Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Eric Welch wrote: > > sometime around 12/13/99 11:51 PM, Mark Rabiner at mrabiner@concentric.net > was heard to write: > > > But it is only a half stop brighter than the table because the light levels > > are > > so low. > > So you have to increase development of your neg to place that face where it > > belongs on you scale (Zone) plan or you just say screw it I'll print it on > > number 4 (instead of your normal 3). > > So where does that leave us in this issue? > > I think zones are frames of mind, what you make them, not logarithmic or > > numberical There are numbers involved. But they come later it think. > > Mark, > > You don't "place" zone V. You place Zone III and let the mid tones fall > where they may. Develop for the highlights (develop for your zone VI in this > example) and then use paper grades, and dodging and burning, to get your > final intent. You can't adjust development for two adjacent zones. It would > blow out the ends. > > -- > > Eric Welch > Carlsbad, CA > http://www.neteze.com/ewelch > > Zen master to hotdog vendor. "Make me one with everything." I'll admit I oversimplified. Having a zone VI tone fall a stop away from where you place zone V is not really a good example. A better example would have been if the table was a dark walnut so it would be zone III: your threshold last sign of detail in the shadows and then you would have the zone VI Caucasian face three stops up from it (and if it wasn't say an expansion was in order or the #4 paper. Development for the relationship only between two tones would be inaccurate and in practice I've never done it. Sorry for any confusion invoked. For a second there I thought I was a smart guy at midnight. Mark Rabiner Make me zone I with everything.