kerns@trwrba.UUCP (John G. Kerns) (07/25/85)
After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in
Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering
system of this camera would be nice for Zone System
photography. When I went to the camera store to test
the camera, the salesman told me that 6 out of 6 OM-4's
sold at his store had been returned because they were
defective. He will no longer carry the OM-4.
Is the OM-4 a piece of junk? Has anyone had a
happy experience with this camera?
John Kerns
{decvax|sdcrdcf}!trwrb!trwrba!kernsjordan@ucbvax.ARPA (Jordan Hayes) (07/29/85)
In article <1520@trwrba.UUCP> kerns@trwrba.UUCP (John G. Kerns) writes: > > After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in >Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering >system of this camera would be nice for Zone System >photography. Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development for each shot? ------------ Jordan Hayes jordan@ucb-vax.BERKELEY.EDU UC Berkeley ucbvax!jordan +1 (415) 835-8767 37' 52.29" N 122' 15.41" W
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (07/29/85)
> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in > Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering > system of this camera would be nice for Zone System > photography. When I went to the camera store to test > the camera, the salesman told me that 6 out of 6 OM-4's > sold at his store had been returned because they were > defective. He will no longer carry the OM-4. > Is the OM-4 a piece of junk? Has anyone had a > happy experience with this camera? If your dealer ordered all six of his OM-4's at the same time, perhaps they all had the same manufacturing defect because they all went through the same piece of broken machinery. I have several friends who own, or have owned, Olympus equipment. They all love it. I don't like their cameras much, myself, but that's because I'm left-eyed and the advance lever tends to poke me in the nose while winding.
rob@asgb.UUCP (Rob Greenbank) (07/29/85)
That's odd. I've been using my OM-4 for a year now, and have had no problems whatsoever. The spot metering is, I feel, terrific. It's hard to find a shot where there's not something in the view-finder that yould like to have turn out medium grey. My *only* complaint is that it doesn't show the aperture in the veiwfinder (which has always been a trait of Olympus for some strange reason). I wonder if the problem wasn't really at the store? The salesperson at one of the local stores told me they've been very reliable -- and that was when I had mine in trying a flash, so he wasn't trying to make a sale. I do remember mine doing some wierd things when the batteries finally ran out recently; maybe your store was using weak or defective ones? Rob Greenbank Burroughs, Boulder Colorado (decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!asgb!rob) (bmcg!asgb!rob@SDCSVAX.ARPA)
ger@trsvax (07/30/85)
>> >> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in >>Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering >>system of this camera would be nice for Zone System >>photography. > >Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development >for each shot? When shooting Kodachrome, development is controlled by Kodak. Zoning for transparencies gives great results in the proper situations. Are you a snob or what? The zone system is a methodology for light control in all picture situations. Just because Ansel's book only describes one method is no reason to put that method into the church services and delete all others. The OM-4 is a very good camera for slides. George Robertson ...ihnp4!sys1!trsvax!ger
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/31/85)
> Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development > for each shot? Come on, read Adams' _The_Negative_... Adams says in there something like ``many people believe the zone system is only for sheet-film cameras. This is not the case; you just don't have as much control over development of individual exposures with roll film.'' -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Fvzcyvsl, fvzcyvsl." -- UQG
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (07/31/85)
> > After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in > >Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering > >system of this camera would be nice for Zone System > >photography. > > Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development > for each shot? *** REPLACE THIS MESS WITH YOUR LINEAGE *** Puh-leeze! The zone system is a sensitometric approach, not a cookbook! The development adjustments are a REFINEMENT of the approach, NOT the be-all and end-all of the technique! You most certainly CAN do "zone system photography" without individual frame development. However, if that control is available, the zone system will allow the use of it, so that this aspect of the craft can be controlled. My soapbox statement: Get the Zone System off the pedestal and USE it! -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (Which organization doesn't care about the zone system, Brian Diehm, Ansel Adams, photography (except as applied to oscil- lography), HC-110, Kodachrome, Bogen tripods, . . .)
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (07/31/85)
In article <9414@ucbvax.ARPA> jordan@ucbvax.UUCP (Jordan Hayes) writes: >In article <1520@trwrba.UUCP> kerns@trwrba.UUCP (John G. Kerns) writes: >> >> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in >>Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering >>system of this camera would be nice for Zone System >>photography. > >Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development >for each shot? If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (08/01/85)
>>> >>> After reading a review of the Olympus OM-4 in >>>Modern Photography, I thought that the spot metering >>>system of this camera would be nice for Zone System >>>photography. >> >>Good luck doing zone system with 35mm. How will you control development >>for each shot? > When shooting Kodachrome, development is controlled by Kodak. Zoning for > transparencies gives great results in the proper situations. Are you a > snob or what? The zone system is a methodology for light control in all > picture situations. Just because Ansel's book only describes one method > is no reason to put that method into the church services and delete all > others. The OM-4 is a very good camera for slides. > George Robertson > ...ihnp4!sys1!trsvax!ger No, he's not a snob. The Zone System is a methodology for controlling both exposure and development in order to obtain a negative that will cover the full contrast range of the subject and will produce a good print with minimum manipulation on normal-grade paper. You measure the contrast range of the subject and use that to decide how long to develop; you measure the absolute brightness of various parts of the subject and use that to determine exposure.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (08/02/85)
> If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree > by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will > have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400. Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's characteristic curve? I.e., if you underexpose the film and develop it normally, most of the exposure will end up down in the region where the slope of the curve is less; which is, of course, exactly the definition of low contrast (please, no flames on the definition of "contrast index," I know the CI includes the nonlinear regions.). A disadvantage of this method, though, would be exactly that the curve IS nonlinear; so differences between two lower levels of luminance would be less pronounced than between two higher levels. This would tend to produce a loss of detail in the shadows. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Vg frrzf yvxr hc gb zr."
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (08/03/85)
> No, he's not a snob. > > The Zone System is a methodology for controlling both exposure and > development in order to obtain a negative that will cover the full > contrast range of the subject and will produce a good print with > minimum manipulation on normal-grade paper. This is true; certainly a very technical definition of the Zone System. Here's what Ansel Adams says with respect to the original subject, though (whether or not the Zone System can be used with roll film): Full control using the Zone System requires individual processing of each negative, obviously not practical for roll films. It is a mistake, however, to assume the Zone System therefore ``does not work'' with roll-film cameras; since it is a practical expression of sensitometric principles, the Zone System remains valid, even though its use is somewhat different. ... We also learn to visualize images within the limits _imposed_by_the_process_, regardless of format. With roll films we usually must accept the requirement for uniform development of the entire roll, and we can adjust our procedure to accomodate this fact. [Ansel Adams, _The_Negative_, 1981, Little, Brown, and Co. (NYGS), p. 93.] The only effect of varying the development (of black and white films) is to change the slope of the film's characteristic curve; this varies the contrast. Although this is an important part of the Zone System, a great deal more is involved. The idea of "minimum manipulation" is a key concept, though, and a really important one. It's always bothered me that most introductory texts on darkroom technique put a lot of emphasis on manipulation of the print, particularly dodging and burning-in. These are techniques for newspaper photography, to make visible the face of a celebrity photographed under difficult situations in which the face is hidden in shadow; etc. But Adams was a realist (realism is a genre of art; sadly, in photography it is given the almost derogatory term of ``straight photography'' in many comparative texts -- although realism in drawing and painting is currently unpopular as well, despite the fact that it is an art form that America has made a major contribution to). I've always thought it a little ironic that he thinks nothing of using filters to bring about heightened contrasts, etc., given this extreme dedication to realism. Somewhere in _The_Print_, Adams makes one of his occasional allusions to his philosophical position with respect to photography as an art form, when he comments that a bad (I think it was too high-contrast) negative he had has problems that ``could only be corrected by a complicated masking process.'' There's a basic truth to this, though it is another problem with the small roll films: with larger formats, you can make ``silver masks'' to also correct problems of contrast. With 35mm film, this is very hard to do, because it is hard to keep the negatives in register. (At least, this is true with the low-cost equipment I have. I think with a negative carrier that had pins that fit the sprocket holes in the film, you would have an excellent pin-register that would probably work well for this even with the small-format film.) Nevertheless, if you can make it work, it's another way to make individual contrast-adjustments for roll film (albeit very hard). I think that the more commonly-described manipulations of the print should usually be avoided. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Vg frrzf yvxr hc gb zr."
kanner@tymix.UUCP (Herb Kanner) (08/05/85)
In article <1415@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >> If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree >> by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will >> have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400. > >Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's >characteristic curve? I.e., if you underexpose the film and develop it >normally, most of the exposure will end up down in the region where the >slope of the curve is less; which is, of course, exactly the definition of >low contrast (please, no flames on the definition of "contrast index," I >know the CI includes the nonlinear regions.). > >A disadvantage of this method, though, would be exactly that the curve >IS nonlinear; so differences between two lower levels of luminance would >be less pronounced than between two higher levels. This would tend to >produce a loss of detail in the shadows. Nope, I was not talking about working at the toe (low exposure end of the curve) but about the other end ( would you call that the heel :-)?) Rate XP1 at ASA 100 and you will get a very dense negative, but because of the film's incredible dynamic range, the highlights will not block up. You will, however, be on a section of the curve that has a lower gamma than the section you would encounter at ASA 400. You will also get much finer grain. However, because of the density, you might not like the long printing time. Dick Delagi, in his recent article on XP1 in Popular Photography, said that he originally decided to shoot the stuff at ASA 200 in order to get finer grain (this stuff gets grainy where the negative is thin!!!), but reverted to ASA 400 because of the loss of contrast and excessive density from over-exposure. This implies that if your intent is to reduce contrast, you can achieve it by over-exposing. The reason you can do this with XP1 and not with conventional film is that the high end of the H & D curve flattens out very gradually, whereas the curve for conventional film comes to a rather abrupt halt. -- Herb Kanner Tymnet, Inc. ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!kanner
johnm@python.UUCP (J. Montgomery) (08/08/85)
> Puh-leeze! The zone system is a sensitometric approach, not a cookbook! The > development adjustments are a REFINEMENT of the approach, NOT the be-all and > end-all of the technique! You most certainly CAN do "zone system photography" > without individual frame development. Yes, well said. Modern films, especially in 35mm, don't tolerate expansion/ contraction as well as the thick emulsions of the past (and a change of paper grade will usually do the job anyway), so there is less call for this nowadays. The real core of the Zone System is previsualization and zone placement. My guess is that the problem with trying to do Zone System photography with the OM-4 is that would be difficult to make placements on zones other than Zone V. I suppose you could use the exposure compensation (i.e. set it on +1 stop to place on Zone VI) but this might be awkward, and I always forget to undo the compensation. It would probably be just as easy to use a manual camera and a spotmeter with a zone dial. -- John Montgomery Bell Communications Research ...{allegra, ihnp4, decvax, ucbvax}!bellcore!python!johnm
briand@tekig4.UUCP (Brian Diehm) (08/13/85)
> In article <1415@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: > >> If you use Ilford XP1, you can use Zone System doctrine to a limited degree > >> by changing the ASA rating for each shot. Exposed at ASA 100, the neg will > >> have much lower contrast than it will when exposed at ASA 400. > > > >Isn't this just an effect of nonlinearities in the "toe" region of the film's > >characteristic curve? I.e., if you underexpose the film and develop it > >normally, most of the exposure will end up down in the region where the > >slope of the curve is less; which is, of course, exactly the definition of > >low contrast (please, no flames on the definition of "contrast index," I > >know the CI includes the nonlinear regions.). > > > >A disadvantage of this method, though, would be exactly that the curve > >IS nonlinear; so differences between two lower levels of luminance would > >be less pronounced than between two higher levels. This would tend to > >produce a loss of detail in the shadows. > > Nope, I was not talking about working at the toe (low exposure end of the > curve) but about the other end ( would you call that the heel :-)?) Rate > XP1 at ASA 100 and you will get a very dense negative, but because of the > film's incredible dynamic range, the highlights will not block up. You > will, however, be on a section of the curve that has a lower gamma than the > section you would encounter at ASA 400. You will also get much finer > grain. However, because of the density, you might not like the long > printing time. > > Dick Delagi, in his recent article on XP1 in Popular Photography, said that > he originally decided to shoot the stuff at ASA 200 in order to get finer > grain (this stuff gets grainy where the negative is thin!!!), but reverted > to ASA 400 because of the loss of contrast and excessive density from > over-exposure. This implies that if your intent is to reduce contrast, you > can achieve it by over-exposing. The reason you can do this with XP1 and > not with conventional film is that the high end of the H & D curve flattens > out very gradually, whereas the curve for conventional film comes to a > rather abrupt halt. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***