Film testing according to Les McLean: a few doubts on his method

[sterioma]

I have bought Les McLean "Creative Black&White Pothography" and after reading if from cover to cover, I want now to give film testing a try according to his method.

Since my first BW "bible" has been "The Negative" from Ansel Adams, I was a bit surprised to read the following (p.16 on my edition):

Select the deepest shadow in the subject and read the reflected light value [...] Expose in the following sequence:
1. 2 stops less than indicated by the meter
2. 1 stop less than indicated by the meter
3. As indicated by the meter
4. 1 stop more than indicated by the meter
5. 2 stops more than indicated by the meter

Wouldn't this be equivalent to putting the shadows respectively in ZoneIII, ZoneIV, ZoneV, ZoneVI, and Zone VII from 1 to 5?

Also, at page 21 he mentions:
I prefer to see good detail in my shadows and therefore I have chosen negative no 2. as my preferred exposure. For those familiar with the Zone System, this represents a Zone VI shadow placement that is one zone higher than suggested by Ansel Adams.

Wasn't AA's preference to put the shadows in Zone III?

Please enlighten me

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Wasn't AA's preference to put the shadows in Zone III?
Please enlighten me

It was; textured shadows on Zone III, textured highlights on Zone VII. The problem is the subjectiveness of the visualization process. Some of his deciples have gone to placing the shadows on Zone IV and letting the tonal highlights fall on Zone VIII. This method is easier for some to visualize the final print. I work with Zone III and VIII and that works for me. AA wouldn't be bothered either way. He always understood his system as an aid and not a science.

 

[sterioma]

Some of his deciples have gone to placing the shadows on Zone IV

If I understood correctly, though, it seems that Les McLean is putting the shadows on Zone VI (3 zones higher!). That is what surprising me here! :confused:

 

[lee]

he is just giving more exposure to the negative for improved shadow detail. It is a notion that works but I suggest you try it and if you like it continue and if you dont then dont do it again

lee\c

 

[lee]

no Les is not placing the shadows on zone VI (6) he is placing on zone IV (4)

lee\c

 

[dancqu]

If I understood correctly, though, it seems that
Les McLean is putting the shadows on Zone VI
(3 zones higher!). That is what surprising
me here! :confused:

That can be confusing. His reference point is the
meter's reading any area of the subject as a Zone
five. Personally I consider it standing on one's head
but then it's where he's coming from. Dan

 

[df cardwell]

The whole Visualisation thing is the poetry of the image, not the technical writing.
It's base upon your imagination and intuition rather than an analytical and literal response.

The perfect photographer will be one who is equally proficient in the poetic and technical aspects of the craft.

And, as my Dad used to say, "That's why they call it Work !".

The funny thing is that the parts we have to work at is different for all of us.

 

[Donald Miller]

All of these technical ruminations will lead to technically perfect photographs of meaningless and unmoving images.

Given the technical and the ability to see, the ability to see is the greatest.

Too many test and test and test some more...too many delude themselves in thinking that seeing is the depiction of objective reality...they wonder why others find their images meaningless and never consider what they show is the very same thing that everyone else also sees...Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things...again things that everyone else has the ability to see. Stop photographing "things" and learn how to see if you would be a photographer.

 

[ann]

sterioma;

perhaps it would be more helpful to pm les directly. He may be "out of pocket" for a few days as he may be traveling. He is very active on this site, and is also very helpful.

At this point folks are trying to interpert what was meant, just go directly to the source. It seems to be more productived that way.

 

[John Bragg]

Testing is useful only in that it helps to establish a norm with the materials at our disposal, so that we may then be free to depart from that norm, and put our individual interpretation into our work. Many choose to go with the manufacturers reccomendations, but that is only one means to an end. That is the beauty of our way of making images, there is no single right way. And yes, the ability to see is paramount. Many good pictures are far from technically perfect...

 

[jp80874]

I had the pleasure of being Les' "gofor" in the Toronto darkrooms, listened to him talk as we broke bread early in the morning and late at night, watched him work, watched how he treated and motivated other people, and saw his prints on the wall next to many wonderful pieces from others. Les knows and can teach the technical tools, but there are very strong emotions of every flavor in everything he does, including his photographs.

John Powers

 

[reggie]

I have bought Les McLean "Creative Black&White Pothography" and after reading if from cover to cover, I want now to give film testing a try according to his method.

Since my first BW "bible" has been "The Negative" from Ansel Adams, I was a bit surprised to read the following (p.16 on my edition):

Select the deepest shadow in the subject and read the reflected light value [...] Expose in the following sequence:
1. 2 stops less than indicated by the meter
2. 1 stop less than indicated by the meter
3. As indicated by the meter
4. 1 stop more than indicated by the meter
5. 2 stops more than indicated by the meter

Wouldn't this be equivalent to putting the shadows respectively in ZoneIII, ZoneIV, ZoneV, ZoneVI, and Zone VII from 1 to 5?

Yes, this represents Zones III thru VII.

Also, at page 21 he mentions:
I prefer to see good detail in my shadows and therefore I have chosen negative no 2. as my preferred exposure. For those familiar with the Zone System, this represents a Zone VI shadow placement that is one zone higher than suggested by Ansel Adams.

Wasn't AA's preference to put the shadows in Zone III?

Please enlighten me

This is probably a misprint. Les means that he places his shadows on Zone IV. We can know this because AA recommended shadows on Zone III as a starting point, so one higher would be Zone IV.

Personally, I put shadows anywhere from Zone II thru Zone IV depending on what I see the image as being. Often, images can be made very strong when there are small to medium areas of the print as being nearly pure black. I reference some of the work of Brett Weston for instance - he was not afraid of blacks with no detail in them.

-R

 

[B&W_arthur]

sterioma,

I have the same trouble reading Les's book in exactly the same paragraphs when I first read it a few months ago.

Most probably (and hopefully), it is a typo. "Zone VI" should be "Zone IV".
AA's method is: meter the shadow and places it as Zone III by reducing 2 stops.
Les meters the shadow and only reduce 1 stop, leads him to Zone IV. Not Zone VI. Right?

Why there are two methods? I asked myself frequently when reading books written by Englishmen. Les's method is commonly found in books from UK (at least, as far as I read them). The judgement of exposure and development is basically based on personal judegement (eye judegement). Other books follow the more tedious densitometric method laid out by AA.

Interestingly, the results are sometimes quite close, maybe not in other occasions. For instance, John Sexton's (using AA's densitometric method) result suggests the EI of 100Tmax is about 64. If you use Les method, uses boxed speed and 1-stop less the shadow meter reading. You end up "over-exposed" only 1/3 stop only when compared with John's results. Consequently, Les gets "1/3 stop" more shadow details (if shadow details can be quantified) compared with AA's desitometric method.

It is only my naive interpretations, correct me if you find anything inaccurate. Inputs and comments are always welcomed.

 

[Robert Budding]

"All of these technical ruminations will lead to technically perfect photographs of meaningless and unmoving images. "

I suppose musicians should just play and forgo all practice. That works fine with rock - learn a new chord, release a new album. Some people strive for more and want to master both the technical nad artistics components of their art.

 

[Bob F.]

<snip> I was a bit surprised to read the following (p.16 on my edition):

Select the deepest shadow in the subject and read the reflected light value [...] Expose in the following sequence:
1. 2 stops less than indicated by the meter
2. 1 stop less than indicated by the meter
3. As indicated by the meter
4. 1 stop more than indicated by the meter
5. 2 stops more than indicated by the meter

Wouldn't this be equivalent to putting the shadows respectively in ZoneIII, ZoneIV, ZoneV, ZoneVI, and Zone VII from 1 to 5?

Only if you assume that your EI is the same as the film's ASA (which is normally isn't of course). I assume the idea here is to give a wide range of possible exposures for comparison.

Also, at page 21 he mentions:
I prefer to see good detail in my shadows and therefore I have chosen negative no 2. as my preferred exposure. For those familiar with the Zone System, this represents a Zone VI shadow placement that is one zone higher than suggested by Ansel Adams.

Wasn't AA's preference to put the shadows in Zone III?

Please enlighten me

I'm sure this is just a typo: elsewhere in that chapter you will read that Les likes to put his shadow detail on Zone IV. The unfortunate consequences of any 1st edition is typos like this getting missed. Many people put shadow detail on zones other than Zone III - it really all depends upon what you call a Zone III/IV shadow detail. Some find they can judge Zone IV better than Zone III - and it's certainly easier to meter in dim light ...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[Dave Wooten]

I have it on good authority that there is one typo in the book...I will leave it to the author to clarify when he gets back on line.....that being said, I saw many of Les's prints up close and personal at the Apug Convention, they are not only full of heart and soul, they are among the most if not the most beautiful black and white prints I have seen and they are 35 mm! I heard the comment, "who needs larger format"! Seeing Les's prints has made me reflect more than a little bit on what I have yet to learn, both in seeing and imparting those inherent emotional probabilities of a photograph and working to become most proficient at bringing technically that inherent beauty to the finished print.

The evening lecture Les gave discussing in retrospect and displaying many of his prints produced from the very beginning of his photographic career to the present, was definately a high light for those in attendance....the images are lovely, emotionally moving and display the utmost in technical skill...this done in most instances with one small 35 mm camera and one lens....

Thanks again Les!

Dave in Vegas

 

[roteague]

I had the pleasure of being Les' "gofor" in the Toronto darkrooms, listened to him talk as we broke bread early in the morning and late at night, watched him work, watched how he treated and motivated other people, and saw his prints on the wall next to many wonderful pieces from others. Les knows and can teach the technical tools, but there are very strong emotions of every flavor in everything he does, including his photographs.

John Powers

One of the great things about Les is he doesn't treat people as if they are stupid - he treats everyone as if they are already a great photographer.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

Only if you assume that your EI is the same as the film's ASA (which is normally isn't of course). I assume the idea here is to give a wide range of possible exposures for comparison.

I'm sure this is just a typo: elsewhere in that chapter you will read that Les likes to put his shadow detail on Zone IV.

Don't have the Les McLean book (only the Ansel Adams set) BUT if you start experiments with the box speed of a film instead of doing the tests to find the "true" speed of your film, and then put your shadow reading on zone IV, you are effectively going to wind up in the same place as if you had found out your personal speed rating and then put the shadow reading on zone III.

I'm not really a zonie, but every b+w film I use gets rated 2/3 of a stop slower than the box speed and if I use a spot meter (more likely now since a friend gave me one a couple of weeks ago) I would always put the reading from the deepest shadow I WANTED TO RECORD (maybe not the deepest in the whole scene) on zone III.

I tend to get the same results whether I use the zone system + spot readings or more general exposure readings, super-correct exposure is not everything, but it's not a bad idea to think hard about exposure technique once in your life. Once you've found out what works for you, you can do it very quickly (there's no reason at all why a zone system reading should take any longer than any other).

Regards,

David

 

[Sportera]

I'm with Donald, I got my education from many sources namely "The Negative" wich taught me how film works and captures an image. After that it was my own vision that I had to calibrate.

I guess I would be an anit-film tester. I buy a film and shoot it, if I need more shadow detail I add more exposure, more highlights add more development. Finally I find a ground where Im comfortable in knowing that my previsualization will actually materialize in the negative. For instance, interiors of the churchs I have photographing here in New Olreans have been a learning experience for me. I can now figure exposure and dev. with some certainty that I will get the results I want. The first church I shot, the neg was too contrasty but printed well on a lower grade, in other words even technically imperfect negatives have value.

Im not really sure what I am trying to say here, except for film testing never really much interested me. The more I shoot the better my images get. I beleive in the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid) One film one developer one paper. More variables mean more headaches.

 

[mono]

I also thought this to be a mistake and sent an e-mail to Les and he told me, yes, it is a misprint in the book and it is Zone IV!

 

[antielectrons]

Yes, there a quite a few typos in the book. It confused me the first time I read it until I realised he was taling about zone IV, basically he likes lots of details in his shadows.

 

[sterioma]

Thank you everybody!

If it's a typo in the book, then it starts to make sense, even though I still wonder why bracket the shadow placement from Zone III up to Zone VII (Zone VII seems to be a bit "extreme" for a shadow).

Now, off to test

Stefano

 

[David Lingham]

All of these technical ruminations will lead to technically perfect photographs of meaningless and unmoving images.

Given the technical and the ability to see, the ability to see is the greatest.

Too many test and test and test some more...too many delude themselves in thinking that seeing is the depiction of objective reality...they wonder why others find their images meaningless and never consider what they show is the very same thing that everyone else also sees...Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things...again things that everyone else has the ability to see. Stop photographing "things" and learn how to see if you would be a photographer.

I would like to applaud this eloquent statement. Well said Donald.

Dave L

 

[David H. Bebbington]

All of these technical ruminations will lead to technically perfect photographs of meaningless and unmoving images.

Given the technical and the ability to see, the ability to see is the greatest.

Too many test and test and test some more...too many delude themselves in thinking that seeing is the depiction of objective reality...they wonder why others find their images meaningless and never consider what they show is the very same thing that everyone else also sees...Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things...again things that everyone else has the ability to see. Stop photographing "things" and learn how to see if you would be a photographer.

Learning how the film in your camera sees is a central part of mastering your craft as a photographer - no one is suggesting it is ALL you need!

Conversely, badly-exposed hard-to-print negatives are more likely to hinder than help the creative process. I don't believe anyone has ever said that photographers MUST master the zone system, but they do need to think about the way they are capturing and rendering tones, and the zone system is as good a way as any!

A lot of amateurs find their inspiration and creativity decrease as their technical competence increases, but this is no reason to decry competence - one of the most important professional skills (in any medium) is the ability to understand something in technical terms, work on it a 100 times over if necessary and STILL make it look fresh and exciting!

Regards,

 

[johnnywalker]

Thanks David, that puts it in perspective, so to speak. If I can "see" the picture, I then need the technical ability to reproduce it in a photograph.