~5:31 FYI, Yosemite is pronounced "yoh-SEM-ih-tee". The name was a mistaken interpretation by an American explorer from the Miwok word Yohhe'meti meaning "they are killers [who live there]".
I have no opinion but does it make sense to speak about Zone System in digital ? and how to be close to it because negative is very different than sensor ?
Hello Matt. I finally did it. After considerable amount of planning. I self developed 2 rolls of Delta 400 exposed at box speed with Ilford DDX. I’m keen to show you the results. The results were certainly encouraging. Fine grain with great detail though the camera was a Contax G2. I expect sharpness and detail to improve with a Leica camera and lens.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 hi Matt. You ok ? I just put in an order for a 35mm summicron. Starting to feel at home with that focal length. I’ve sent you several scans to your instagram account.
@@baladino Hi Baladino, good thanks and you? All sounds Hugely exciting. I haven't receive any images yet on Instagram. Maybe email them so I am able to see them better on a large desktop screen. I am very keen to see them. Remind me some details about how they were shot and developed.
i would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this video dear matt. what a great channel. the way you bring the topic "zone system" closer to me is so full of passion and dedication that it is really a pleasure to listen to you and watch. you are a great educator. something like that is really rare here on youtube. so: have very dear thanks for this and please continue. nevertheless...this is surely due to my obtuseness...i didn't understand it in the end. 😅…… isn't it enough in the end to simply make out a zone v in the picture…to determine. shadows and highlights are then based on this? at the end of your video it went a bit too fast for me. please excuse me. i send you greetings from berlin. gerrit
Hello Gerrit, greetings to you also and thank you so very much for your kind words. You make a very valid point. And the answer in a word is yes, if that's how you wish to see the world. If 'average' or 'safe' is important to you then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, I would make the case that sometimes you might not want to listen to Classical music each and every time or if you do, maybe you don't want to listen to it at the exact same average volume. The Zone System allows you, having pre-visualized the scene, to then tailor it in the way you want to see it in the print form. Perhaps the easiest way to explain it is if you take an image and put it in Lightroom, the normal thing to do is to average everything out and not make it look too dark or too light. What if that wasn't how you saw the image when you took it. What if you want to darken it considerably to give it a mood to make it look a little more dramatic whilst still keeping or protecting some of the detail in the image. Conversely, and its quite 'trendy' to do so at the moment, or at least with colour photography, to over lighten or over expose images and have them look lighter and less saturated; more pastel like. Hopefully this helps. If not I would strongly suggest reading the 3 books.
Due to work commitments I watched this video to completion over 2 separate sessions. I gather that in order to get consistent results over time it would better to use a single film stock. To understand how the film stock responds to light. Ergo it would be difficult to visualise something we don’t understand entirely. Secondly if the dynamic range is too wide, sometimes the mid tones would be suitable to place in zone 5. Of course bearing in mind what the final image and where we want maximal detail to be as well as what we intend to create. Possibly this is why hard light in the afternoon is often avoided and the professionals always gravitated towards early morning light or golden hour. I’m still turning things over in my mind and I wish to thank you for your advice and discussion. I have 2 questions: why would we push or pull film if in doing so it would either reduce detail , acutance and add grain ? Since we have digital cameras with good sensors these days, does pushing FP4+ from 125 to 2 stops over or exposing HP5+ 400 to 1600 seem worthwhile ? Though by doing this we are able to use higher shutter speeds. I guess I just don’t understand the principle of this. That image of The Clash bass guitarist Paul Simonon for example was exposed in low light and is amazing.
You raise some really good valid points here.Well done for watching it all. Your first point re film stock and consistent results; its more to do with accurate results. So if i load a 36 exposure film say HP5 into my camera I might take the first photo of a landscape where I want to protect the cloud exposure for example. My next shot might be a studio portrait using flash. Each image will or might and very likely will require different ways of processing. Maybe I want to shorten the processing time by 15% for the landscape to protect the highlights of the clouds whereas the portrait might be normal processing. If I have different images requiring different processing times I simply cant do it. Ansel Adams shot mainly with single sheet film 5x4 or 10x8 and yes sometimes on Hasselblad but the point is he could do exactly as he wished to each sheet of film. When we visualise or previsualise as Adams put it we are assessing what is important to us in that scene. Are the clouds important, perhaps they are storm clouds rolling in and so we really want to ensure the exposure for them is correct and we accept there maybe a little bit of a trade off in the shadow areas. Perhaps the clouds are nothing special but the light hitting the waterfall is spectacular. In other words what is important to you in that scene and how do you want it to look. If the clouds are dramatic maybe you want to hit the image with some contrast to over emphasise just how dramatic they look. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you simply want to emphasise every detail in every tone possible. How do you evaluate the components within the scene, how do you want it to look before you press the shutter. This is 'Previsualisation'. Remember the other word I emphasised - interpretation. There is no fixed way, the Zone System is there for you to utilise but it isn't a rule, it is a way for you to access how to expose your film and make the correct exposure based on how you want the image to look. You say it would be difficult to visualise something we don't understand entirely. I take your point but I also disagree. If you don't understand the scene move on, maybe it isn't interesting. If you see something that grabs you and takes your breath away ask yourself why it is resonating with you so strongly. Is it the clouds, is it the river; what's making you stop and stare. Then simply visualise it. Determine how you want it to look in a print. Do you want a grainy image. What camera are you shooting it on? Is it important to reveal as many tones as possible or do you want it to look dramatic with contrast and maybe some grain. Only you can Visualise the way you want it to look based on how you see it and feel about it. Personally I shoot in all light situations, hard light, diffused. Its about knowing how to control light. People/photographers tell you all sorts of things you should and shouldn't do but at the end of the day you need to know how to use light. True if your scene/a landscape lets say in your mind would look better in diffused light then that's your call. Ansel Adams shot in hard light and it created some absolutely stunning images for him. As for your two questions; I cant really talk about digital here, other than to say you can simulated under developing or over developing film in Lightroom. I have a Vlog on my Channel depicting pros and cons of both digital and film if you want. Generally the rule of thumb is that you under develop film by 15% or so to protect highlights if for example you have photographed a fairly contrasty scene using a grey card (Mid-grey on the Zone System) and you want to ensure you have some detail in the white highlight areas. Reducing the development time prevents the highlights from blowing and helps retain some detail. As for pushing and or pulling your film..yes over exposing and under developing will tend to give you flatter images and retain more detail and not emphasise grain. Pushing on the other hand does the precise opposite. Pushing film will also allow you to shoot in lower light with faster shutter speeds but the important thing always here to remember is the chemical you use; the developer is critical. You can under expose two stops (pushing) and over develop and get vastly differing outcomes depending on your developer, how and how much you agitate, the temperature of the developer. I push nearly always and my grain is very fine and retain huge amounts of details in my negative and yet create a little punch in my images at the same time and all because of the developer I use. Hope this helps; give me a shout if you need further info.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 Hello Matt. Thank you for your reply. I received 3 of Ansel Adam’s books today. I’ll do my homework and get back to you. I’ll start with the Camera.
@@baladino That's wonderful. Enjoy, they'll be a great investment. If there's passages you don't understand skip them and move on; it'll all start falling into place.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 Matt , I haven’t finished watching your video on home development however I have ordered reels and tanks. What developer should I use ? I mainly have Ilford Delta 400 and Tri X 400 and Ilford XP2 as my main B&W. I have. Possible 30 rolls of each of those listed above. According to what I’ve read online Ilford Ilfotec DD-X is recommended for best results. I’m unable to get Rodinal or Kodak based developers where I am.
@@baladino It completely depends Baladino. How many film do you have to develop; more importantly how do you want your images to look. How large do you like your grain or how fine. The film alone doesn't dictate this - the developer you use does also. As does the way you agitate the film once it's in the developer. Have you purchased a Paterson tank?
Thank you so much for the video, your passion bursts out the screen
It's a pleasure and thank you for commenting. Hope it helps.
Thank you. :)
Oh man, “the 90’s?! I believe the first book was 1940…
~5:31 FYI, Yosemite is pronounced "yoh-SEM-ih-tee". The name was a mistaken interpretation by an American explorer from the Miwok word Yohhe'meti meaning "they are killers [who live there]".
I have no opinion but does it make sense to speak about Zone System in digital ? and how to be close to it because negative is very different than sensor ?
Hello Matt. I finally did it. After considerable amount of planning. I self developed 2 rolls of Delta 400 exposed at box speed with Ilford DDX. I’m keen to show you the results. The results were certainly encouraging. Fine grain with great detail though the camera was a Contax G2. I expect sharpness and detail to improve with a Leica camera and lens.
I am over the moon for you. Extremely well done. Do you have an instagram account - I'd love to seem them.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 hi Matt. I have messaged you in instagram. I don’t really use social media like instagram or Facebook since it’s inception.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 hi Matt. You ok ?
I just put in an order for a 35mm summicron. Starting to feel at home with that focal length. I’ve sent you several scans to your instagram account.
@@baladino Hi Baladino, good thanks and you? All sounds Hugely exciting. I haven't receive any images yet on Instagram. Maybe email them so I am able to see them better on a large desktop screen. I am very keen to see them. Remind me some details about how they were shot and developed.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 Hello Matt. Thank you for offering to look at them. Could I get your email ?
i would like to thank you from the bottom of my heart for this video dear matt. what a great channel. the way you bring the topic "zone system" closer to me is so full of passion and dedication that it is really a pleasure to listen to you and watch. you are a great educator. something like that is really rare here on youtube. so: have very dear thanks for this and please continue.
nevertheless...this is surely due to my obtuseness...i didn't understand it in the end. 😅……
isn't it enough in the end to simply make out a zone v in the picture…to determine. shadows and highlights are then based on this? at the end of your video it went a bit too fast for me. please excuse me. i send you greetings from berlin. gerrit
Hello Gerrit, greetings to you also and thank you so very much for your kind words. You make a very valid point. And the answer in a word is yes, if that's how you wish to see the world. If 'average' or 'safe' is important to you then there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. However, I would make the case that sometimes you might not want to listen to Classical music each and every time or if you do, maybe you don't want to listen to it at the exact same average volume. The Zone System allows you, having pre-visualized the scene, to then tailor it in the way you want to see it in the print form. Perhaps the easiest way to explain it is if you take an image and put it in Lightroom, the normal thing to do is to average everything out and not make it look too dark or too light. What if that wasn't how you saw the image when you took it. What if you want to darken it considerably to give it a mood to make it look a little more dramatic whilst still keeping or protecting some of the detail in the image. Conversely, and its quite 'trendy' to do so at the moment, or at least with colour photography, to over lighten or over expose images and have them look lighter and less saturated; more pastel like. Hopefully this helps. If not I would strongly suggest reading the 3 books.
Due to work commitments I watched this video to completion over 2 separate sessions. I gather that in order to get consistent results over time it would better to use a single film stock. To understand how the film stock responds to light. Ergo it would be difficult to visualise something we don’t understand entirely. Secondly if the dynamic range is too wide, sometimes the mid tones would be suitable to place in zone 5. Of course bearing in mind what the final image and where we want maximal detail to be as well as what we intend to create. Possibly this is why hard light in the afternoon is often avoided and the professionals always gravitated towards early morning light or golden hour. I’m still turning things over in my mind and I wish to thank you for your advice and discussion. I have 2 questions: why would we push or pull film if in doing so it would either reduce detail , acutance and add grain ? Since we have digital cameras with good sensors these days, does pushing FP4+ from 125 to 2 stops over or exposing HP5+ 400 to 1600 seem worthwhile ? Though by doing this we are able to use higher shutter speeds. I guess I just don’t understand the principle of this. That image of The Clash bass guitarist Paul Simonon for example was exposed in low light and is amazing.
You raise some really good valid points here.Well done for watching it all. Your first point re film stock and consistent results; its more to do with accurate results. So if i load a 36 exposure film say HP5 into my camera I might take the first photo of a landscape where I want to protect the cloud exposure for example. My next shot might be a studio portrait using flash. Each image will or might and very likely will require different ways of processing. Maybe I want to shorten the processing time by 15% for the landscape to protect the highlights of the clouds whereas the portrait might be normal processing. If I have different images requiring different processing times I simply cant do it. Ansel Adams shot mainly with single sheet film 5x4 or 10x8 and yes sometimes on Hasselblad but the point is he could do exactly as he wished to each sheet of film.
When we visualise or previsualise as Adams put it we are assessing what is important to us in that scene. Are the clouds important, perhaps they are storm clouds rolling in and so we really want to ensure the exposure for them is correct and we accept there maybe a little bit of a trade off in the shadow areas. Perhaps the clouds are nothing special but the light hitting the waterfall is spectacular. In other words what is important to you in that scene and how do you want it to look. If the clouds are dramatic maybe you want to hit the image with some contrast to over emphasise just how dramatic they look. Perhaps you don't. Perhaps you simply want to emphasise every detail in every tone possible. How do you evaluate the components within the scene, how do you want it to look before you press the shutter. This is 'Previsualisation'. Remember the other word I emphasised - interpretation. There is no fixed way, the Zone System is there for you to utilise but it isn't a rule, it is a way for you to access how to expose your film and make the correct exposure based on how you want the image to look. You say it would be difficult to visualise something we don't understand entirely. I take your point but I also disagree. If you don't understand the scene move on, maybe it isn't interesting. If you see something that grabs you and takes your breath away ask yourself why it is resonating with you so strongly. Is it the clouds, is it the river; what's making you stop and stare. Then simply visualise it. Determine how you want it to look in a print. Do you want a grainy image. What camera are you shooting it on? Is it important to reveal as many tones as possible or do you want it to look dramatic with contrast and maybe some grain. Only you can Visualise the way you want it to look based on how you see it and feel about it.
Personally I shoot in all light situations, hard light, diffused. Its about knowing how to control light. People/photographers tell you all sorts of things you should and shouldn't do but at the end of the day you need to know how to use light. True if your scene/a landscape lets say in your mind would look better in diffused light then that's your call. Ansel Adams shot in hard light and it created some absolutely stunning images for him.
As for your two questions; I cant really talk about digital here, other than to say you can simulated under developing or over developing film in Lightroom. I have a Vlog on my Channel depicting pros and cons of both digital and film if you want. Generally the rule of thumb is that you under develop film by 15% or so to protect highlights if for example you have photographed a fairly contrasty scene using a grey card (Mid-grey on the Zone System) and you want to ensure you have some detail in the white highlight areas. Reducing the development time prevents the highlights from blowing and helps retain some detail. As for pushing and or pulling your film..yes over exposing and under developing will tend to give you flatter images and retain more detail and not emphasise grain. Pushing on the other hand does the precise opposite. Pushing film will also allow you to shoot in lower light with faster shutter speeds but the important thing always here to remember is the chemical you use; the developer is critical. You can under expose two stops (pushing) and over develop and get vastly differing outcomes depending on your developer, how and how much you agitate, the temperature of the developer. I push nearly always and my grain is very fine and retain huge amounts of details in my negative and yet create a little punch in my images at the same time and all because of the developer I use.
Hope this helps; give me a shout if you need further info.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 Hello Matt. Thank you for your reply. I received 3 of Ansel Adam’s books today. I’ll do my homework and get back to you. I’ll start with the Camera.
@@baladino That's wonderful. Enjoy, they'll be a great investment. If there's passages you don't understand skip them and move on; it'll all start falling into place.
@@mattbentley-walls3106 Matt , I haven’t finished watching your video on home development however I have ordered reels and tanks. What developer should I use ? I mainly have Ilford Delta 400 and Tri X 400 and Ilford XP2 as my main B&W. I have. Possible 30 rolls of each of those listed above. According to what I’ve read online Ilford Ilfotec DD-X is recommended for best results. I’m unable to get Rodinal or Kodak based developers where I am.
@@baladino It completely depends Baladino. How many film do you have to develop; more importantly how do you want your images to look. How large do you like your grain or how fine. The film alone doesn't dictate this - the developer you use does also. As does the way you agitate the film once it's in the developer. Have you purchased a Paterson tank?
I miss your videos; I hope that you are well.
Hey Socrates Ive been waiting for your photos and a suggestion for future vlogs, any thoughts? Best wishes.