Bruce Barnbaum expose shadows zone iv

[pentaxuser]

Note he places his shadows on Zone IV after already having downrated the film by at least a stop. This is in his book.

Regarding pushing the highlights onto the shoulder, unless the subject has a very wide subject brightness range, there is usually plenty of room for the highlights. With most current films, assuming normal development, highlight compression doesn't begin until at least "Zone XI" or higher.

Interesting points, Michael. Doesn't my edited section of your post mean that in effect BB is effectively rating a 400 film at 100 to get what he needs from the shadows? In U.K. light conditions for most of the year that makes box speed of 100 with even a yellow filter equal to as little as 12.5. Pan F's speed then becomes very problematical in terms of hand-held exposure and a film with a box speed of 25 even without a filter would require at least a monopod and very steady hands or a tripod.

No wonder Ilford has no plans for a 25 film

pentaxuser

 

[Bill Burk]

With most current films, assuming normal development, highlight compression doesn't begin until at least "Zone XI" or higher.

I've seen your graphs where you show curves to XV and so appreciate your comment here. My own graphs are from a 21-step wedge so I can't always see "that far" ... but what I can see corroborates your estimate. Modern films do not have a dramatic shoulder like the earlier film that was available when the Zone System was being dreamed up.

I also agree with you Michael R 1974, that Bruce Barnbaum has mis-identified where exposures fall. I don't believe Zone III is on the toe. Flare lifts up that exposure anyway. But I do not want that nit-pick to detract from his message.

A negative where you have placed your shadows above the toe, is better for printing purposes than one where the exposure is so short that detail in the shadows is compressed.

But here is a twist: I recommend taking a look into the idea of tone reproduction curves. Stephen Benskin occasionally shares these. The preferred tone reproduction curve (so the print that looks the best to most people)... actually uses some of the toe of the film curve. The preferred print has compressed shadows. Here's another way of looking at it: When I look at the Zone Scale on my Weston Master II meter, only Zones VIII and IX could be described at a glance as being "white" but Zones 0, I, II and III might be considered "black". So if you lost some of the black... it would balance out the scale.

 

[Bill Burk]

Are you able to say double or triple the exposure on your sensitometer?

What a silly bunt. I guess I could hit the switch multiple times.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

T
Regarding curves, I also use a step wedge but I just do it extra times with more exposure so I can plot all the way to the end. Are you able to say double or triple the exposure on your sensitometer?

How about also saying latent image keeping and intermittent effect too which depending on the time interval between the exposures can be the same thing. Sorry, just wanted to give you a hard time.

 

[Bill Burk]

Well, I have Stephen's old EG&G which is a great sensitometer... But I don't always adhere to latent image keeping time (I can't wait to get to processing). I also don't tape the test strip to a glass plate in a vacuum bottle tank... And I use D-76 of varying vintage at 1:1 (Instead of the prescribed formula freshly mixed).

Still, even though we have to concede that Michael R 1974 and I perform hobbyist-quality sensitometry, I think he clearly demonstrated that the straight line portion of modern films is very long.

So I think it's a thing of the past... the shoulder and chalky highlights.

Other problems still exist with overexposure, e.g., loss of definition, halation, graininess.

But I think you can safely overexpose a-la Bruce Barnbaum without blocking highlights.

Anyone have a different experience?

 

[Stephen Benskin]

But I think you can safely overexpose a-la Bruce Barnbaum without blocking highlights.

That is without question.





There's nothing radical or even very innovative about Barnbaum's approach to exposure. I think he just likes to challenge people stuck in ZS dogma.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Bruce's diecast ideology obviously works well for him. It has zero influence with me.

 

[Louis Nargi]

This is excellent took a workshop with him in 96

 

[RobC]

Barnbaum uses/used HC110 and very dilute HC110 at that. This developer tends to put an upswept curve into the film which also means a long toe. Making it very dilute to control the highlights makes the toe even shallower and longer. Combine that with a film which has a long toe and what do you get? You get someone who thinks that zone III is not enough and should be exposed on zone IV. That suggests not undertsanding the materials he is using to me. He could equally as well have just used another stop slower film speed, which is exactly the same thing, and not confused the hell out of people trying to learn the zone system. i.e. He should have explained that his choice and combination of materials results in a great loss of effective film speed, a very low EI. But instead he has implied that the zone system is wrong.

 

[eclarke]

The deal is, get all the values..why give the shadows away? Save yourself 5 seconds? Get the entire value if the scene.

 

[36cm2]

I think this chain does a bit of disservice to Barnbaum's contributions to the medium. Some of the better comments (pros and cons) seem to come from people who have read early versions of The Art of Photography. Other comments seem based solely on the brief Zone IV clip kicking around internet, which is like judging a symphony based on the four notes played on "Name that Tune". Barnbaum balances pushing exposure into the straightline of the film curve with a lot of instruction on development compensation to get the most out of the materials. He's not a densitometry junkie, but he's clear and rooted in principles that produce great dynamic results. It's a method that works best with sheet film and (less so) with roll film backs designated for high, normal or low contrast photos. I think this last point is why a lot of photographers don't fully benefit from his approach.

Anyway, in my view Barnbaum is a greatly underrated photographer, an excellent teacher and someone who's helped me understand a lot about film's boundaries. And that's not even touching on his work to get people to focus on their artistic vision.

FWIW, I most appreciated Doremus Scudder's post early in this chain (from several years ago). It seems to me to capture best what the goals are.

Thanks,
Leo

 

[RobC]

I think this chain does a bit of disservice to Barnbaum's contributions to the medium. Some of the better comments (pros and cons) seem to come from people who have read early versions of The Art of Photography. Other comments seem based solely on the brief Zone IV clip kicking around internet, which is like judging a symphony based on the four notes played on "Name that Tune". Barnbaum balances pushing exposure into the straightline of the film curve with a lot of instruction on development compensation to get the most out of the materials. He's not a densitometry junkie, but he's clear and rooted in principles that produce great dynamic results. It's a method that works best with sheet film and (less so) with roll film backs designated for high, normal or low contrast photos. I think this last point is why a lot of photographers don't fully benefit from his approach.

Anyway, in my view Barnbaum is a greatly underrated photographer, an excellent teacher and someone who's helped me understand a lot about film's boundaries. And that's not even touching on his work to get people to focus on their artistic vision.

FWIW, I most appreciated Doremus Scudder's post early in this chain (from several years ago). It seems to me to capture best what the goals are.

Thanks,
Leo

Enquiring minds will like to know why Barbaum says it is "flat out wrong" to place shadows on III and that they should go on IV. Whereas Adams says III is where shadows should be be put for full textural detail. This is a significant difference. So why do you think their opinions differ? One answer, and the most plausible, is to look at the materials and usage of them to see if that could provide a meaningful answer. It does IF you know what Barnbaum was/is using for developer, its dilution and temp and the film being used, and the film speed used. Only then can you understand why he thinks zone IV is where its at.

All that youtube film does is cause confusion about something that students find difficult to master. It's no wonder when so many "photographers" are contradicting each other.

The zone system clearly states that zone III should be full textural detail. Barnbaum disputes this and says the zone system is about tones and claims it should be about texture. He's saying the zone system isn't what it claims to be but it should be.He's talking bollocks in that video.

This has nothing to do with his work. I actually quite like some of it. But his interpretation of the zone system is based on the materials and methods he uses and not on understanding WHY his opinion varies from Adams.

YMMV as always....

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I agree with Barnbaum but I doubt others have much faith in my opinions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

This is kinda the old school "thick" neg treatment of Tri-X. You overexpose it to get excellent shadow gradation and midtone tonality, but potentially at the cost of blowing out the highlights. A superb practitioner of this technique if Roman Loranc. He brings character into the
upper zones via split toning; but whenever that doesn't happen quite right, there really isn't much detail left up there. I would personally much rather use a film with a steep toe, like TMY400, and base my shadow values on Zone I or II. That requires more careful metering, but it lets everything fall into place in a high-contast scene without either blowing out the highlights or resorting to compensating development, which would compromise microtonality in the middle.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

This is kinda the old school "thick" neg treatment of Tri-X. You overexpose it to get excellent shadow gradation and midtone tonality, but potentially at the cost of blowing out the highlights. A superb practitioner of this technique if Roman Loranc. He brings character into the
upper zones via split toning; but whenever that doesn't happen quite right, there really isn't much detail left up there. I would personally much rather use a film with a steep toe, like TMY400, and base my shadow values on Zone I or II. That requires more careful metering, but it lets everything fall into place in a high-contast scene without either blowing out the highlights or resorting to compensating development, which would compromise microtonality in the middle.

What can I say? I'm old school. I'm referring to how I exposed, processed and toned old Agfapan 25, 100 and 400 processed in Rodinal. I shot at approximately half box speed, give or take depending on development adjustment, and underdeveloped to keep the tones on the straight portion of the H&D curve, then selenium toned the negs to lengthen the straight line of the H&D curve and add enough contrast to print well on Ilford Gallery grade 3.

Of course, that was roughly 35 years ago.

 

[Bill Burk]

I'll admit my exposure to Bruce Barnbaum is just that video but also through APUG posts I see he is well regarded and so Leo, more stories how he helped you see better are welcome, and maybe deserve a new thread.

Though I may critique his sensitometry, I stand behind the major part of his message: expose generously.

 

[smieglitz]

IIRC, BB used to write a column occasionally for Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques magazine. It seemed he was always taking a brush and potassium ferricyanide to bleach back the highlights on the final print. I used to scan the article immediately for that passage, chuckle and then shrug when I found it, and I don't recall it ever being absent. He also had a few before-and-after examples and I generally liked the before. But, my preference aside, does he still advocate the bleaching and how might that be related to the exposure technique discussed in this thread?

 

[Zelph]

Does using a developer known for holding highlights like Pyrocat HD bring out any changes in technique?

 

[DREW WILEY]

I suspect the "thick neg" approach is just a traditionalist holdover from when Tri-X was routinely overexposed and overdeveloped for the sake of long scale contact papers like Azo. That whole approach seems counterproductive to me. But I gotta admit, I've never been a fan of gritty ole Tri-X to begin with. Pyro helps rein in the highlights, but can't cure gross overexposure. Barnbaum has a habit of burning in the highlights and then bleaching out the white with Farmers reducer. Unfortunately, not all papers bleach well without reducing the silver to the point of toning a different color than the rest of the image. I know he was fond of Polygrade V for its ability to bleach consistently. But this is out of production. People who make a diecast set of rules or a religion out of any version of the Zone System miss the point entirely. It was meant to be malleable under your own parameters of film choice, developer, paper, etc etc. And in this respect films can
differ dramatically in shadow reproduction. The only current film I would ever personally read a shadow value at Zone III is Pan F, simply because it has a pronounced S-curve with little straight line. With careful spotmetering, I might place the shadow values anywhere from
Zone II to 0, depending on the specific film. Basing it on Zone IV is almost like working with a contrasty color slide film! No wonder some
of these guys have so much misery printing detail in the highlights.

 

[c6h6o3]

That requires more careful metering, but it lets everything fall into place in a high-contast scene without either blowing out the highlights or resorting to compensating development, which would compromise microtonality in the middle.

If the method of compensation is minimal agitation, aka semi-stand development, midtone microtonality is not only not compromised, but is enhanced.

I agree with Barnbaum, btw. I've gotten much better prints out of negatives where I'd placed the shadows on Zone IV than ones where I'd placed them on lower zones.

 

[DREW WILEY]

"Compensation" and midtone expansion are antonymns. But I guess in this case the midtones are substituted for the shadows, given the degree of overexposure. Again, I'd rather have TMY and pyro any day of the week over Tri-X. Just seems like the hard way to do things.
But whatever works, works.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

There's a joke that Barnbaum's negatives are so dense that if he drops one, it puts a dent in the table.

...

It's been a while since I've read Barnbaum's book. I do remember thinking some of his ideas on how photography works come from another planet, but he does produce great work. ...

I almost fell for his "great work" until I purchased his Visual Symphony book. If you only look at the cover, you will be saying great things about his imagery, once you go through the whole book, you end up asking what in hell was this one about? I stopped reading BB after getting really close to signing up for his workshop. Research led me to reading a lot of different opinions on his workshop and working methods as well. Getting that book was part of my research. Surely we all have opinions and this is mine: if one cannot show consistency in proficiency perhaps he should rethink his calling.

Visual Symphony draws viewers with the cover of one of his famous shots of slit canyons (which BTW appear to me faked up with artificial lighting, but that is just my opinion and it does not take away visual impact of that particular series). The book is expensive (and somehow considered "collectible"), but given the general opinions of it, while unable to see one before purchase, I just wanted to get it. Found a copy in German language rather cheaply, but was concerned that price differential was related to print quality. So I directly asked BB and he confirmed all versions were printed with same tri-tone process. Lo and behold ... boring, uneven, mediocre come to mind not even half way through. And if that tri-tine was to blow one's mind, it failed to ignite in a large way. I'm not going to dig farther into his working methods and the workshop itself as I would be spreading opinions of others while being selective in what matters to me. I would advise anyone thinking of it (not sure if he's still doing it) to do own digging. The book itself killed the BB allure for me for good. Everything else just confirmed that marketing drives sales and desires and not necessarily actual quality behind it.

Ansel Adams could print superbly AND take great shots AND be smart enough to select the best for others to see. By comparison, BB isn't even an apple falling from supposedly same tree (and I read some opinions he's better printer than AA ever was, on aesthetics it isn't even a conversation).

I remember years back someone referring to Fred Picker as "a man who made significant contributions to photography, a man could who could not take a picture", my exact same assessment. I still take FP over BB any day, even after learning how FP's marketing was at a forefront of his venture. At least he could convincingly sell (and by that, promote importance of detailed approach to being successful, which applies to pretty much everything).

 

[36cm2]

I think your comments are wildly off point, and betray an extremely limited perspective on Bruce’s work, output (both in silver gelatin and books), passion and personal presence. I say this as a person who has attended his and other great photographers’ workshops, owns many many monographs by great artists, and owns many original prints from various photographers including Bruce and several assistants and direct descendants from the Ansel Adams lineage. I would invite you to dig further before levying such reductive commentary.
Respectfully,
Leo

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

I agree, Leo. Barnbaum produced many stunning images.

 

[MattKing]

I have at least three friends who have taken workshops with Mr. Barnbaum. Apparently, he has mellowed somewhat as he has aged.
But from what I can tell from what they have told me, his approach and the approach I am comfortable with are quite different. So well I am sure I would learn a lot from him if I took a workshop, I'm not sure I would change much.
Of course, if and when my new to me spotmeter is up and running, maybe I'll become more like Bruce Barnbaum .