Before I go any further with my own ".02" on the premise of  "digital" photography. I initially, want to reiterate that there is "no" true significance to this whole write-up, and being just a mere practitioner of this pervasive art medium, and "what" I may try to communicate across, would only be pertinent to those who are currently on the same page as I am. I would only hope that I may also come across clear to those who are experiencing the same "overwhelmed" high curve to it all. Besides I've taken this long hiatus of  lifting a camera, and only went back to it all when my little girl was born (for those kodak moments), and more so seriously, after reading Susan Sontag's "On Photography" book  the very day hearing on the radio of her passing, as a tribute to one of america's prolific writers of the time. Reading "On Photography" is  recommended reading for any photographer, I should declare, because this was the read "enzyme" needed for me to get back in the art. There, however, isn't anything mentioned on photo technique or creativity in her book, only her own assessment (take) on the realm of photography. Her book (personally) satiates  the "null and void moments encountered" when photographing becomes "too mechanical."

It's common knowledge that ansel adams brought to the photographic (black and white) world the "zone system". the whole premise being, that there are nine zones where the middle of the nine would be your "gray" and at the extremes "1" being "pitch black" and "9" being "pure white".  I'm not going to touch on this in detail, because, for one, - I  have to admit, I  was barred from taking the "zone system" course back in photoschool days because I felt a need to (at the time) and finally dropped the pre-requisite – "large-format photography" due to being flustered with the "schiempflug principle" usage with the view camera, and never-ever went back for it again, thus, my history of  no "zone" for me. My "zone" theory and it's hard-knocks application, however, was always intuitive and second-nature, whenever I photograph those quick "down and dirty" shots. Bracketing exposures, always, is a  luxury for film and time, and that there can never be a way you can do a quick "5-up/5-down" when photographing people.

At any rate, Mr. Adams, stressed that it would be of good intuitive-practice to always –

"EXPOSE FOR THE SHADOWS AND DEVELOP FOR THE HIGHLIGHTS". What this simply means - is meter for the dark areas of what's being photographed, and later, developing  the film at  a specific development time and standard chemical temperature. This consequently  puts your "target-subject" in the photograph, right around the area of the tone curve of the film. theoretically, this technique should give you the whole gamut of the 9 zones. I know this whole "zone" concept strictly applies to black and white photography, but you can actually apply this concept to colour-film only in the exposure aspect of your shot, but you'll need the cooperation of your photofinishing expert at the kiosk or custom lab. Okay, so you've got slightly over-exposed negs because you've exposed/metered for the shadows, The trained technician would easily see that your processed negs are "dense" on the main-subject area, no fear, he's trained, on his end, to push whatever "density button" it takes for you to have decent photos with interesting color-saturation. my preference of shooting in black and white during my earlier years of photographing, was due to nothing, but the lame logic that  black and white has 9 zones and colour has 6, and I've always deemed  these colors to be-zones.

 the six being the basic colors of  Red, Green and Blue and it's complimentary colors of Cyan, Magenta and Yellow. My immature sentiment, to which led to "why I love to shoot black and white?" is simple, that I like the idea of my own mind to give it's own interpretation on what colours could possibly be present in a b/w photograph. If you ask me now on my personal take, it would simply be that b/w photos are dramatic, timeless, gives that real feel of nostalgia (when viewed years later), and not to mention being of "archival permanence" (when properly fixed and washed). But in either case, a colour photo should equate as good as it's black and white counterpart. It's all in personal preference. That "each is own" sort of a thing. Color down the road, especially in digital photography, is very essential. Just like drilling yourself with a "multiplication table", I would always (back in the day) drill myself on colors. Example – what single color is produced when two primary colors of green and blue when they are equally mixed? Ans: Cyan. What is the primary color of "Cyan"? Ans: Red. And this can go on, with every photographic color on the wheel. Enough said.

I'm going to suspend my ".02" on film for now. But if you happened to be glued on this write-up and you just happen to enjoy it, stay tune for more. I guess I've made some form of valid introduction to the old school "exposing with film", that may have some direct relevance to this so-called digital-exposing technique called – ETTR, an acronym for "expose-to-the-right", (which I believe is every RAW shooters 'unrevealed' secret in using the camera's HISTOGRAM while shooting with a DSLR), that I would enjoy to cover on.

Ciao for now.