Longer focal lengths in B&W

[nico4444]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, pippy said:

Where, exactly, am I contradicting myself?

I realllly don't want to stay here typing any more to you, because it is fruitless to both parties and in the case I read/interpreted your statements wrong, I apologize in advance so that we can move on.

5 hours ago, pippy said:

A B&W shot of a one-coloured bird.......would make a boring pic regardless of focal-length.

Then, rather arrongantly:

1 hour ago, pippy said:

What differentiates our methodologies is that I know exactly what to do when shooting on the street in b'n'w with longer than 50mm lenses.

 

[pippy]

1 minute ago, nico4444 said:

I realllly don't want to stay here typing any more to you, because it is fruitless to both parties and in the case I read/interpreted your statements wrong, I apologize in advance so that we can move on.

Then, rather arrongantly:

I didn't contradict myself and you know it. As far as arrogance is concerned my wording which you quoted was in reply to this earlier piece of sheer rudeness from yourself;

" I don't shoot B&W for the sake of it - I shoot B&W with intent and I think that what differentiates our methodologies..."

I'll leave you to your conceited ignorance and bad manners.

[nico4444]

48 minutes ago, pippy said:

I didn't contradict myself and you know it. As far as arrogance is concerned my wording which you quoted was in reply to this earlier piece of sheer rudeness from yourself;

" I don't shoot B&W for the sake of it - I shoot B&W with intent and I think that what differentiates our methodologies..."

I'll leave you to your conceited ignorance and bad manners.

Take a deeper look at what is written and maybe instead of assuming negative connotation from my sentence, you should actually take the effort in understanding it first from my point of view. The "intent" from that sentence that we are refering to is my use of zone system when taking the shot and I find it a rigorous and genuine attempt from my part in taking a good shot, because it demonstrates, to me at least, a good effort that is not entirely aimless and that is completely personal. Others may have a different way of taking pictures from myself, so I am correct in the usage of my words in that regards, because others may have different methodologies to mine. I have a set of priciples that I follow in photography as do you. How's that at all rudeness from me for saying that? It would have been a much more level-headed choice to ask me to expand on that before taking it the way you did, because I may be partly to blame for phrasing it that way. From my point of view, I did not see anything wrong with what I wrote, so your replies made no sense to me.

P.S.: I said it was a bit contradictive, because first you say you can't get a good picture regardless of the focal length due to lack of tonal gradation and subsequentially you say you are more than capable in doing so, so either you are disregarding the zone system when taking that bird picture or it turns contradictive.

P.P.S.: I would have rather settled this in private, but you can't receive DMs.

[Jeff S]

Quite the mix of issues here. Once again, the zone system is not synonymous with tonal gradations.  It’s merely a system, developed in the film era, to label, determine, capture and print those tones. Many other approaches can suffice to accomplish the same, especially  in the digital realm.  
 

A great b/w photograph can have few tones or many tones; there are no rules. Even the zone system didn’t mandate aesthetic styles. Creativity is boundless.
 

Photographing with intent is a separate issue; the zone system is not required.  Choosing focal length for street photography is another issue, irrespective of the zone system.
 

Very strange thread, even before all the verbal spitting.  And ironic that I’ve been the one accused of complicating matters and bringing up history, when the OP insists on continually bringing up the zone system, which is film oriented. Quite the contrary; the digital concepts and techniques are relatively simple, and the zone system is not needed. The hard part, as usual, depends on the user, not on some specific system or technique.

Jeff

[nico4444]

17 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

And ironic that I’ve been the one accused of complicating matters and bringing up history, when the OP insists on continually bringing up the zone system, which is film oriented. Quite the contrary; the digital concepts and techniques are relatively simple, and the zone system is not needed. The hard part, as usual, depends on the user, not on some specific system or technique.

Jeff

The zone system can be used in digital photography as much as it is used in film and in the context of my post, film has nothing to do it with at all, so although I appreciate your thorough explaination of your experiences in film, they do not translate well at all to the more modern digital. You suggesting that the zone system is not needed as part of digital concepts clearly shows the gaps in your knowledge of digital photography and its post-editing and printing processes. There is no need to participate in every post on this website if you have no concise understanding and suggestions pertaining the post.

[Jeff S]

21 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

The zone system can be used in digital photography as much as it is used in film and in the context of my post, film has nothing to do it with at all, so although I appreciate your thorough explaination of your experiences in film, they do not translate well at all to the more modern digital. You suggesting that the zone system is not needed as part of digital concepts clearly shows the gaps in your knowledge of digital photography and its post-editing and printing processes. There is no need to participate in every post on this website if you have no concise understanding and suggestions pertaining the post.

Of course it can, but it’s definitely not necessary..

https://www.alanrossphotography.com/can-the-zone-system-go-digital-2/
 

Rest is too funny to debate.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

BTW, the M9 Monochrom has a RAW based histogram, complete with zones.  Just for you.  😏

Jeff

[pgk]

1 hour ago, nico4444 said:

The zone system can be used in digital photography as much as it is used in film and in the context of my post, film has nothing to do it with at all, so although I appreciate your thorough explaination of your experiences in film, they do not translate well at all to the more modern digital. You suggesting that the zone system is not needed as part of digital concepts clearly shows the gaps in your knowledge of digital photography and its post-editing and printing processes.

Rubbish. The Zone System was relevant when using film and not particularly useful with digital. As I previously stated, if you have a RAW file which can be revisited innumerable times the Zone System is not relevant. What is important is deciding where your highlights/shadows should be and exposing accordingly. If you think there is any way in which the Zone System can alter a RAW file please explain it.

[nico4444]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Of course it can, but it’s definitely not necessary..

https://www.alanrossphotography.com/can-the-zone-system-go-digital-2/
 

Rest is too funny to debate.

Jeff

I don't know at this point whether you are just trolling me. That article is in favour of my argument on the importance of the zone system in digital photography.

Humility is virtue.

16 minutes ago, pgk said:

Rubbish. The Zone System was relevant when using film and not particularly useful with digital. As I previously stated, if you have a RAW file which can be revisited innumerable times the Zone System is not relevant. What is important is deciding where your highlights/shadows should be and exposing accordingly. If you think there is any way in which the Zone System can alter a RAW file please explain it.

That is a pretty significant statement without any sort of reference to back it up. There is a prominent digital B&W photographer that rose up in recent years who swears by the zone system and the idea to have each gray tone represented in a B&W photo has been generated by no other than Ansel Adams. My main point is achieving the full spectrum of the gray tones in an image using longer focal lengths as opposed to my trusty 28mm is more difficult, simply because the frame is tigher and requires more planning to fill out the necessary gray tones. Utilizing and processing the Monochrom RAW files to achieve the full tonal gradation is definitely possible, but if the tones are not there in the first place, then it won't feel as natural and I am one who prefers to keep editing to the minimum. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you agree with that idea, because our statements are completely subjective based on our preferences.

[pgk]

4 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I That is a pretty significant statement without any sort of reference to back it up.

Digital photography is a visual process. You adjust a RAW file until the image produced is what you want. What matters is obtaining an exposure which has relevant highlight and shadow detail. Your statements about differing tonality from different focal lengths is not subjective, it is wrong. Enough.

[nico4444]

11 minutes ago, pgk said:

Your statements about differing tonality from different focal lengths is not subjective, it is wrong. Enough.

You are not even taking the time to understand that I am asking for user feedback and not a boolean answer, while also conveniently deflecting my argument about zone system in digital.

I am the one who is having enough of this kind of obtuse responses.

[pedaes]

14 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

I am asking for user feedback

Just read this thread and think you are asking a very obscure question, which to most of us will make no sense at all. Good luck with your use of the 'zone system' but it seems to be taking you up a blind alley. If it helps, I have just checked a b&w image taken with a Summicron 90mm and it has tones from zone one to ten, where one is black with no detail and ten is white with no detail recorded. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by pedaes

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, nico4444 said:

I don't know at this point whether you are just trolling me. That article is in favour of my argument on the importance of the zone system in digital photography.

Humility is virtue.

 

You find contradictions from many here, because nuance and context apparently isn’t your strong suit.  Two or more things can be simultaneously true.  I’d try to explain the purpose of the Alan Ross article, but it probably would hurt your head.

Humility, indeed.  Try it.  

Jeff

[nico4444]

23 minutes ago, pedaes said:

Just read this thread and think you are asking a very obscure question, which to most of us will make no sense at all. Good luck with your use of the 'zone system' but it seems to be taking you up a blind alley. If it helps, I have just checked a b&w image taken with a Summicron 90mm and it has tones from zone one to ten, where one is black with no detail and ten is white with no detail recorded. 

That is precisely why I am asking. Am I not allowed to probe into something that I found worth investigating? Also, for the last time, I am asking if users have more difficulty using longer focal lengths in B&W with the zone system in mind. That is it.

 

15 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

You find contradictions from many here, because nuance and context apparently isn’t your strong suit.  Two or more things can be simultaneously true.  I’d try to explain the purpose of the Alan Ross article, but it probably would hurt your head.

Humility, indeed.  Try it.  

Jeff

Perhaps you aren't capable of explain it at all, let alone in favour of your argument? Provocation aside, all of your posts so far have had negligible contribution to my post and have only wasted time, which you seem to have plenty.

[a.noctilux]

Answering the OP title

 

...YES 😇

 

[a.noctilux]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pedaes]

47 minutes ago, nico4444 said:

using longer focal lengths in B&W with the zone system in mind. That is it

I would very much expect that none of the photographers on this forum, including myself, give any thought at all to the 'zone system' when they are taking a digital image with any focal length lens. . Why would we, with 14 stops of dynamic range? Take in RAW and develop the tonal range in PP.  Most are more concerned with hitting focus with' longer' lenses!

Edited February 16, 2021 by pedaes

[Michael Hiles]

My answer to your core question is NO. If I am concerned with the most accurate exposure, I bring along my 1º spot meter and I measure the scene. The 1º is usually narrow enough to let me measure what I want, regardless of the lens I am using (up to 200mm).

My relationship with the Zone systems is to find out/test what my personal film Speed is (XP2 for me is 200ASA with my camera and meter). And to place the tones of the scene on the zone I want (preserve shadow detail). Development adjustments of course are not possible with 35mm film, so I ignore that element of the Zone system. I always get essentially perfect negatives (by this I mean easily printable). Loads of shadow detail, and lots of usable detail in the highlights.

None of this has any relationship with the focal length of the lens. None. I never give it a thought. I use the lens best suited to the scene. And B&W or Colour is not a factor (although I almost never use colour film).

Edited February 16, 2021 by Michael Hiles

[AceVentura1986]

20 hours ago, nico4444 said:

I was looking at either the APO 75mm or APO 90mm, but I just have not seen a lot of pictures taken with those two lenses in B&W and I was just wondering if people are not finding great success with those focal lengths for B&W. Is your choice of predominantly using the 50mm a stylistic choice or a more practical choice?

I'm already prepared to shoot mostly on the EVF to get critical focus. I have used the Summilux-R 80 for a few years adapted and got great results in colour. The problem is composing in B&W with that focal length that I have trouble with. I also would love to have the combination of 28mm+50mm - I think it gives a good coverage for B&W. Is it a practical choice of yours for not using something above the 75mm?

Nicco, 

Personally, I find the 50 to be nearly ideal for most circumstances as it’s wide enough for most applications but can still serve as a portrait lens because it’s slightly telephoto as well. It’s for this reason that I use it as my standard lens on my M. It was also the standard lens on my Canon system till I got the 40mm, but  I still use it as well. 

Overall, I find a 75mm to be preferable to a 50mm for most formal portraits; I just prefer the look of the 75mm focal length in portraits. However, given that I use the M as an everyday camera the 50mm is more practical for most purposes while still lending itself to portrait use, something I can’t say about the 35mm. 

Still, if I were planning to use my M9M for a more formal portrait, I would likely mount the 75mm. If I were planning on using it for general purposes BUT thought I might want to shoot a portrait also, I would mount the 50mm as it’s more flexible. Note, this logic would apply on my Canon system as well, except that the question would be 50mm versus 85mm instead. 

Also, when I had a studio years ago I would often shoot portraits with my Canon 50mm even though I had my 85mm readily available. I just found that it’s a bit more useable while still being very good for portraits.

So, in sum, to me the 50mm Summicron is my primary lens on the M system because it serves most purposes, including portraiture. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[convexferret]

I'm a bit confused by what on earth you are asking. The zone system is a method of exposing and then manipulating the materials (development) so that tones map as best as possible onto the output medium. I started with that assumption until you yourself said that this wasn't about exposure. Reading between the lines your main issue seems to be that any photograph that doesn't contain a full range of tones is by defintion a poor photo and that by using a telephoto you think that you'll find it harder to include blacks, whites and everything in between in a single frame.

I can't believe that this is really your premise, surely?