BTZS Explored

There is a little bit of misinformation here that I think needs to be clarifed. The BTZS does not assume there is a 5 stop range of low contrast subjects.

The reason is simply explained in Phil's book and has to do with the reproduction ratio of printing materials. With few exceptions the maximum SBR that can be reproduced is 5 stops. So given this reproduction value we can say that no subject that we intend to photograph can have less than a 5 stop range if we are to get detail in the important areas.
Phil then deduced that if we add this 5 stop reflectance range to the contrast difference in an illuminance measurement, we could then estimate the total subject brightness range.

Of course, Phil explains it much better and in more detail in his book, but there is actually no assumptions made for the basis of his system. Some knowledgeable people argue that he does do a little of data massage in the flare factors, and strictly speaking they are correct. But I cannot argue with success, it works for me.

mikepry said:

Yes, it is a very complex approach, but we work with very complex materials, don't we? Very scientific materials, to say the least. But after one does some very EASY and FAST testing, the wealth of information is absolutely mind boggling.

Click to expand...

I'm one of those math-challenged English majors that Garrison Keillor is always poking fun at, and I eschew with horror any approach to photography that demands that I master graphs and curves. So I know that while the BTZS system has much to commend it, it's definitely not for me.

Besides, what happens when (as it has very often and still does) after making a negative exposed and developed to match the characteristic curve of a particular paper, that paper becomes unavailable? Do you not print that neg anymore because it doesn't quite match the paper you do have available?

Having just seen the big Robert Capa retrospective in Berlin, where his film was processed by Time's lab rather than by himself, and where it's possible to see scratches, dust spots, and other defects on the finished prints, it didn't lessen the power of his work for me at all. Granted not all of us are war photographers, and we expect a higher quality result from our prints than the gritty, sometimes grainy, and less-than-perfect prints in Capa's oeuvre, but it's his work rather than most of ours that is hanging on the walls of the Martin Grobius Bau museum drawing enormous crowds.

My philosophy of photography is, do the work that interests you, do it as simply and as carefully as you can, remembering that it's the image in the end that is the main goal. Does it enable those who look at it to see what you saw or see it in a new and powerful way? All the systems in the world, scientific or seat-of-the-pants are meant to serve that end. None are ends in themselves.

Larry

Jorge said:

........specially if you base your opnion on the Picker's writings. While he had some good ideas as far as equipment goes, his methodology was seriously flawed.

Click to expand...

Seriously flawed in what way? Having been to one of Fred Picker's workshops, I can say from personal experience that his methodology was empirical. He was also open to a better way with the only catch being "show me a print". Few did.
He simplified the zone system to make a practical, simple tool for making good printable negatives without all the hype associated with it. IMO BTZS has gone the other way with it. With all the calculations, charts, and tubes; one wonders when there's time to take some pictures.

Like many I was at first reluctant to delve into BTZS. It seemed overly complicated and the mathematics seemed to get in the way of artistic expression.

But I found that I was making this out to be far more difficult then I needed to make it.

Put simply the Zone System, as developed by AA, established an arbitrary density value for a Zone VIII density (above FB+fog). That value, in my experience is no longer a valid value with todays papers. So taking the previous poster's question, what occurs when the paper changes? With the Zone System we have no idea of what went wrong. The reason being is that in the Zone System the exposure scale of the paper is never determined.

That is the basic difference, at it's simplest, between BTZS and the Zone System. In BTZS the process begins with the characteristics of the paper. That and the difference in metering. Both very simple differences. One may or may not want to get caught up in all of the plotting that the BTZS affords. Obviously the more detailed one becomes the more controls are afforded. My approach is of the simpler variety. I have found that it affords me better, more consistant prints then the Zone System does. I am not saying negatives, I am saying prints...and that is, I think, the bottom line.

Now I will agree that the best technique used on the crappiest photograph will afford one a technically great crappy photograph. By the same token I think that poor technique coupled with a great photograph also detracts from what is possible. I continue to strive to encompass both considerations. Not that I succeed always...but I continue to strive.

For those who want to continue with the Zone System or no system...I have no argument with what you choose. By way of information, I have found that using JandC Polywarmtone and Oriental VCFB and my condensor enlarger that the Zone VIII density had better be up near 1.35-1.40 rather then the value that Ansel Adams proposed. Obviously when I use my Saunders VCCE diffusion enlarger the values that I indicated are still too low.

I will agree with Jorge's view of Fred Picker's later recommedations. While his approach to "key day" exposures is good, in my opinion, for those who want a ultra simple approach. His later "minimum time for maximum black" falls outside of what I want to accept for myself. But then again, I recognize that some view him as one of the latest greatest prophets in the photographic medium. My opinion of him is not quite at that level.

Each to his own

I certainly agree that when has what works for them then they are "good to go". I think that the metodology of photographing in tools and techniques have to serve the person emotions and personality. Even David Vestal advice to avoid underexposure and over development is a technique that can serve a person very well. BTZS is not for, example, the street photographer if his/her work does not allow determination of contrast ranges and exposure determination do to the rpad changes of scene. The BTZS system will not be useful to a person that has a personality that prevents them from wanting to do the testing etc or interest applying it tho her/his work Even though they may realoze how useful it would be. People are not totally logical.

A good example is myself. The manner in which I work would be more sensible to work with a view camera. Instead I bulk load short lengths of 6 frames of 35mm giving 4 identical exposures so that I have spares in case of physical damage because putzing around and setting up my tripod in just the right place makes the extra film, in my opinion, well spent. If the original 4 frames were without a filter, then I use each of the remaining frames with a filter that seems it would be interesting and one that seems very unlikely to be useful. If the original 4 identical frames were shot with a filter then one of the two remaining frames will be without a filter. The investment, weight of the gear I carry etc would certainly indicate that a 4x5 thru 8x10 camera would be a more logical choice. But there I am a human being doing things the way I do because I feel drawn to doing them that way.

So, if one has something that "works" for them, then they are better off, by far, then those that do not. I certainly do not wish to convert anyone. I do wish though to share my experiences and viewpoint to those that are interested in a particular photographic aspect because it may either be helpful or interesting.