archer
This page and the Ansel Adams page each contain a reference to Archer as the co-inventor of the Zone System (although the pages refer to him as 'Fred Archer,' the Adams page links to Frederick Scott Archer). Curiously the Frederick Scott Archer describes his contributions to photography, but does not refer to the Zone System at all. While the Zone page credits Archer with the co-invention, Archer died in 1857, 83 years before the system was devised?
Can someone reconcile these differences? Perhaps the Adams link goes to the wrong Fred Archer, and that Archer deserves the creation of his own page. SteveHopson 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
- Ansel Adams was a master of the black arts. I believe he dug up and re-animated the corpse of Frederick Scott Archer and asked its advice... (*cough*)
- As far as I can (seriously) tell, they are two different people. Note that the 19th century guy wasn't "Mr. Archer"; his surname was "Scott Archer".
- I have looked into this, and have added the information to a newly-created Fred Archer (photographer) article. Perhaps others can add more information to this stub. Fourohfour 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, the article is a good start. SteveHopson 16:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Slide film
A distinction needs to be made between slide and digital. You simply cannot underexpose for slide film, in the same degree as digital...with this in mind I have removed the reference to slide being similar to digital. I feel that it is not.
Slide needs correct exposure, significant underexposure will ruin a photo. Limits of dynamic range over the lattitude of slide are countered best with a ND graduated filter...
I also feel that in certain parts, ie Dynamic range, should also be linked and explained as similar to latitude. Possible that the style is somewhat overbearing and not simple enough to get the message through —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Barryfitzgerald (talk • contribs).
- I'm not sure I agree with you about underexposing slide film. Just how much underexposure are you referring to? I must admit I'm still quite new to slide film. I slightly overexposed my first roll of Provia because I had become accustomed to using the light meter in my camera for print film. The next few rolls I made sure to purposefully underexpose by a half or a full stop (according to the meter), and the results were much better. Scanning them with a Coolscan V, I found that a lot of detail can be hidden in the dark areas. Using the curves tool in Cinepaint (derived from The GIMP), I could really make quite a lot of hidden detail appear out of the dark.
- Still, the point should be made that you expose print film for the shadows and expose slide/digital for the highlights. Print film can handle being overexposed (sometimes quite a lot) without losing detail in the highlights, whereas slide and digital can't. Slide film goes transparent and digital maxes out. --Imroy 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- This is one area where Cinepaint (i.e. the 16-bit Film Gimp) should score over the ordinary Gimp, which only has 8-bits. Highlight and shadow detail are compressed into narrow ranges at the ends of the scale, and "stretching" this will exaggerate and (possibly) show up quantisation (i.e. loss of graduation/information). Fourohfour 17:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
The terms "overexposed" and "underexposed" are often misused as they are in a paragraph above. A photographer never over or under-exposes intentionally because those terms indicate incorrect exposure - an error. If someone increases exposure to produce a correct exposure or to produce a special effect (also a "correct" exposure), they should say that they have increased exposure, not overexposed the image. After all, the image is not overexposed if that's how the photographer wanted it. (If you find that a cake you baked is not done enough, you would not over-cook the next one; you would increase the oven temperature or increase the bake time. The result should be a properly cooked cake, not an over-cooked one.) However, if a photographer is describing an incorrect exposure, then the terms underexposed and overexposure are correct. The statement in the above paragraph which says, "The next few rolls [SIC} I made sure to purposefully underexpose by a half or full stop... and the results are much better" is an example of the improper usage of the term "underexpose." It should have said, "For the next few rolls, I made sure to purposefully REDUCE exposure..." The decrease in exposure was used to compensate for a variable with the purpose of correcting bad exposures. If he had actually underexposed the next few rolls, they would not be exposed correctly by definition and they would have been worse than the original rolls. In this case, the photographer originally had an overexposure so he reduced exposure to obtain correct exposures. He did not underexpose at all when he compensated. Misuse of those terms is not conducive to a clear understanding of the principles of exposure. This is especially important in a discussion of the Zone System which depends greatly on such a clear understanding as well as precise and accurate usage of the terminology involved. There is enough confusion about the Zone System without adding to it. - [Tom Johnston]
[edit] Fred Archer's role
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that much information out there about Fred Archer's part in the creation of the zone system. Fred Archer is definitely *not* Frederick Scott Archer; the latter died in the 1850s. I came across one comment that was only available via the Google cache. It suggested that Fred Archer was working at a college in Los Angeles and published a series of articles in U.S. Camera during the late 1930s, these forming the basis of the zone system.
I added it to the Fred Archer article. Perhaps it should go here too? Fourohfour 16:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
