Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/09/27
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Anthony Atkielski wrote: > > It's great to have definite ideas as to where your > > thresholds are in a numerical sense so you can count > > on your fingers. > > It seems like an unnecessary complication. Why not just pick the > brightest part of the photo in which you want to see detail, and the > darkest part, and make sure they are no more than five stops apart? > If they are more than five stops apart, you have to decide which end > to sacrifice. Simple. Why bother with zones? Why bother with zones? You just did. You've caught on the essence of the zone system. The rest of the mumbo-jumbo is meant only to keep the unwashed masses at a distance. > Furthermore, since you really have no control over the lighting of a > scene outside a studio, wouldn't it be simpler still to meter for the > most important part of the image, and then just let the rest fall > where it may? Well, if nothing else, in that way you know when *not* to take a picture. If the needed info is too far apart, then don't take the shot, or load up with Tri-X and do what Johnny Deadman does: split-process. The more you know about how to judge the light around you (in absolute, and relative values), the better your photography becomes, because you learn how to make the best out of a less than ideal situation, whereas your untrained eyes will betray you and make you think you are looking at the ideal shot. How many "lucky shots" do you really want to take.... I like the feeling that I *know* what I've shot. Bernard