
I believe he dug up and re-animated the corpse of Frederick Scott Archer and asked its advice. SteveHopson 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Ansel Adams was a master of the black arts. While the Zone page credits Archer with the co-invention, Archer died in 1857, 83 years before the system was devised?Ĭan someone reconcile these differences? Perhaps the Adams link goes to the wrong Fred Archer, and that Archer deserves the creation of his own page.

Curiously the Frederick Scott Archer describes his contributions to photography, but does not refer to the Zone System at all. 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). Gah4 ( talk) 03:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC) Frederick Scott Archer I don't know any reason to argue one way or the other for film photography, the subject here. (Not that they are necessarily right.) I suspect that Dynamic range is used more in digital photography, and less in analog (film) photography, partly because of fundamental physics differences. Dfeuer 05:27, (UTC)ĭynamic range is used often in audio, and I suspect that will influence the google hit counts. 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. 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. But in photography it's used in a half-dozen ways. It's OK if people want to use it idiomatically, and easily understood if used in a specific context. In fact, "dynamic range" says nothing more than "range" alone says. The problem is that it's a redundant term. True, "dynamic range" is in the vernacular in many fields, including photography. 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. To see what I mean, do a google search for both terms (with the quotes). "Dynamic range" is in the vernacular of photography the phrase has a meaning that is slightly different than the sum of its elements. I think "dynamic range" is better than "sensitivity range" for this article.
#Etsy photos lightzone manuals#
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. 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.

My understanding is that external references should be only to noncommercial materials. While it did give information about the zone system, it was clearly also a commercial website. What "ranges" for photographers is the luminosity of a scene and the sensitivity of materials. "Range" itself has the connotation of "dynamic," and the dynamics do not "range" in any event. True, terms like "B&W" and "dynamic range" and "previsualization" are often used, and were even used by Adams himself.īut "dynamic range," for example, is not a useful or even accurate term. I revised this page to improve flow and to use more accurate terms. Maikel 00:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC) My rewrite of the Zone system Zone System is a proper name and should therefore be capitalized. according to my understanding of how the articles should be named, then redirected the former to the latter. Moved "Zone System" content to this "Zone system" page.
#Etsy photos lightzone how to#
