I was able to visit Ansel's home, darkroom & saw his piano. I saw rolls of 120 film hanging up drying. He still bracketed a lot & that is a good idea as no matter how good your light meter technique is such as monitoring with a spot meter on a Zone 5 area only (if available). Some Zone 7-9 or 1-3 areas can really dominate & throw off the balance some & I got so I would adjust for it quite well & it reduced the need for bracketing & or use his special developing technique. You may not be able to go back & retake it to get it right if necessary that bracketing partially compensates for.
I had a great time saving technique when enlarging that quickly produced literally 100% enlargements for exposures regardless of the size of the enlargement or F-Stop. It was a device made in NY called the "Densitimer" that measured the light intensity on the easel but you needed a constant Zone reference to set the sensitivity of the photo cell timer that measures it. It was a focused photo cell conveniently set on the side of the easel with a red spot for pointing that took only a couple seconds, instantly determined the proper exposure & I pressed the expose button! This was very fast & a joy to use making as many as 75 enlargements in a couple hours. If someone did the developing part I could crank out properly exposed enlargements very quickly. As the developer weakened progressively I just turned up the exposure time gradually until I finally discarded it for a fresh batch. Ansel used large amounts of developer in the tray to limit varying. He had a simple technique to show it petered out with use many were not aware of. Expose 2 8x10's, develop 1 of them, 10 or more others, then the 2nd same one for the same time & compare the contrasts.
I always measured light on a persons face not in a shadow (on the easel) for a reference & perfect exposure virtually every time with the Densitimer. It was very fast & quicker than the hand devices that measured light. I trained my daughter in enlarging in 15 minutes time without test strip sheets & delays in time. Test strips are slow & boring & many lose interest. Ansel liked the device.
The Hasselblad with multiple backs allowed one to expose all shots on the same roll to be exposed with the same 3 major initial contrasts such as (1. an overcast day to over develop slightly (2. normal day normal develop & (3. with strong highlights so one could under develop to reduce the contrast of the real bright areas as his system taught (Absolutely Brilliant)! You knew you would get great prints!
4x5 backs allowed one to easily separate those with their individual contrasts for proper developing also. Ansel made a Huge Contribution to Photography!
I still have a very good Linhof 4x5 I haven't been able to part with. I have a 8x10 Linhof with many backs I'D LIKE TO SELL. All these lens tilts in particular for increased depth of field (up close to infinity even with large apertures) were really great you can't do with 120 or 35mm cameras. But I came up with a way to do it with a wide open aperture on a Hasselblad without tipping the lens they refused to believe.
Floyd Lee the very helpful Color Wizard in Seattle had a way to make sure the exact film distance to the lens from 4x5 or 8x10 holders was correct, all the same & didn't vary any across it in each holder (some were off a certain amount or varied excessively)(critical with larger apertures) & some holders could be adjusted with scotch tape slightly if necessary. He just discarded the ones that weren't right on. He used a straight edge & a dial indicator to cleverly measure the film holder spacing variations. Many 4x5 lenses I checked have a habit of a slight change of focus forward at F-16 from that focused at F-4.5. It was seldom noticed as it was compensated mostly for at F-16. If you focused at infinity at F-4.5 you were then focused slightly beyond infinity at F-16. The focal point moved forward a certain amount where ever the start of in focus was up closer. To compensate I just moved the lens forward a certain amount (I had determined) moving the focus point slightly back on infinity (or where ever focused) if I then used F-16. Rangefinders on 4x5's had to be checked for proper focus at F-4.5 & the lens stop reset if necessary.

I was able to visit Ansel's home, darkroom & saw his piano. I saw rolls of 120 film hanging up drying. He still bracketed a lot & that is a good idea as no matter how good your light meter technique is such as monitoring with a spot meter on a Zone 5 area only (if available) some Zone 7-9 or 1-3 areas can really dominate & throw off the balance some & I got so I could adjust for it quite well & it reduced the need for bracketing & or use his special developing technique. You may not be able to go back & retake it to get it right if necessary that bracketing partially compensates for.
I had a great time saving technique when enlarging that quickly produced literally 100% enlargements for exposures regardless of the size of the enlargement or F-Stop. It was a device made in NY called the "Densitimer" that measured the light intensity on the easel but you needed a constant Zone reference to set the sensitivity of the photo cell timer that measures it. It was a focused photo cell conveniently set on the side of the easel with a red spot for pointing that took only a couple seconds & I pressed the expose button! This was very fast & a joy to use making as many as 100 enlargements in a couple hours. If someone did the developing part I could crank out properly exposed enlargements very quickly. As the developer weakened progressively I just turned up the exposure time gradually until I finally discarded it for a fresh batch. Ansel used large amounts of developer to keep from varying. I always measured light on a persons face (not in a shadow) for a reference & perfect exposure every time. It was very fast & I trained my daughter in enlarging in 15 minutes time-no test step sheets & delays in time. Test sheets are slow & boring & many lose interest. Ansel liked the device.
The Hasselblad with multiple backs allowed one to expose all shots on the same roll to be exposed with the same initial contrast such as an overcast day, normal day or with strong highlights so one could over develop slightly, use normal developing or under develop to reduce the contrast of the real bright areas as his system taught (absolutely brilliant)! 4x5 backs allowed one to easily separate those with their contrasts for proper developing also. I still have a very good Linhof 4x5 I haven't been able to part with. I have a 8x10 Linhof with many backs for sale. All these lens tilts in particular for increased depth of field (up close to infinity for nexample) were really great you can't do with 120 or 35mm cameras. But I came up with a way to do it with a wide open aperture on a Hasselblad without tipping the lens they refused to believe.
Floyd Lee the very helpful Color Wizard in Seattle had a way to make sure the exact film distance from a 4x5 or 8x10 holder to the lens was correct, all the same & didn't vary across it in each holder (some were off a certain amount or varied excessively)(critical with larger apertures) & some holders could be adjusted if necessary. He just discarded the ones that weren't right on. He used a straight edge & a dial indicator to cleverly measure the film holder spacing variations. Many 4x5 lenses I checked have a habit of a slight change of focus forward at F-16 from that focused at F-4.5. It was seldom noticed as it was compensated mostly for at F-16. If you focused at infinity at F-4.5 you were then focused slightly beyond infinity at F-16. The focal point moved forward a certain amount where ever the end of in focus was up closer. To compensate I just moved the lens forward a certain amount I had determined moving the focus point slightly back on infinity (or where ever focused) if I used F-16. Rangefinders on 4x5's had to be checked for proper focus at F-4.5 & the lens stop reset if necessary.

zone system grandpa
Your comment about his light meter underexposing the snow (too white) making the sky darker? Wouldn't making the snow more exposed not so white made the sky even bluer? ken

That's the darkest blue I've ever seen without a polarizer. Would the sky been black if you used a polarizer. The first picture was at right angles to the sun. Did you get the same dark blue 90 degrees to the left? ken

I don't know what it is. Clean it thoroughly. Then put Hydrogen peroxide on it as that should stop any further fungus for awhile. Look at it with a microscope of 15p magnifing glass. Take some pictures and compare same pics with another lens. Compare in the computpr & blow it up. ken

I purchased a German WWII 20P 110MM field binocular at a flee market for $100 that I couldn't see through one lens. Similar designs I had were the finest ever made and justified the gamble. There was a tube of lenses after the eye peace that had a lens with 2/3 of it covered with solid fungus--normally a terminal case. An optical guy told me to use a Q-Tip and tooth paste and rub it off. It worked! If you looked through it you couldn't see where the fungus was. If you reflected a light off it you could see where it was. When installed you couldn't see any affect the fungus had compared to the uncovered area!
I say this technique could be used on camera lenses with the minor sample fungus cases shown here and no one would known the difference.
It was a magnificent binocular used for spotting planes with great 45 degree eye pieces with more field of view and eye relief of anything today. A friend who repaired the big binoculars gave me $5000 for it. He couldn't see any effect of fungus removal either! He painted it up and made it look brand new 50 years later and sold it.
There was a problem getting the threaded retaining ring unscrewed that held lenses in a lens tube after the eyepiece. I resorted to using a thin screw driver to dig under the ring and wedge it out knowing I could duplicate it in my lathe. As I slowing exposed it I noticed it had a left hand thread for NO usable reason, wedged it back in and screwed it out, WOW!
This is one of my best and profitable repair jobs ever.
There are cases of even very expensive Ziess eyepiece lenses separating today and I have some. Totally Absurd!

WOW!

In Old Faithful you had the bluest sky using a polarizer I've seldom seen. Was it in digital, another filter of some kind also used, a 2nd polarizer of a certain setting or was late fall responsible? I've got a shot of a very very blue sky with a polarizer shooting straight up almost at an antenna at noon in the summer using film (neg or slide). I'd expect a shot straight up would require a sun at sunset for maximum affect. I'll try both again with my N2X and then with neg & slide film that I believe gives bluer skys. Fuijchrom slide film does the best job. ken 605 729 2077

It appears you used a polarizer at right angles to the sun very effectively. Great shots possible only with the polarizer. ken

Mogul: Thanks for your comments.
Blackest: Your suggestion was great for enlarging print, I will use it often and it should be given here for new posters. The box a reply is typed in is much TOO SMALL also and should be enlarged page wide. The font in the Quick Reply Box is also smaller than the other print (it should be larger) making an "m" harder to see it wasn't an "n" also for slightly out of focus eyes Grammar & Spelling Guru's have no tolerance for. I have a number of very dramatic pictures I've created and have thought of an article on the polarizer showing how I maximized multiple conditions to obtain the results. Ken

Mogu;:Thanks for your comments and I was aware of them and even more having used a polarizer for over 70 years. I've obtained some very very dramatic pictures and effects but ONLY at right angles. I could have filled the page with many useful observations few know (even using 2 of them together and with other filters) but kept my suggestion short and simple. I just had 2 eye operations and didn't have my glasses. I mistook a "m" for an "n" which is very easy to do in the small font (big deal). This was my first entry and started my entry in the original entry assuming it would appear correctly. It's not immediately clear how to use this system. He should have mentioned maximum affect is at a right angle, has had little experience with the filter and probably wasn't aware of it either. That was a MAJOR Omission no one commented on? Additional sky blueness for one diminishes to ZERO AFFECT head on or 180 degrees to the sun and I've found many users didn't know why. Ken

First off this was my first entry without my glasses. I missed the "m" instead of the "n" it should have been which is easy to do in small font(big deal). I had the words "right angles to the sum" in the original entry and see where right angles was left out for some reason in one comment? I started my comment out in the original statement and I thought my comment would assure it would appear in the right place. I'm still not clear how this system works and need help and not the other comments.

He left out the most important one. You must shoot at right angle to the sum for maximum polarizer affect and don't use the older ones!

I have a D2X, been in photography since 1936, actively used the zone system with roll B&W & 4x5 & 8x10 cameras for exposure in film days and did a lot of high resolution enlarging and lens resolution testing. I've done a lot of macro pictures. I still have 2 Hasse$$blad cameras and a big telephoto and some others.
Does anyone know how to make infrared pictures with the D2X? There is more than just adding a red lens I'm sure and perhaps a white balance change. What are typical iso speeds? Nikon tells me that there are those who will make the modification. Does any new camera now have the infrared feature built in now? Is it fixed on that then and who does it?