Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams

[Village Idiot]

Is there any popcorn left, or have we depleted our supply?

 

[Overread]

I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.

Clearly though AA must have got something right since most of the rest of the world at least likes the photos he was able to produce with his method of approach. Still we are on the subject that its not the method, but simply the fact that you dislike the effect of his method on photography and that you prefer something else.

Anyone is entitled to a view like that and no one is disagreeing with it - but its different to saying that AA's methods are "false" or "misleading" or out and out lies.

 

[Gaerek]

OK, I'll make it simple.

Kodak researchers took thousands of photographs and made all sorts of adjustments in exposure and contrast and showed them to observers. They asked them what looked best. They said, overwhelmingly, that: 'normal mid-tone gradation looked best'. This is a scientific approach, you see, not what Adams did. Adams pulled the zone system out of his ass. If you significantly alter the development of the negative to try to expand or contract the scale to fit the Scene Brightness Range, you end up with a cure that is worse than the disease. Read the quote until this sinks in.

Scientific eh? What was their sample size? How many observers? How did they select their observers? Were they all company men? Were they photographers in a specific genre? Were they laymen? These are questions that an informed person must ask if we are to believe a study done by a company that has product to sell. Or do you believe the tobacco industry scientists that proved smoking cigarettes are good for you? It's amazing the power of corporations to make people believe what they want them to in an effort to sell product.

I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.

Couldn't help to get your elitist opinion in there again, could you? It comes down to your own personal aesthetic. Why do you have such a difficult time admitting you don't like the zone system and Ansel Adams because you don't like the aesthetic? Why do you have to try to prove that you are right? You have all the hallmarks of an elitist who knows that his minority opinion is right and will do whatever it takes to prove it.

I've admitted that AA's photos hold sentimental value to me. I've admitted that it's my opinion that he takes great photos. I have admitted my bias. I have nothing against someone who has a differing opinion. I do have something against people who believe that their opinion is fact, and simply can't admit that their opinion is just that, an opinion.

I wore out my welcome to this thread last night. I realize that what I'm doing now is tantamount to banging my head on a brick wall. Petraio Prime obviously knows what he's talking about. Reply if you'd like, but I've proven my point.

 

[Petraio Prime]

OK, I'll make it simple.

Kodak researchers took thousands of photographs and made all sorts of adjustments in exposure and contrast and showed them to observers. They asked them what looked best. They said, overwhelmingly, that: 'normal mid-tone gradation looked best'. This is a scientific approach, you see, not what Adams did. Adams pulled the zone system out of his ass. If you significantly alter the development of the negative to try to expand or contract the scale to fit the Scene Brightness Range, you end up with a cure that is worse than the disease. Read the quote until this sinks in.

Scientific eh? What was their sample size? How many observers? How did they select their observers? Were they all company men? Were they photographers in a specific genre? Were they laymen? These are questions that an informed person must ask if we are to believe a study done by a company that has product to sell. Or do you believe the tobacco industry scientists that proved smoking cigarettes are good for you? It's amazing the power of corporations to make people believe what they want them to in an effort to sell product.

I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.

Couldn't help to get your elitist opinion in there again, could you? It comes down to your own personal aesthetic. Why do you have such a difficult time admitting you don't like the zone system and Ansel Adams because you don't like the aesthetic? Why do you have to try to prove that you are right? You have all the hallmarks of an elitist who knows that his minority opinion is right and will do whatever it takes to prove it.

I've admitted that AA's photos hold sentimental value to me. I've admitted that it's my opinion that he takes great photos. I have admitted my bias. I have nothing against someone who has a differing opinion. I do have something against people who believe that their opinion is fact, and simply can't admit that their opinion is just that, an opinion.

I wore out my welcome to this thread last night. I realize that what I'm doing now is tantamount to banging my head on a brick wall. Petraio Prime obviously knows what he's talking about. Reply if you'd like, but I've proven my point.

I don't know the details of the study. It was part of the research into establishing a film-speed measurement system.

Why would would the fact that they have a product to sell influence their outcome? The publication is entitled Negative Making for Professional Photographers. Why wouldn't Kodak want pros to have good advice? They specifically mentioned that what they were saying is contrary to the practices of "some professional photographers". What they said was that the overwhelming preference for viewers in the study was for mid-tones that approach a 1:1 contrast with the scene brightness values, "even if gradation in the highlight areas or shadows has to be sacrificed". That is absolutely unambiguous. What happens if you don't do this? The prints don't look good. The cure is worse than the disease. It has nothing to do with 'artistic intentions'. Adams was no scientist, and the zs is not based on any such study. He pulled the whole thing out of his ass.

This fellow Richard Knoppow may have some information:

Film Speed Tests - rec.photo.darkroom | Google Groups

The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false.

I found a discussion of this issue from him:

"First of all, if your negatives are consistently too contrasty you should reduce your development time. The time of development is what controls contrast. Exposure is adjusted to get the most of the exposure on the straight line portion of the film curve. For high contrast scenes the exposure must be sufficient to result in some detail in the shadows, the development is then reduced to keep the range of densities in reason. Modern films like T-Max do not shoulder off as older ones did.* They do not compress the highlights, so a scene with very bright areas will produce very high densities on the negative. The problem with printing such an image is that the range of brightness which printing paper can reproduce is very limited compared to both the brightness range of the original scene and to the range which the film will record. With roll film you cannot change the exposure and development to match every scene, you have to find a compromise for development and thus average negative contrast and use various paper grades to get normal contrast prints. The use of fill lighting, flash or otherwise is actually a better way of controlling the contrast if you can do it. The folks with difficulty are those photographing landscapes or cityscapes or other kinds of subjects where control of lighting is impossible. As I mentioned in another post, the control of overall contrast by employment of the Zone system or simply by adjusting exposure and development will not guarantee satisfactory reproduction. It can give you detail in both shadow and highlight areas of the negative but if a very high contrast scene is compressed in contrast in the photographic process it may look very flat and unnatural. The human eye compensates continuously for changes in average brightness of what we are observing. It is also seeing detail in only a very small area of the overall field of vision. For that reason we have the perception of seeing into the shadows and also seeing details of quite bright highlights (those not bright enough to be painful to look at) of the same scene. No photograph is going to reproduce that. What is needed is to adjust various parts of the image for brightness and contrast in printing. This is done by burning in and holding back parts of the image and by using selective contrast filtering with VC paper. Ansel Adams, one of the developers of the Zone System often did a great amount of manipulation of his prints. He writes about this extensively in his various books. The Zone System is useful in insuring that you have something to work with on the negative but it isn't a complete method by itself of generating acceptable prints. I see the Zone System discussed in great detail but don't often see references to Adams' writing on how to print. David Vestal is another who has written extensively on how to control the results in printing. This is an especially important skill for those who use roll film where individual control of negatives is impossible unless a whole roll is shot under exactly the same conditions. (Now leaving lecture mode) --- Richard Knoppow"

* This is why they're not good for outdoor work in uncontrolled lighting--Petraio Prime

 

[Gaerek]

The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false.

Funny, considering I never said your theory was false. I simply asked you to back up your claim.

I've read through that, and although I don't think it totally supports the zone system, it's definitely not saying it's a 'disaster' of a system that the great Petraio Prime says it is. You even boldfaced a very important quote that proves that. Once again, everything fall on what your particular aesthetic is. It's obvious by the work Adams has produced that he didn't just use the Zone System and nothing else. It was a tool. Just like dodging and burning. Just like using different developers and papers. Just like using color filters, and flash. Just like any other dark room/in camera manipulation. You forgot to boldface an incredibly important part of that quote (though I'm surprised you left it in, because it kinda undermines your argument a bit).

This is done by burning in and holding back parts of the image and by using selective contrast filtering with VC paper. Ansel Adams, one of the developers of the Zone System often did a great amount of manipulation of his prints. He writes about this extensively in his various books.

This was brought up in the other thread, and you ignored it there too. The fact is that the zone system, by itself, is pretty useless. But it's a tool, just like anything else. It's a tool, just like the light meter in my camera. It doesn't always tell me what the proper exposure is, but it helps me to find it. I rarely go 100% off what my meter says. The ZS cannot be used by itself, and Adams never said you should do this.

I go back to my previous post. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that it is an opinion that the ZS and Adams work is terrible, and not fact? It's obvious to everyone here, besides you, that this is the case. Please stop trying to say that you are right and 70+ years of photographic theory is completely wrong. Adams obviously did something right. Adams' aesthetic was obviously well loved and adored. The fact that it wasn't loved and adored by you isn't a big deal. It's your opinion, and an opinion can't be wrong. However, if you're making it out to be fact, then it can be wrong because this is something that isn't factual. Just because Petraio Prime says something is bad, doesn't make it so.

 

[Petraio Prime]

The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false.

Funny, considering I never said your theory was false. I simply asked you to back up your claim.

I've read through that, and although I don't think it totally supports the zone system, it's definitely not saying it's a 'disaster' of a system that the great Petraio Prime says it is. You even boldfaced a very important quote that proves that. Once again, everything fall on what your particular aesthetic is. It's obvious by the work Adams has produced that he didn't just use the Zone System and nothing else. It was a tool. Just like dodging and burning. Just like using different developers and papers. Just like using color filters, and flash. Just like any other dark room/in camera manipulation. You forgot to boldface an incredibly important part of that quote (though I'm surprised you left it in, because it kinda undermines your argument a bit).

This is done by burning in and holding back parts of the image and by using selective contrast filtering with VC paper. Ansel Adams, one of the developers of the Zone System often did a great amount of manipulation of his prints. He writes about this extensively in his various books.

This was brought up in the other thread, and you ignored it there too. The fact is that the zone system, by itself, is pretty useless. But it's a tool, just like anything else. It's a tool, just like the light meter in my camera. It doesn't always tell me what the proper exposure is, but it helps me to find it. I rarely go 100% off what my meter says. The ZS cannot be used by itself, and Adams never said you should do this.

I go back to my previous post. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that it is an opinion that the ZS and Adams work is terrible, and not fact? It's obvious to everyone here, besides you, that this is the case. Please stop trying to say that you are right and 70+ years of photographic theory is completely wrong. Adams obviously did something right. Adams' aesthetic was obviously well loved and adored. The fact that it wasn't loved and adored by you isn't a big deal. It's your opinion, and an opinion can't be wrong. However, if you're making it out to be fact, then it can be wrong because this is something that isn't factual. Just because Petraio Prime says something is bad, doesn't make it so.

You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in ugly photos. I used to do a lot of burning and dodging (and I never denied that this sometimes is necessary) but, (and this is the point!) it is not part of zone system dogma. The zs is about global contrast manipulation through negative development. Adams did use other methods of print manipulation, but they're not part of the 'system'.

I hardly ever do much in the way of burning and dodging any more. Maybe I have evolved in my shooting so that I instinctively avoid 'problem' scenes, I don't know.I find that zs prints made with expansion or contraction are often ugly. (If only 'N' development is used, that's fine, I have no issue with that, because the prints look 'normal'). In other words, it's not the use of the zs itself, rather expansion or contraction that is the problem. If you go through a lot of zs mumbo-jumbo and end up developing the negative normally and printing it normally, I would say simply that you're inefficient. If, on the other hand, you do a lot of expansion and contraction, your prints will show it. Read Richard's explanation of why trying to do that is a fundamental error. You can't make a print that encompasses an extreme brightness range yet maintains good contrast in the middle tones. It doesn't work. Trying to do it is just stubborn stupidity.

I am less polite than Richard but we're saying the same thing. So is Kodak.

I never said Adams' work was terrible, just overrated and for bourgeois tastes. It's the zs itself that is the target of my criticism. It (the zs) reflects a complete lack of understanding of the basis of human perception that Richard discussed.

Someone earlier mentioned the skateboard photo was out of focus. It isn't. (The focus is on the board, with normal fall-off behind the plane of his feet...)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/12905

The photo may appear a little dark, but there is highlight detail in his shirt and shadow detail in the seat of his pants. His face is turned away from the sun, and he looks perhaps to have a good tan...

 

[DennyCrane]

You're really not very good.

At what? LOL

You do realize, if you're talking about photographs, that I have been doing photography for quite a few decades, don't you? The few I have shown here are not necessarily the 'best ever' and are not intended to be anything other than a small sampling, because I have so many photos that have never been scanned. I have neither the time nor the interest in 'showing off'.

Nothing you've posted really gives me any impression of a talent beyond what a parent with a p&s camera is capable of.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You're really not very good.

At what? LOL

You do realize, if you're talking about photographs, that I have been doing photography for quite a few decades, don't you? The few I have shown here are not necessarily the 'best ever' and are not intended to be anything other than a small sampling, because I have so many photos that have never been scanned. I have neither the time nor the interest in 'showing off'.

Nothing you've posted really gives me any impression of a talent beyond what a parent with a p&s camera is capable of.

You forget I don't respond to such taunts, nor do I have the slightest interest in your opinions.

 

[DennyCrane]

At what? LOL

You do realize, if you're talking about photographs, that I have been doing photography for quite a few decades, don't you? The few I have shown here are not necessarily the 'best ever' and are not intended to be anything other than a small sampling, because I have so many photos that have never been scanned. I have neither the time nor the interest in 'showing off'.

Nothing you've posted really gives me any impression of a talent beyond what a parent with a p&s camera is capable of.

You forget I don't respond to such taunts, nor do I have the slightest interest in your opinions.

Of course you do. You're hanging on every word posted here. You tried to impress people, failed, and now feign aloofness. The timing of your activities on this forum in general and this thread in particular are clear giveaways.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Nothing you've posted really gives me any impression of a talent beyond what a parent with a p&s camera is capable of.

You forget I don't respond to such taunts, nor do I have the slightest interest in your opinions.

Of course you do. You're hanging on every word posted here. You tried to impress people, failed, and now feign aloofness. The timing of your activities on this forum in general and this thread in particular are clear giveaways.

.

 

[Gaerek]

You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in ugly photos.

Finally! Some meat. I don't even need to read past this.

Ugly photos, to whom?

Now you see my point. I couldn't care less about why the zone system is supposedly bad. I couldn't care less that it ignores the mid-tone contrast. You keep hammering in that point, but I get it. The fact remains that the aesthetic is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me disprove your above quote with a simple statement of opinion:

I do not think the zone system, by itself results in ugly photos.

My opinion contradicts what you keep treating as a fact. This makes your "fact" false since you insist on treating subjective language as fact.

If you, or Kodak, or Richard Knoppow think that the zone system results in ugly photos. That's great. But the vast majority of people out there absolutely adore the photos AA did using the zone system. If the zone system truly did result in ugly photos, no one would know who Ansel Adams was. No one would still be teaching the zone system today (which it's obvious they are, because of the OP's post). You are totally entitled to your opinion. And I will respect that opinion...if you'd just admit that's what it was.

It is your opinion that the zone system creates ugly photos. You can quote as many people as you want, but saying it is ugly is extremely subjective. It's amazing how you quote scientific studies that somehow prove that the zone system makes for ugly photos, since science is about objective thought. In reality, all those studies really prove is that the zone system ignores mid-tone contrast. They cannot confirm the zone system makes ugly photos, because that would be a subjective statement.

Answer me this question. Is it an opinion or is it a fact that the zone system results in ugly photos. You don't need to explain yourself, it's a simple "It's an opinion" or "It's a fact." Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Petraio Prime]

You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in ugly photos.

Finally! Some meat. I don't even need to read past this.

Ugly photos, to whom?

Now you see my point. I couldn't care less about why the zone system is supposedly bad. I couldn't care less that it ignores the mid-tone contrast. You keep hammering in that point, but I get it. The fact remains that the aesthetic is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me disprove your above quote with a simple statement of opinion:

I do not think the zone system, by itself results in ugly photos.

My opinion contradicts what you keep treating as a fact. This makes your "fact" false since you insist on treating subjective language as fact.

If you, or Kodak, or Richard Knoppow think that the zone system results in ugly photos. That's great. But the vast majority of people out there absolutely adore the photos AA did using the zone system. If the zone system truly did result in ugly photos, no one would know who Ansel Adams was. No one would still be teaching the zone system today (which it's obvious they are, because of the OP's post). You are totally entitled to your opinion. And I will respect that opinion...if you'd just admit that's what it was.

It is your opinion that the zone system creates ugly photos. You can quote as many people as you want, but saying it is ugly is extremely subjective. It's amazing how you quote scientific studies that somehow prove that the zone system makes for ugly photos, since science is about objective thought. In reality, all those studies really prove is that the zone system ignores mid-tone contrast. They cannot confirm the zone system makes ugly photos, because that would be a subjective statement.

Answer me this question. Is it an opinion or is it a fact that the zone system results in ugly photos. You don't need to explain yourself, it's a simple "It's an opinion" or "It's a fact." Nothing more, nothing less.

Extreme global contrast manipulation results in ugly photos.This is a fact of human perception. The 'use' of the zone system is not the issue. The problem is the result of extreme global contrast manipulation (which is the method embedded in the zone system). Do you understand the distinction? If you're using the zone system and don't end up either compressing or expanding, you're simply wasting time. You end up with a 'normal' print. You don't need to use the zone system to produce a normal print.

If you don't end up with a 'normal' print (i.e., you expanded or contracted), you end up with an ugly photo.

Get it?

It's expansion and contraction that produce ugly prints, not the zone system itself.

But of course the zone system is predicated on expansion and contraction, that's what it uses as its method.

"It can give you detail in both shadow and highlight areas of the negative but if a very high contrast scene is compressed in contrast in the photographic process it may look very flat and unnatural."

 

[Gaerek]

You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in ugly photos.

Finally! Some meat. I don't even need to read past this.

Ugly photos, to whom?

Now you see my point. I couldn't care less about why the zone system is supposedly bad. I couldn't care less that it ignores the mid-tone contrast. You keep hammering in that point, but I get it. The fact remains that the aesthetic is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me disprove your above quote with a simple statement of opinion:

I do not think the zone system, by itself results in ugly photos.

My opinion contradicts what you keep treating as a fact. This makes your "fact" false since you insist on treating subjective language as fact.

If you, or Kodak, or Richard Knoppow think that the zone system results in ugly photos. That's great. But the vast majority of people out there absolutely adore the photos AA did using the zone system. If the zone system truly did result in ugly photos, no one would know who Ansel Adams was. No one would still be teaching the zone system today (which it's obvious they are, because of the OP's post). You are totally entitled to your opinion. And I will respect that opinion...if you'd just admit that's what it was.

It is your opinion that the zone system creates ugly photos. You can quote as many people as you want, but saying it is ugly is extremely subjective. It's amazing how you quote scientific studies that somehow prove that the zone system makes for ugly photos, since science is about objective thought. In reality, all those studies really prove is that the zone system ignores mid-tone contrast. They cannot confirm the zone system makes ugly photos, because that would be a subjective statement.

Answer me this question. Is it an opinion or is it a fact that the zone system results in ugly photos. You don't need to explain yourself, it's a simple "It's an opinion" or "It's a fact." Nothing more, nothing less.

Extreme global contrast manipulation results in ugly photos.This is a fact of human perception. The 'use' of the zone system is not the issue. The problem is the result of extreme global contrast manipulation (which is the method embedded in the zone system). Do you understand the distinction? If you're using the zone system and don't end up either compressing or expanding, you're simply wasting time. You end up with a 'normal' print. You don't need to use the zone system to produce a normal print.

If you don't end up with a 'normal' print (i.e., you expanded or contracted), you end up with an ugly photo.

Get it?

Guess I'm not human then.

And I do understand the distinction. Keep your elitist attitude away from here.

Ugly is a subjective word. Subjective means that it's up to the viewers interpretation.

A fact, but it's nature, must be objective. Objective means that it is statement of fact, that cannot be refuted through opinion.

I do not think that Global Manipulation of contrast necessarily results in ugly photos.

If you say that it does, then that is your opinion. IT CANNOT BE A FACT. DO YOU GET IT? This is so incredibly simple that my friends 7 year old son understands.

:banghead:

You're obviously the greatest photographer in the world, and I cannot argue with you. Continue believing that because you think a photo is ugly, no one else can think it's beautiful. Keep that elitist, arrogant mindset, it's really working well for you. I now bow out.

 

[Petraio Prime]

Finally! Some meat. I don't even need to read past this.

Ugly photos, to whom?

Now you see my point. I couldn't care less about why the zone system is supposedly bad. I couldn't care less that it ignores the mid-tone contrast. You keep hammering in that point, but I get it. The fact remains that the aesthetic is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me disprove your above quote with a simple statement of opinion:

I do not think the zone system, by itself results in ugly photos.

My opinion contradicts what you keep treating as a fact. This makes your "fact" false since you insist on treating subjective language as fact.

If you, or Kodak, or Richard Knoppow think that the zone system results in ugly photos. That's great. But the vast majority of people out there absolutely adore the photos AA did using the zone system. If the zone system truly did result in ugly photos, no one would know who Ansel Adams was. No one would still be teaching the zone system today (which it's obvious they are, because of the OP's post). You are totally entitled to your opinion. And I will respect that opinion...if you'd just admit that's what it was.

It is your opinion that the zone system creates ugly photos. You can quote as many people as you want, but saying it is ugly is extremely subjective. It's amazing how you quote scientific studies that somehow prove that the zone system makes for ugly photos, since science is about objective thought. In reality, all those studies really prove is that the zone system ignores mid-tone contrast. They cannot confirm the zone system makes ugly photos, because that would be a subjective statement.

Answer me this question. Is it an opinion or is it a fact that the zone system results in ugly photos. You don't need to explain yourself, it's a simple "It's an opinion" or "It's a fact." Nothing more, nothing less.

Extreme global contrast manipulation results in ugly photos.This is a fact of human perception. The 'use' of the zone system is not the issue. The problem is the result of extreme global contrast manipulation (which is the method embedded in the zone system). Do you understand the distinction? If you're using the zone system and don't end up either compressing or expanding, you're simply wasting time. You end up with a 'normal' print. You don't need to use the zone system to produce a normal print.

If you don't end up with a 'normal' print (i.e., you expanded or contracted), you end up with an ugly photo.

Get it?

Guess I'm not human then.

And I do understand the distinction. Keep your elitist attitude away from here.

Ugly is a subjective word. Subjective means that it's up to the viewers interpretation.

A fact, but it's nature, must be objective. Objective means that it is statement of fact, that cannot be refuted through opinion.

I do not think that Global Manipulation of contrast necessarily results in ugly photos.

If you say that it does, then that is your opinion. IT CANNOT BE A FACT. DO YOU GET IT? This is so incredibly simple that my friends 7 year old son understands.

:banghead:

You're obviously the greatest photographer in the world, and I cannot argue with you. Continue believing that because you think a photo is ugly, no one else can think it's beautiful. Keep that elitist, arrogant mindset, it's really working well for you. I now bow out.

This is undeniably the truth, whether you like it or not:

"It can give you detail in both shadow and highlight areas of the negative but if a very high contrast scene is compressed in contrast in the photographic process it may look very flat and unnatural. The human eye compensates continuously for changes in average brightness of what we are observing."

When I say 'ugly', I mean what Richard calls "very flat and unnatural".

In other words, when we 'view' a scene of extreme brightness our vision adapts to the different brightness of the parts of the scene. Film can't do that. When we compress the negative to include more range than it can when developed normally, we lose overall contrast. The result is a flat, unnatural-looking print. In my terminology, 'ugly'.

When Adams came up with a good print, it was not necessarily because he used the zone system. It may have been in spite of it. In other words, through print manipulation using techniques totally unrelated to zs dogma (i.e., not through negative expansion and contraction).

Oh, and by the way, I'm not a photographer.

 

[Gaerek]

Hmm Richard said it 'may' look flat and unnatural, not it 'will' look flat and unnatural. Flat and unnatural doesn't mean ugly. It simply means flat and unnatural. If you believe flat and unnatural photos are ugly, that is your opinion, not fact.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

By the way, quit with the elitist title of 'I'm not a photographer." Do you make photographs? If so, that makes you a photographer. Go away troll. You're no longer amusing.