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

[Allen Friday]

Donald,

First, I once again point out that you have not addresses the content of my first post above.

Second, again you are wrong. Absolutely wrong. Dead wrong. As wrong as can be.

You incorrectly state about me, “You seem to think that the Zone system is the be all and have all of photography. I disagree with your narrowly biased viewpoint.

It has been my experience with you that whenever anything deviates from your closely held and erroneous views of the importance of the Zone System that you aggressively attack in response rather then allowing for the possibility that other things could be involved.” (spelling errors corrected in quote.)

Let us review some of my posts (from discussions you were involved in) to see where you are wrong:

1. Under “Zone System--Still Useful”

I wrote the following:

“Is the Zone System flawed? Yes.
Is BTZS flawed? Yes.
Is relying on your camera's built in meter flawed? Yes.
Is taking a single incident meter reading flawed? Yes.

There is no perfect exposure system. If there was, we would all be using it. Great photographs have been taken by all the means listed above.

Each of the above methods of determining exposure has its advantages. Each has its disadvantages. Each photographer has to determine which works best for him or her in any given situation.

To determine if a system works for you, and to determine its strengths and weaknesses, you have to be familiar with the system and use it for a while. Then you learn when it is best to use one method as opposed to another.

I do all my film and paper testing with BTZS. When I shoot medium format or 35 (normally while traveling), I use my in-camera meter. But, I have used it enough to know when I have to vary from the meter indicated exposure. Over the last few years, I have photographed snow drifts in the winter with my MF gear. (Check out my gallery for a few of the photos.) The in-camera meter is pretty much useless for this task. I used an incident meter.

For my large format work I sometimes meter using BTZS methodology, especially when I am going for a "literal" rendering of the scene. Most of the time I will use Zone System metering because I find it easier to visualize changes in the "literal" tones with the ZS. Sometimes with large format, I will not use either. I do 90+ percent of my photography in Cass County, Iowa, and I am familiar with the light here. Most the time I know the exposure and development before I have set up the camera. I will take a quick incident reading simply to verify the intensity of the light.

I am not tied to any one system. I use all of the methods described above. But, I try to use each when most advantageous. But, I can "cherry pick" the best of each method only because I am familiar with each system and have experience with each method.”


Where in my statement “I am not tied to any one system,” do you deduce that I am tied exclusively to the zone system? Where in my statement that I do all my testing using BTZS do you find me clinging to the zone system. How does my statement, “Each photographer has to determine which works best for him or her in any given situation,” make you conclude that I find the zone system the be all and end all of photography.

Lets move on to an additional post.

2. In “ZS question about reducing development” I wrote:

“Today, I do all of my testing using BTZS. I find it much simpler and quicker than the ZS testing. For me, it made sense to get a densitometer. If my circumstances were different and I could not afford one, I would use the ZS.

For my metering, I tend to use ZS metering (spot metering) most of the time, but I do use BTZS (incident metering) on occasion. I find that the ZS metering helps me to visualize better than BTZS. Another photographer (Sandy for example) may prefer the BTZS metering. Use what works best for you. One thing I like about the BTZS software is that it will provide zone numbers for you to use.”

In the above paragraph, I clearly state that photographers should “use what works best for you.”

I go on in this post to quote Phil Davis, the man who created BTZS:

“As Sandy said, both systems have merit. It is not an either/or situation. For those who avoid ZS metering because it is inaccurate or out dated, I leave you with the words of Phil Davis, the man who literally wrote the book on BTZS:

“Although these two systems are based on very different technical concepts, they’re both capable of dealing successfully with SBRs of any reasonable length, and both permit prediction and control of image density and contrast. The Zone System provides more direct comparison between subject luminance values and print tones and facilitates free interpretation, but it also allows the careless or inexperienced photographer to make potentially serious mistakes. The incident System is conceptually simpler and relatively foolproof, but beginners may find it less supportive of visualization and manipulation. In other words, both systems have strengths and weaknesses; you’ll be more competent and versatile photographer if you learn to use each of them for what is does best.” Davis, “Beyond the Zone System,” Fourth Edition, 1999, p. 133.”

Donald, you have totally, incorrectly mischaracterized my views. The views clearly stated in my posts. In other words, you are wrong. Your perception of my posts is wrong. Even a cursory reading of the posts shows you are wrong. I don't know how you could be more wrong.

I respond to posts on the Zone System because I find it valuable to my photography. It is one of many systems that I think photographers should investigate to see if it works for them. The reason I point out your incorrect statements on the Zone System is that I believe that photographers should chose, or reject, a system based on its advantages and disadvantages, not based on incorrect information.

Third, I find it interesting that you and I are in a “pissing match.” This is the first time it has happened to me. But, I note that you have been in several. I can think of three off the top of my head, even without gong back and reviewing all your posts. You have gotten into name calling, etc., with jdef in “8x10 contact paper-dev”, with Kirk in “Point Light Sources--The Theory and Application”, with Steve Sherman in “ULF reciprocity quandary” and now with me. What is the common element here? It is not jdef. It is not Kirk. It is not Steve. And, it is not me. The only common element is you. Maybe you should look back over some of your posts and see why they degenerate into pissing contests, and then go look in a mirror.

Allen

 

[Donald Miller]

Donald,

First, I once again point out that you have not addresses the content of my first post above.

Second, again you are wrong. Absolutely wrong. Dead wrong. As wrong as can be.

You incorrectly state about me, “You seem to think that the Zone system is the be all and have all of photography. I disagree with your narrowly biased viewpoint.

It has been my experience with you that whenever anything deviates from your closely held and erroneous views of the importance of the Zone System that you aggressively attack in response rather then allowing for the possibility that other things could be involved.” (spelling errors corrected in quote.)

Let us review some of my posts (from discussions you were involved in) to see where you are wrong:

1. Under “Zone System--Still Useful”

I wrote the following:

“Is the Zone System flawed? Yes.
Is BTZS flawed? Yes.
Is relying on your camera's built in meter flawed? Yes.
Is taking a single incident meter reading flawed? Yes.

There is no perfect exposure system. If there was, we would all be using it. Great photographs have been taken by all the means listed above.

Each of the above methods of determining exposure has its advantages. Each has its disadvantages. Each photographer has to determine which works best for him or her in any given situation.

To determine if a system works for you, and to determine its strengths and weaknesses, you have to be familiar with the system and use it for a while. Then you learn when it is best to use one method as opposed to another.

I do all my film and paper testing with BTZS. When I shoot medium format or 35 (normally while traveling), I use my in-camera meter. But, I have used it enough to know when I have to vary from the meter indicated exposure. Over the last few years, I have photographed snow drifts in the winter with my MF gear. (Check out my gallery for a few of the photos.) The in-camera meter is pretty much useless for this task. I used an incident meter.

For my large format work I sometimes meter using BTZS methodology, especially when I am going for a "literal" rendering of the scene. Most of the time I will use Zone System metering because I find it easier to visualize changes in the "literal" tones with the ZS. Sometimes with large format, I will not use either. I do 90+ percent of my photography in Cass County, Iowa, and I am familiar with the light here. Most the time I know the exposure and development before I have set up the camera. I will take a quick incident reading simply to verify the intensity of the light.

I am not tied to any one system. I use all of the methods described above. But, I try to use each when most advantageous. But, I can "cherry pick" the best of each method only because I am familiar with each system and have experience with each method.”


Where in my statement “I am not tied to any one system,” do you deduce that I am tied exclusively to the zone system? Where in my statement that I do all my testing using BTZS do you find me clinging to the zone system. How does my statement, “Each photographer has to determine which works best for him or her in any given situation,” make you conclude that I find the zone system the be all and end all of photography.

Lets move on to an additional post.

2. In “ZS question about reducing development” I wrote:

“Today, I do all of my testing using BTZS. I find it much simpler and quicker than the ZS testing. For me, it made sense to get a densitometer. If my circumstances were different and I could not afford one, I would use the ZS.

For my metering, I tend to use ZS metering (spot metering) most of the time, but I do use BTZS (incident metering) on occasion. I find that the ZS metering helps me to visualize better than BTZS. Another photographer (Sandy for example) may prefer the BTZS metering. Use what works best for you. One thing I like about the BTZS software is that it will provide zone numbers for you to use.”

In the above paragraph, I clearly state that photographers should “use what works best for you.”

I go on in this post to quote Phil Davis, the man who created BTZS:

“As Sandy said, both systems have merit. It is not an either/or situation. For those who avoid ZS metering because it is inaccurate or out dated, I leave you with the words of Phil Davis, the man who literally wrote the book on BTZS:

“Although these two systems are based on very different technical concepts, they’re both capable of dealing successfully with SBRs of any reasonable length, and both permit prediction and control of image density and contrast. The Zone System provides more direct comparison between subject luminance values and print tones and facilitates free interpretation, but it also allows the careless or inexperienced photographer to make potentially serious mistakes. The incident System is conceptually simpler and relatively foolproof, but beginners may find it less supportive of visualization and manipulation. In other words, both systems have strengths and weaknesses; you’ll be more competent and versatile photographer if you learn to use each of them for what is does best.” Davis, “Beyond the Zone System,” Fourth Edition, 1999, p. 133.”

Donald, you have totally, incorrectly mischaracterized my views. The views clearly stated in my posts. In other words, you are wrong. Your perception of my posts is wrong. Even a cursory reading of the posts shows you are wrong. I don't know how you could be more wrong.

I respond to posts on the Zone System because I find it valuable to my photography. It is one of many systems that I think photographers should investigate to see if it works for them. The reason I point out your incorrect statements on the Zone System is that I believe that photographers should chose, or reject, a system based on its advantages and disadvantages, not based on incorrect information.

Third, I find it interesting that you and I are in a “pissing match.” This is the first time it has happened to me. But, I note that you have been in several. I can think of three off the top of my head, even without gong back and reviewing all your posts. You have gotten into name calling, etc., with jdef in “8x10 contact paper-dev”, with Kirk in “Point Light Sources--The Theory and Application”, with Steve Sherman in “ULF reciprocity quandary” and now with me. What is the common element here? It is not jdef. It is not Kirk. It is not Steve. And, it is not me. The only common element is you. Maybe you should look back over some of your posts and see why they degenerate into pissing contests, and then go look in a mirror.

Allen

Allen, I make my assessment on your thin skinned reaction to me on each and every time that I find disagreement with a facet of the Zone system. You might want to consider why you react this way.

You seem to take exception to every belief that I have involving the Zone System, which by the way I have probably as much knowledge and experience in as you do if not more.

So we will agree to disagree...It is not my position to point out your failures in knowledge or in dealing with others. I will leave that for you to discover for yourself. I reitterate...it might be time for you to chill out.

By the way, you say that I offer misleading and false statements...where and when has that occurred?

 

[dancqu]

...and the exposure latitude of film is 3 stops.

I used to believe that. I've got a lot of thin
negatives to prove it. Dan

 

[Allen Friday]

Donald,

First, you focus on my responses to your posts. Lets look at the other side of the issue. Why do you feel compelled to respond to even the most innocuous post regarding the ZS with an attack on the ZS?

This thread by Sterioma is a good case in point. He started by asking a simple question about Les McLean’s book on the ZS. The short answer to his question is that there is a typo in the book. We have that directly from the author. You took it as an opportunity to hijack the discussion with your statements on visualization. All of this could have been avoided if you would have kept out of the discussion in the first place.

If you don’t like the ZS, fine. If you want people to make up their own minds on it, then let them by not intruding into each ZS discussion. Then I will not have to discuss where I think you are misguided in your understanding and application of the ZS.

Second, you and I both have strongly held views on the ZS, BTZS and other topics discussed on APUG. But, there is one fundamental difference between us. I am willing to back up my statements, opinions and views. I back them up with testing. I back them up by citing to the original sources. I back them up with concrete examples. That way, if someone disagrees with me, they can see where I am coming from and form their own opinion. You seem unwilling or unable to that.

Lets look at some examples from discussions we have had. In your discussion with jdef in “8x10 contact paper-dev”, you made statements about Azo, including Azo had the longest exposure scale of any paper available today. When jdef called you on it, you started calling him names and questioned his testing methods. I did the actual testing. I used your figures for Azo and then did BTZS tests on Kodak Fine Art Paper and Centennial POP. I proved by testing that both of the papers could produce a longer scale than Azo. You were unwilling to back up your point by doing the tests which showed once and for all who was correct. If you disagree with my testing in that post, then you are still free to do you own and see if you come to a different result. But, you have not done that, you would rather cling to false beliefs than find out the facts.

In “Zone system question about reducing development,” you referred to a “standard” that Ansel Adams published in “The Negative.” When I asked you to explain, you finally gave a general reference to a example that Ansel gave in his book. I actually went to the source, the writings of Ansel Adams. I went to the page where he made his statement and quoted it back to you. It was obvious that you had either not read the paragraph referred to or you had misinterpreted it.

Also in that thread, I though you were incorrect in discounting the ZS in favor of BTZS. I cited you to Phil Davis, the man who wrote the book on BTZS, to show that even he thinks the ZS has value. That cite is quoted above in the present discussion. If it comes down to believing your characterization of the ZS or Phil Davis’, I will go with Phil every time.

Third, let us turn to the issue that got all this started: visualization. Your exact statement was: "Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things...again things that everyone else has the ability to see." I think this is flat wrong, as I will explain below. Now, I did not go into it at length in my first post because I wanted you to explain where you came up with this conclusion. So far, you have been unwilling to discuss even the possibility that you do not understand Ansel Adam’s concept of visualization.

You seem to think that the ZS will lead to only one visualization. That is, the ZS determines the visualization. That applying the ZS comes before visualization, not the other way around.

There is really only one source for Ansel’s statements on visualization, his writings. So lets see what he actually wrote about it. In “ The Negative”, he discusses visualization in chapter 1, pages 1 through 7. He states:

“The concept of visualization set forth in this series represents a creative and subjective approach to photography. Visualization is a conscious process of projecting the final photographic image in the mind before the first steps in actually photographing the subject. Not only do we relate to the subject itself, but we become aware of its potential as an expressive image.” p. 1

“’Seeing’ the alternative renderings of a subject in advance provides great latitude for creative interpretation by allowing us to apply appropriate measures at all stages of exposure and processing to fulfill our visualized image. Once you begin the process of visualization, the final image becomes of paramount importance, and you are less concerned with the subject per se than with your representation.” p.2

“Once you can clearly visualize the ‘literal’ transcription of subject values, you can proceed to conscious departures from realism, with practice this becomes a swift and certain process.” p. 6

“We attempt to ’see’ the finished image through which we desire to express our concept of the subject, and perceive in our mind’s eye certain print tonalities relating to important values in the subject. Only then do we undertake the technical steps required to produce the photograph….We thus establish, before making the exposure, a plan for applying all technical controls in a manner that will contribute to the desired result.” p. 6-7

I think it is clear from Adam’s writing that he viewed visualization as the creative process that comes first. It is here that we “see” the final image. The photographer decides in advance what the photographer wants to say with the image. Will he render it literally, or will he do something different? It is only after one has decided on the creative visualization, that the photographer moves on to applying the ZS or BTZS or some other exposure system.

Donald, you seem to take the exact opposite approach. You seem to say that the ZS determines how the print must look. That, "Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things“ and that it will produce only prints of “things that everyone else has the ability to see." So, I stand by my statement that, “It will only lead to ‘empty images’ if you are visualizing empty images.”

If this concept and approach to visualization is new to you, Donald, then you need to go back and reread Adams, White, Picker, Johnson and Davis. The writings of Ansel have been in print since 1981. If you are using a different understanding of visualization, then where does that come from? It does not come from Adams.

Now, lets turn to a concrete example of how this works in the field. For my example, I will use a photograph which I have not take yet. I am waiting for the sun to set farther to the north. I plan on taking it near the summer solstice.

Here is the setting Donald: Lincoln Township Hall is a church, school and township hall built in 1880. It sits at the intersection of two county roads out in the country. The building looks like it was painted about ten years ago. While some paint is pealing, most of the clap board siding is white. About thirty yards to the west of the building are several large pine trees which are trimmed up to about six feet from the ground. In the evening, as the sun is getting ready to set, the shadows from the trees are cast on the side of the hall.

Visualization 1. I will call this a “literal” rendering of the scene. Basically, I just want to show the scene as it appears to the eye. White clap board with shadows of the tree. Full detail in both the highlights and shadows. How to execute this visualization? I would probably use BTZS metering here because there are no real zone 3 shadows. BTZS would give me a literal rendering. All I have to do is put the tree shadows and the white boards on the straight line of the negative and give it normal development.

Visualization 2. I will call this “as far from literal” as I can get. I visualize the final print as having only two tones, max black and paper white. It would be a strong, graphic image emphasizing the shapes of the shadows against a white back ground. The bottom of the clap boards are in shadow, so I would want to render them in black to juxtapose their lines with the more organic shapes of the trees. How to accomplish? I would probably use lith film developed in a lith developer. I would end up with a two tone negative to create the two tone print.

Visualization 3. Some of the tree branches hang down and could be included in the shot. I was thinking of selectively focusing on the branches and making the side of the hall be “out of focus.” With a view camera, I can see this effect on the ground glass. If I use a rangefinder, I will have to visualize how the selective focus will turn out.

I could go on with different visualizations of the same scene. But, I think I have made my point. I start with my creativity. I start with what I want the image to say. I start with a concept of how I want the final print to look. I then apply the metering and development needed to make my visualization a reality on paper. I decide how I want the final print to look--it is not decided by any system.

Again, Donald, if your concept of or application of visualization is different, then explain it to me. Or, explain how the process I describe above leads only to empty images. But, be sure and tell me where your concept comes from. Where did you get, who wrote “do it this way.” Your “experience” is not enough. If you have misunderstood Adam’s concept and misapplied it for thirty years, then your experience only counts as a negative example, I.e. “how not to do it.”

 

[Dave Wooten]

a bit of a side note:

back in the early 70's I was fortunate enough to be wondering around in a M. Chase gallery in the Chicago area near closing time. An executive of the company happened to be there and we struck up a conversation, I soon noticed we were the only individuals left in the gallery, thinking he might wanting to lock up I politely excused my self, when he said, would you like to see some really interesting paintings? Of course I said yes....he opened a back vault like room and asked if I could identify several of the paintings displayed....I identified the artists and he said, "very good, but you are incorrect in all accounts, these are all by Picasso"!

"Picasso could paint in and had mastered the technique of all of the great painters before him."

I believe Les has clarified the initial inquiry of this post....

Cheers

Dave in Vegas

 

[sanking]

I believe Les has clarified the initial inquiry of this post....

Cheers

Dave in Vegas

Dave,

This thread just shows you how much trouble can be avoided by a good proofing of the text. If only Les had been more careful and eliminated that one typo?

BTW, did you know that Picasso is said to have painted almost a hundred renditions of Velazquez's famous "Las meninas."


Sandy

 

[Dave Wooten]

Dave,

This thread just shows you how much trouble can be avoided by a good proofing of the text. If only Les had been more careful and avoided that one error?

BTW, did you know that Picasso is said to have painted almost a hundred renditions of Velazquez's famous "Las meninas."


Sandy

Actually Sandy I did not know that...thanks and your note more than proves the point....an artist, even the gifted and blessed ones among us humble mortals do not in any way have their creative genuis inhibited by the intense study and mastery of technique, they seek out this knowledge, they welcome the problem and they strive to master the solution....the redemption comes about because of the struggle....one becomes more free to express ones self in the chosen medium...it can be music, painting, sculpture whatever, all great artists have command of the techniques of their chosen venue...and most never stop learning and seeking....we must be open and ready for the opportunity to express outselves to out utmost ability when the "inspiration" descends upon our feeble minds...

I am reminded of Miles Davis the trumpet player, going back to school, re- thinking his approach, studying theory and harmony and composition and re making himself, even after being a successful and recognized jazz artist....Louis Armstrong trumpet player, realizing he must learn to read music if he is to grow artistically...and he did learn, then there is Wynton Marsalis, a "schooled cat" as we say who is a contemporary gifted among us but spends hours on technique and is one of the few who can transcend (IMHO) flawlessly from the orchestral symphonic venue to jazz and reach heights of artistic expression and technique rarely if ever before attained...

Now why would Pablo paint a hundred renditions of "Las meninas" by Velasquez? I believe that by working through the "math" we are more released to create...to see....and hopefully to impart a small part of that to others....

I have to go now and practice my trumpet.

cheers

Dave

 

[sanking]

Now why would Pablo paint a hundred renditions of "Las meninas" by Velasquez? I believe that by working through the "math" we are more released to create...to see....and hopefully to impart a small part of that to others....

Dave

In pursuit of perfection I believe. See http://www.erenkrantz.com/Words/TheBookOfSecrets.shtml for a short discussion of Picasso's obsession with this painting.

Sandy

 

[Dave Wooten]

Thanks Sandy,

good post

 

[Allen Friday]

For Sandy King,

Sandy, as long as you are checking in on this post, let me ask you a question or two about your photography. I love the two photos you posted, Oaxaca and Bannock. I would like to see more and to see the actual prints of those images, both in palladium and carbon. Someday I would like to take a carbon workshop from you , but it will be a year or two away as my photography plate is pretty full.

So, to my questions. Do you have a website or gallery listing where I can see more of your work? I have googled your name a couple of times in the past and I find plenty of references to your technical articles and posting on sites like APUG, but no reference to a web site or gallery.

Will you be posting more images here on APUG? I hope so.

I look forward to someday seeing your actual prints.

Allen

 

[Donald Miller]

Donald,

First, you focus on my responses to your posts. Lets look at the other side of the issue. Why do you feel compelled to respond to even the most innocuous post regarding the ZS with an attack on the ZS?

This thread by Sterioma is a good case in point. He started by asking a simple question about Les McLean’s book on the ZS. The short answer to his question is that there is a typo in the book. We have that directly from the author. You took it as an opportunity to hijack the discussion with your statements on visualization. All of this could have been avoided if you would have kept out of the discussion in the first place.

If you don’t like the ZS, fine. If you want people to make up their own minds on it, then let them by not intruding into each ZS discussion. Then I will not have to discuss where I think you are misguided in your understanding and application of the ZS.

Second, you and I both have strongly held views on the ZS, BTZS and other topics discussed on APUG. But, there is one fundamental difference between us. I am willing to back up my statements, opinions and views. I back them up with testing. I back them up by citing to the original sources. I back them up with concrete examples. That way, if someone disagrees with me, they can see where I am coming from and form their own opinion. You seem unwilling or unable to that.

Lets look at some examples from discussions we have had. In your discussion with jdef in “8x10 contact paper-dev”, you made statements about Azo, including Azo had the longest exposure scale of any paper available today. When jdef called you on it, you started calling him names and questioned his testing methods. I did the actual testing. I used your figures for Azo and then did BTZS tests on Kodak Fine Art Paper and Centennial POP. I proved by testing that both of the papers could produce a longer scale than Azo. You were unwilling to back up your point by doing the tests which showed once and for all who was correct. If you disagree with my testing in that post, then you are still free to do you own and see if you come to a different result. But, you have not done that, you would rather cling to false beliefs than find out the facts.


“We attempt to ’see’ the finished image through which we desire to express our concept of the subject, and perceive in our mind’s eye certain print tonalities relating to important values in the subject. Only then do we undertake the technical steps required to produce the photograph….We thus establish, before making the exposure, a plan for applying all technical controls in a manner that will contribute to the desired result.” p. 6-7

I think it is clear from Adam’s writing that he viewed visualization as the creative process that comes first. It is here that we “see” the final image. The photographer decides in advance what the photographer wants to say with the image. Will he render it literally, or will he do something different? It is only after one has decided on the creative visualization, that the photographer moves on to applying the ZS or BTZS or some other exposure system.

Donald, you seem to take the exact opposite approach. You seem to say that the ZS determines how the print must look. That, "Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things“ and that it will produce only prints of “things that everyone else has the ability to see." So, I stand by my statement that, “It will only lead to ‘empty images’ if you are visualizing empty images.”


Again, Donald, if your concept of or application of visualization is different, then explain it to me. Or, explain how the process I describe above leads only to empty images. But, be sure and tell me where your concept comes from. Where did you get, who wrote “do it this way.” Your “experience” is not enough. If you have misunderstood Adam’s concept and misapplied it for thirty years, then your experience only counts as a negative example, I.e. “how not to do it.”

Allen,

Based upon my experience using both the Zone System (nearly thirty years) and BTZS in the past three years. I find that the Zone System is limited in it's approach because it does not advocate at any point testing of the paper or of the printing process used. Adams gives one a generalized value for a Zone VIII density which is based upon an, as I understand it, erroneous film speed point. Beyond that tonal representation on the materials are not addressed because they don't literally translate from a film density to a fixed and identifiable point on the paper characteristic curve. This is dependent on the grade of paper and the paper emulsion characteristics itself. Without testing of paper the tonal representation is subject to a estimation at best.

Beyond that the Zone System does not deal with flare. At least not insofar as it relates to the exposure and development of a given film under known exposure conditions.

I just think that the Zone System is lacking in some very very important ways. I am not alone in this interpertation. Now to address the way in which a print is visualized prior to exposure of the film. That can be done with BTZS as well, if not better then with the Zone System.

YOu say that my experience is not enough. And perhaps that is where the difficulty lies. You see my experience in enough for me. In fact it counts for much more with me then all of the testing that you do. I have seen samples of your work posted online. I have seen samples of my work posted on line. I much prefer the tonal pallete of my prints to yours. If you are happy with your work that is all that counts. I would not be...but that is my appreciation compared to your appreciation.

To continue, in my experience and in my observation, so many get caught up in testing and trying to get things to match what Ansel said that they fail to reach a point of saying anything of note in their images. There are copies of trees, snowdrifts, sand dunes, rocks etc which are empty and devoid of any emotional content because the photographer may have got the technique confused with what photography is all about or what it could be for him/her. That is what I meant when I said that previsualization can lead to empty images. I have seen examples of this from some people that you may have a very close relationship to. I use visualization (actually previsualization) as an adjunct to determining the approximate rendering of the final print. I don't make it the primary ingredient. Because all of the tonal manipulation in the world will leave a dull subject matter,more graphic perhaps,but still very dull on the basis of emotional content. First and foremost to me is the spatial relationship of forms, lines, patterns etc within the frame work of the image. I determine those on the ground glass of my camera.

Taking your example of the exposure that you plan to make, I wish you well. I took a lot of that kind of image at one point. After awhile they kinda got a little dull to me after I had seen them done many times over. Have you ever felt that way?

So, in the final analysis, Allen...you seem to be taking the position that I cause you to feel a certain way by what I say. That from this state of feeling which you identify as disagreement you react with some really agressive behavior. The truth is that I cause nothing within you. You choose your interpertation and your behavior from a broad range of choices. To claim otherwise is immature and irresponsible. I am entitled to my viewpoints on things. I am entitled to express my viewpoints on things. You are entitled to disagree with my viewpoints...but you are not entitled to act like a spoiled three year old in the process.

 

[sanking]

Allen,

First, thank you for your comments about the two images I posted here on
APUG.

I do not have a website at this time but plan to have one up in a few months. At this time you can see some of my images in the technical articles I have done, say at unblinkingeye and at the alternative photography site. I also have a small gallery at http://www.mamutphoto.com/index.php in one of the featured galleries.

Frankly I have not placed a lot of emphasis on putting images on the web because I think of myself as a printmaker as much as a phoetographer, and the tactile and surface qualities of carbon prints, which are very important for me, can not be conveyed at all in a web file.

Best,

Sandy

 

[Allen Friday]

Sandy,

Thank you for your reply. I have seen the articles you refer to, but I have not checked out the mamut site for quite a while. I will look at it tomorrow.

I share your reluctance about posting images of fine prints on the internet. There is no way to convey the subtle, tactile qualities of a fine print in a digital file. But, I am impressed with your posted prints. They make me want to see more. And, most importantly, they make me really want to see the fine prints.

Allen

 

[michael9793]

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.

Don,
I agree with you, but there is a learning curve here. If you have not done testing before or you don't understand that happens with film when exposed, testing at first isn't a bad thing. I go with Michael Smiths thoughts on film and that is if you expose a shot and you are metering for zone IV or III and you don't have any shadow detail you have to lower you ASA. if the shadow detail is to dense increase the ASA/ISO. simple. and you can just think about creativity from that point on.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I'd just like to say - thanks for breaking up the peeing contest for a while.