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

David H. Bebbington said:

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,

Click to expand...

Nor am I suggesting that technical competence is unimportant or undesireable. I am saying that it is not the be all and have all of creative photographic expression.

There are those who present out of focus, unsharp, and in some cases underexposed images. Are these inadequate to the creative expression? I think not.

Those who would be illustrators of objective reality are often left aghast at those who are truly creative. Creativity often is on the fringes of objective reality.

There are those who are caught in the trap of believing that a photograph must depict information, that it must be telling a tale...nothing could be further from the truth for a creative photographic artist as contrasted with an illustrative photograher who has no grasp of creativity. The creative photographer has learned that questions posed, information alluded to but not depicted is often much, much more effective artistic expression than all of the tales ever told.

Don,

there are those out there that need to get the tech part of photography under control before the creative part can be started. Not everyone on this board has 30 years experience that you have.

lee\c

lee said:

Don,

there are those out there that need to get the tech part of photography under control before the creative part can be started. Not everyone on this board has 30 years experience that you have.

lee\c

Click to expand...

Lee,

That may be true...but I say this because I do have the 30 years of experience and because a good portion of those thirty years was not spent in being creative...I learned to be a good technician many times over...When I could have learned to be a good technician once and then went on to be a good creative artist many times over...

I look at the images that John Nannian often posts here as the true expression of creative genius. Sometimes poorly exposed, using outdated materials his work will be viewed by the technical disciple as poor photography...yet they are very good artistic output...They pose questions rather then trying to depict information. I believe that we photographers often get so caught up in depicting reality that we never consider that we can allude to the unknown and the unseen. So I don't think that technical competence is a measure of artistic ability...That is all that I am trying to say.

no one is suggesting that one spend years testing film. no one told you to continually test material it's just that no one told you not to do so. But at the same time, it made you the photographer you are today. You did not just start to make creative photographs in the last two years did you? Your photography has changed but that is because, in my mind, because you were ready to make the change. You had to call on what you knew from the 30 years of study of photography. There are a lot of begining photographers that just dont have that knowledge base to draw on.

I agree that Johns work is very creative. There will be those that dont get it. John is also one that has a lot of experience to draw on also. And it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

lee\c

I agree with Lee, without the testing more of my personal work would be hit or miss. More important, by knowing a little more (there is much more to learn) I can now predict what will happen if I rate film x, at speed y and develope at z. Now, don't want to imply that this will yield a good image...it most certainly will not. It will however give me a chance to combine what I see with what I know and the result will be what I expected (I hope )

As you both know, I am pretty much a novice...but as such there needs to be a starting point other than the exposure using box speed, developing at box speed, etc. On the other hand, we also know that just testing film/paper etc yields very little in the way of artistic work. You have to get out there and burn A LOT of film, see what works for you and what does not. It is OK to copy the masters, but at some point you have to find your own vision...so, I look at testing as a way to get me past thinking about film speed, paper, developers, etc and on to the important part of making art. Without the knowledge learned though, I might not know HOW to get a given result when presented with a scene I want to look a given way.

Just my 2cents, not really worth that.

lee said:

no one is suggesting that one spend years testing film. no one told you to continually test material it's just that no one told you not to do so. But at the same time, it made you the photographer you are today. You did not just start to make creative photographs in the last two years did you? Your photography has changed but that is because, in my mind, because you were ready to make the change. You had to call on what you knew from the 30 years of study of photography. There are a lot of begining photographers that just dont have that knowledge base to draw on.

I agree that Johns work is very creative. There will be those that dont get it. John is also one that has a lot of experience to draw on also. And it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

lee\c

Click to expand...

Lee,
You are entitled to your opinion on this but I don't know that I agree with your hypothesis.

I think that thirty years of photographic experience has absolutely nothing to do with becoming a person who has the ability to express themselves in a creative manner. In fact I would go further and say that from my experience that doing the same thing over and over, day after day, will not in and of itself engender growth in any area unless new ground is plowed.

Speaking from my experience, as a person who is on a contnuum and not speaking from the destination of some elevated pulpit, that my and other's life experiences have more to do with developing creative expression then anything that one can obtain in learning technical knowledge.

As Michael Smith has shared time and time again. Illustration is about "things" and art is about ideas. So many get into photographing "things" and never get to the point of "ideas". That is fine if one is an illustrator...but let's not call them artists.

Where does one find the basis for the expression of ideas, or concepts, or of posing questions in their imagery? Certainly not from practicing proper exposure, determining development practice, or learning how to print to arrive at desired tonal depiction.

It seems that the matter of artistic expression in photography comes from the same place that creative expression comes in all other artistic endeavors. That is the experience of joy, sorrow, pain, and suffering. Of consideration of our true basis and purpose in this lifetime. To take the time in expending a few brain cells in consideration of things beyond the obvious and routinely dull and boring.

This is where, in my experience, I would have benefitted from a departure from what everyone else was doing. In other words I listened to Ansel Adams far too long. A Zone VIII density does not a creative artist make. Nor does finding Ansel Adams tripod holes, or printing on Azo, or of using Amidol just for the reason that everyone else is doing it.

Becoming a person who is capable of artistic expression, of depicting concepts, questions, and ideas can be a lonely business because it is an individualistic endeavor and not found by plodding down the well traveled path of mediocrity.

Now the wonderful thing is that we don't need to learn only from our own experiences...we can learn from the experience of others. I am sharing the benefit of my experience garnered through my individual efforts and experiences. If there are those who strive to travel the road less traveled then this is the road less traveled. Talking about technical matters is wonderful for those who endeavor to learn technical things...but let's not confuse it for being something other then what it is.

"Illustration is about "things" and art is about ideas."

Rubbish. That is simply a marketeer's prelude.

Donald Miller said:

Lee,

As Michael Smith has shared time and time again. Illustration is about "things" and art is about ideas. So many get into photographing "things" and never get to the point of "ideas". That is fine if one is an illustrator...but let's not call them artists.

Click to expand...

I agree completely.

I might add that it is a difficult thing to achieve and requires one to conciously work toward that goal.

df cardwell said:

"Illustration is about "things" and art is about ideas."

Rubbish. That is simply a marketeer's prelude.

Click to expand...

O.K. on what basis do you come to this conclusion? Let's examine your statement. I will listen to your explanation.

Hi there: At the conference I asked him about the error in the book and he told me he was really ticked off that it got printed that way. I told him that I took the book on vacation and spent until 2 am reading the book and struggled to make sense of it. He laughed. I guess if you I really had faith in the logic of his testing method you really had to come to the proper conclusion that it was a typo. Reminds me of how you don't really know something thoroughly sometimes, until you try to explain it. The weakness in your thinking will jump up and bite you.

"Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed."

That's a lot closer to a workable notion of art than the false choice between 'things' and 'ideas'; excellent in fact. But accepting the premise that Art is either about Things or Ideas denies the possibility of art having anything to do with emotion, passion, or experience.

Experience, passion, emotions. Messy, hard to quantify. "Things versus ideas" makes excellent rhetoric, however. It is clever, it is facile, and it leads to no place. It does not, as Shakespeare suggested, 'hold a mirror up to nature'; but merely holds a mirror up to the rhetorician. And so good marketing.

I prefer Baudelaire's attempt, " Art is technique charged with emotion... the Intellect is impotent to create anything".

But Baudelaire is long dead, and good rhetoric is meant to convince rather than invite questions.

I'd look to the fruit of the philosophy, however, to judge which premise is better, Smith's or Baudelaire's. One is inspirational, the other is vacuous.

Your own recent work is splendid. It is far more than intellectual, it is fully realised and contains a dimension that Smith's work generally lacks. It makes me want to pick up a camera and make pictures. It surprises me that you are willing to make the choice between 'ideas' and 'things'.

df cardwell said:

"Art is a step from what is obvious and well-known toward what is arcane and concealed."

That's a lot closer to a workable notion of art than the false choice between 'things' and 'ideas'; excellent in fact. But accepting the premise that Art is either about Things or Ideas denies the possibility of art having anything to do with emotion, passion, or experience.

Experience, passion, emotions. Messy, hard to quantify. "Things versus ideas" makes excellent rhetoric, however. It is clever, it is facile, and it leads to no place. It does not, as Shakespeare suggested, 'hold a mirror up to nature'; but merely holds a mirror up to the rhetorician. And so good marketing.

I prefer Baudelaire's attempt, " Art is technique charged with emotion... the Intellect is impotent to create anything".

But Baudelaire is long dead, and good rhetoric is meant to convince rather than invite questions.

I'd look to the fruit of the philosophy, however, to judge which premise is better, Smith's or Baudelaire's. One is inspirational, the other is vacuous.

Your own recent work is splendid. It is far more than intellectual, it is fully realised and contains a dimension that Smith's work generally lacks. It makes me want to pick up a camera and make pictures. It surprises me that you are willing to make the choice between 'ideas' and 'things'.

Click to expand...

I think that we are in agreement. Perhaps the choice of terms by MAS (which actually originated with his fomer wife) is what causes the confusion. I think that within the term "ideas" lies those other componants that you identifed.

Much of the work that I observe today has little "meat on the bones"...It has no emotional content and deeper meaning beyond what is presented and viewable on the print.

I think that artistic expression, at least for me, must have a componant that continues to engage my attention and consideration beyond the cursory glance.

Donald Miller said:

I think that we are in agreement. Perhaps the choice of terms by MAS (which actually originated with his fomer wife) is what causes the confusion. I think that within the term "ideas" lies those other componants that you identifed.

Much of the work that I observe today has little "meat on the bones"...It has no emotional content and deeper meaning beyond what is presented and viewable on the print.

I think that artistic expression, at least for me, must have a componant that continues to engage my attention and consideration beyond the cursory glance.

Click to expand...

Yes. Well said, and thanks.

don

Dear Donald, Lee and one or two others, in a polite way, have tried point to you to the fact that people learn in their own ways. I suspect that you personally do not know what of level experience Sterioma has acquired. Why do you find it necessary to jump on the opportunity to make his act of asking a technical question wrong? Members of apug are entitled to seek technical clarification as often and as in-depth as they like from those who'd like to give their time and effort.

Your post has the effect of hijacking this thread and turning it into a vehicle for discussion of your own personal views on the merits of technical and artistic priorities in photography.

Discussion of technical issues and discussion of artistic expression are not mutually exclusive you know. People learn in different ways and via different paths. But one thing seems true to me; that real artistic development can occur more effectively following technical understanding/proficiency.

You might do well to consider this before you embark on your new teaching endeavour.

Sincerely, John McCallum

John McCallum said:

Dear Donald, Lee and one or two others, in a polite way, have tried point to you to the fact that people learn in their own ways. I suspect that you personally do not know what of level experience Sterioma has acquired. Why do you find it necessary to jump on the opportunity to make his act of asking a technical question wrong? Members of apug are entitled to seek technical clarification as often and as in-depth as they like from those who'd like to give their time and effort.

Your post has the effect of hijacking this thread and turning it into a vehicle for discussion of your own personal views on the merits of technical and artistic priorities in photography.

Discussion of technical issues and discussion of artistic expression are not mutually exclusive you know. People learn in different ways and via different paths. But one thing seems true to me; that real artistic development can occur more effectively following technical understanding/proficiency.

You might do well to learn this before you embark on your new endeavour providing photographic workshops.

Sincerely, John McCallum

Click to expand...

John, PM Sent.

David H. Bebbington said:

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

Click to expand...

David,

The 2/3 stop difference between the film's ISO speed and people's personal film speed has more to do with a flaw in the testing procedures most people use. Considering that ZS dictates four stops down from the meter reading while the ISO has speed point at 3 1/3 stops down. Four stops down puts you more at the fractional gradient speed point. In any case, no personal testing procedure that I know of incorporates flare into the equation. ISO does. Average shadows fall approximate 1.28 log units below the meter reading. That's approx 4 1/3 stops. Average flare is considered to be 0.34 or about 1 1/4 stops. This brings the exposure up to around the 3 1/3 stop difference of the ISO speed point.

Also, think about it. The ZS methodology hasn't changed since AA invented it in the 1940s while the ISO standard changed in 1960. Speeds then change by about a full stop when they changed the safety factor. Plus, according to the more accurate fractional gradient speed method and when incorporating the Delta X Criterion into today's ISO speed method, film speed is rather consistent and independent of all but extreme degrees of processing.

In my opinion, how people meter, the choices they make, and their personal tastes have more to do with the type of negative made than any personal testing procedure.

Steve

I'm back in circulation having been travelling and doing workshops in the US for the past 2 weeks. The confusion surrounding shadow placement arises because of the only mistake in the book. I think on page 24 I mistakenly substituted Zone VI for Zone IV despite having read the original draft 10 times and had it read by two photographers as well as three editors, sorry folks.

To clear things up I place my shadows on Zone IV which gives me significantly better detail on the negative and which renders beautifully luminous shadows in the final print.

Thank you Les for stepping by and clarify the issue.

I am just a beginner, thereofore I wanted to be sure I was understanding correctly.

I am very much enjoying the book which I bought while on a business travel in US, it's very informative and inspiring.

Robert Budding said:

"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.

Click to expand...

I don't find many musicians creating recitals around the playing of scales.

I find extensive testing pointless in a medium where the accuracy of mechanical shutters is something like plus or minus 25% and the exposure latitude of film is 3 stops.

In his first reply to the post above, Donald Miller states, "Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things...again things that everyone else has the ability to see." I think this is absolutey wrong.

Previsualiztion simply is the process of anticipating how the final print will look and taking the technical step necessary to acheive that print. It will only lead to "empty images" if you are visualizing empty images.

Donald goes on in another post to state, "There are those who present out of focus, unsharp, and in some cases underexposed images. Are these inadequate to the creative expression? I think not." I agree with this statement. But, it has nothing to do with previsualiztion. If the artist visualized and out of focus, unsharp and underexposed image, then the artist acheived his or her visualisation. By the way, the "underexposed" image would then not be "underexposed", it would be properly exposed because it acheived what the artist wanted.

I am not sure where Previsualization fits into all of this, but the term that I have read about in AA's work is Visualization. Chapter 1 of the Negative Page 1 "the concept of visualization set forth in this series represents a creative and subjective approach to photography." I agree with Donald that a image that was visualized and technicaly well exposed and resulting in a well crafted print may or may not be a good photograph, but by the same token a soulful image that was visualized in some manner that not properly exposed and printed may not lead to a meaningful print. Craft does count. The ZS is just one method that some photographers use, others have found BZS to fit their needs. Some of us bracket when ever possible. One size does not fit all.

Les Mclean Methods

I have his book, and find it very good.
I also have a scene in my back yard that is the same landscape day after day at the same position of the sun, so I get EV of 9 for the shadows and 14 for highlights.

Right now I am running a series of exposures that will allow me to determine
what level of shadow detail I am happy with, and then (finally) I should be able to settle on a proper development/film/exposure regimen for this subject, and then move on to less contrasty stuff.

Opinions on this route welcome

Allen Friday said:

In his first reply to the post above, Donald Miller states, "Previsualization will still give only empty images of pretty things...again things that everyone else has the ability to see." I think this is absolutey wrong.

Previsualiztion simply is the process of anticipating how the final print will look and taking the technical step necessary to acheive that print. It will only lead to "empty images" if you are visualizing empty images.

Donald goes on in another post to state, "There are those who present out of focus, unsharp, and in some cases underexposed images. Are these inadequate to the creative expression? I think not." I agree with this statement. But, it has nothing to do with previsualiztion. If the artist visualized and out of focus, unsharp and underexposed image, then the artist acheived his or her visualisation. By the way, the "underexposed" image would then not be "underexposed", it would be properly exposed because it acheived what the artist wanted.

Click to expand...

Allen,

Once again you would rather debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin then closing your mouth and opening your mind to possilbly learn something new.

Donald Miller,

Your above comment is very offensive and totally out of line. What is my offenses? I have the audacity to disagree with the great Donald Miller. I explain my reasons why I disagree. I believe that is called intellectual discourse, discussion, or debate.

Who is not willing to learn? I think it is you, Donald. You come on here and make statement after statement that is wrong or misleading. When called on them, you get defensive.

If I make a statement here on APUG, I expect that I may have to defend it. And, I am willing to do so. Too bad you are not so willing. You would rather insult me, than address my argument.

My point was not "angles dancing on a pin." It goes to the very heart of the zone system and how it is used, or miss-used in your case. I value accurate information. Information that will allow others to decide what is of value to their own photography. Apparently you value your own opinion more than fact.

When you put out false or misleading information, I will call you on it. If you don't like that, there are two things you can do: 1) Stop posting false or inaccurate information, 2) quit posting on internet forums.

So, Donald, you still have not responded to the content of my post. If you think it is wrong, tell me how. But I will not be intimidated by you from posting and pointing out when you are wrong.

Allen Friday

Allen Friday said:

Donald Miller,

Your above comment is very offensive and totally out of line. What is my offenses? I have the audacity to disagree with the great Donald Miller. I explain my reasons why I disagree. I believe that is called intellectual discourse, discussion, or debate.

Who is not willing to learn? I think it is you, Donald. You come on here and make statement after statement that is wrong or misleading. When called on them, you get defensive.

If I make a statement here on APUG, I expect that I may have to defend it. And, I am willing to do so. Too bad you are not so willing. You would rather insult me, than address my argument.

My point was not "angles dancing on a pin." It goes to the very heart of the zone system and how it is used, or miss-used in your case. I value accurate information. Information that will allow others to decide what is of value to their own photography. Apparently you value your own opinion more than fact.

When you put out false or misleading information, I will call you on it. If you don't like that, there are two things you can do: 1) Stop posting false or inaccurate information, 2) quit posting on internet forums.

So, Donald, you still have not responded to the content of my post. If you think it is wrong, tell me how. But I will not be intimidated by you from posting and pointing out when you are wrong.

Allen Friday

Click to expand...

Allen,

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 aggresively attack in response rather then allowing for the possibility that other things couild be involved.

Such is the case of your ad hominem attacks in the post to which this reply is directed. I make no false or inaccurate statements based upon my experience and my knowledge. Just because my knowledge and experience is not the same as yours does not diminish their validity.

So in the future if you find my posts bothersome, please recognize that there are other viewpoints. Mine disagree with yours at quite some variance, it would appear. It might be helpful the next time that you have this difficulty that you go out and photograph some more snow drifts or in lieu of that view those that you already have and chill out.

By the way I spelled the word angels...which is what I intended and not angles which would be indicated in a discussion of geometry.