Film testing

lee said:

What about you Mr Hicks? You seem to think that 40 years of reading about photography is all you need to be an expert. Where are your "skins on the wall"? Time folks to put up or shut up.

lee\c

Click to expand...

Dear Lee,

Sorry, I didn't see your letter earlier. I'd certainly agree that you need something other than just 40 years' reading. So try:

www.rogerandfrances.com (Galleries, Photo School), about 40 books on the subject (listed on the site), hundreds (possibly thousands) of articles in the specialist press. The Oxford University Press does not normally invite ignoramuses to contribute: see my pieces in the Oxford Companion to the Photograph.

I don't pretend to be the best photographer in the world, but I do know a lot more theory than most -- and one of the things I know is that B+W photography is so flexible that it can cover up surprisingly large errors caused by a faulty grasp of theory. Indeed there are (or at least have been) great photographers who are little better than pig-ignorant when it comes to photographic theory. Others have been master technicians. There is no great correlation between theoretical knowledge and the ability to make good pictures. Don may well have more of the latter than I; I am quite confident that I have more of the former than he. Why not look at my site and decide for yourself?

Cheers,

R.

timbo10ca said:

SBR should not be used with incident meters and BTZS. It should be IBR (Incident Brightness Range), no?

Click to expand...

That would be a far more accurate, intelligible and intelligent description -- which, I am beginning to suspect, is why it isn't used.

Cheers,

R.

I said specifically in an earlier post that I knew nothing about BTZS and so I would not speak to it, and that an incident meter is not the tool to use to determine SBR in ZS application.

I did not know till reading Sandy's post that in BTZS, an incident meter is the meter that is used. It holds no appeal for me, but at least I know that some of the previous discussions were just strange, considering the individuals involved and their knowledge base.

I have thought all along that that there was something strongly amiss in this discussion (at least by me anyway). I'm glad it is cleared up, again, at least for me.

Tim, I would suggest that you choose one method and go balls to the wall on it and forget about the other one until the time seems right (if at all) to take another angle toward the same goal---------that is to produce the finest print that you can anytime you expose a negative.

I am through contributing to this thread (I think!), but I will keep reading.

I wish there was a way to infect digital users with the same high level of passion about the analogue process that has been displayed here. It's cool.

Chuck

timbo10ca said:

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

I guess I'll keep reading- maybe this "add 5" thing will make more sense then.....

Click to expand...

Well, I did say "somewhat" .... It does not come in until Chapter 9 (in my 3rd edition).

I confess to have given up on it as it's not compatible with my temperament and I find the book extremely difficult to extract understanding from (but read Jorge's article in Magnachrom: it is a very good overview, but even he refers people to the book for the whys of adding five) but lots of people use it to excellent effect.

Cheers, Bob.

Roger Hicks said:

Actually, I might recommend a two-pronged approach to the beginner: my simple iterative test with real pictures, plus yours if they want something that doesn't depend on recognizing a good print to begin with.

Cheers,

R.

Click to expand...

I agree, albeit maybe in reverse order. If you're new, test, then adjust to taste. Adjust carefully, though, because, as you note and in my experience, new folks don't always know what to look for. Hence "get one foot on a rock" through simple tests, then train the eye.

But yes, keep this part simple! The hard part of photography is knowing where to stand, and realizing that you're always standing in the wrong place!

All best,

B

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Sandy,

Luminance adds not one iota to the clarity in any scientific sense; it is normally accepted in physics as the photometric equivalent of the commoner term 'brightness', and you are no more measuring luminance range than you are measuring brightness range. You are inferring it. We must surely agree on this.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Roger,

I am not going to waste my time parsing definitions with you or anyone else. But I hardly believe that the use of SBR, as Phil Davis (who is has made greater contributions to control of exposure and devleopment in photography than either of us) describes it, and as hundreds if not thousands of BTZS users understand and use it, is jargon.

Sandy King

To a large degree this thread is an interesting read and more informative than it is contentious. If it were to go forward with the former and not the latter it would be great.

BBarlow690 said:

I agree, albeit maybe in reverse order. If you're new, test, then adjust to taste. Adjust carefully, though, because, as you note and in my experience, new folks don't always know what to look for. Hence "get one foot on a rock" through simple tests, then train the eye.

But yes, keep this part simple! The hard part of photography is knowing where to stand, and realizing that you're always standing in the wrong place!

All best,

B

Click to expand...

Hear Hear!!!! (or is it Here Here!!!! ???)

sanking said:

Roger,

I am not going to waste my time parsing definitions with you or anyone else. But I hardly believe that the use of SBR, as Phil Davis (who is has made greater contributions to control of exposure and devleopment in photography than either of us) describes it, and as hundreds if not thousands of BTZS users understand and use it, is jargon.

Sandy King

Click to expand...

Dear Sandy,

If you refuse to use language accurately, you cannot be upset when you are misunderstood by someone who does not subscribe to your jargon -- and it IS jargon. Subject brightness range was a perfectly well understood term long before Phil Davis was born (unless he is far older than I believe). So, I believe, is the entirely logical abbreviation SBR.

It is not realistic for anyone to hijack it, invest it with their personal meaning, and then complain when it is used in its normal sense. A few thousand BTZS users do not amount to much against the English language in its normal usage.

As I said in a deliberately conciliatory earlier post, BTZS is very clever indeed. And I meant it. Nor do I dispute that Phil Davis has done more than either of us to devise an ingenious method of exposure and development control.

But this does not affect the simple truth -- which even you have admitted -- that you cannot directly measure a subject brightness range with an incident light meter.

Why do you and Don have such a problem with this? I'm not insulting your mother; I'm not asking you to spit on the cross; I'm just asking you to admit that you cannot measure a subject brightness range with an incident light meter -- at least, not in the plain English sense of 'subject brightness range' or indeed 'measure'.

Of course if you ascribe special meanings to words, i.e. use jargon, you can say anything you like. I might as well say that I measure brightness with a banana, pleading that 'banana' really means 'spot meter'.

You may refuse to 'waste' your time 'parsing definitions', but if you do, you will waste others' time as they try to guess what you mean. This is why I advocate precision in language, even if you find it distasteful.

You will note that until Don made his claim about measuring brightness ranges with an incident light meter, I did little other than my best to help Tim (and anyone else who was interested) to understand metering better. I didn't say my way was the only way; I didn't say that the Zone System is a waste of time; I didn't attack BTZS.

Then I pointed out the fundamental impossibility of measuring subject brightness range with an incident light meter -- an impossibility obvious to anyone who stops to think what the words actually mean, rather than wandering off into la-la land with their own definition of 'subject brightness range'. As a result I have wasted an extraordinary amount of time arguing with first Don and now you, and have been called arrogant, a know-it-all and a fool. These arguments have mainly been to stop other people being confused by a flatly incorrect asssertion. Read back over my posts (if you have the stomach) and you may see why I do not think that your insults are fair.

Cheers,

Roger

BBarlow690 said:

I agree, albeit maybe in reverse order. If you're new, test, then adjust to taste. Adjust carefully, though, because, as you note and in my experience, new folks don't always know what to look for. Hence "get one foot on a rock" through simple tests, then train the eye.

But yes, keep this part simple! The hard part of photography is knowing where to stand, and realizing that you're always standing in the wrong place!

All best,

B

Click to expand...

I don't think I'd necessarily argue with that. After all, by the time people want to get better, they're likely to have some experience already, so they will sort of half-done it my way first. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I suspect you're right.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks said:

Dear Sandy,

The BTZS incident-light system allows you to infer the maximum likely brightness range of the subject, and based on this inference, you can create very consistent negatives.

My sole argument -- which I do not think is answerable -- is that you are not directly measuring the actual brightness range. What you are doing is establishing a maximum possible brightness range; adjusting your development to suit this maximum possible brightness range; and regardless of whether the actual brightness range is (let us say) a nude on a fur with an actual brightness range of 1:2 or a black cat on snow with a brightness range of 1:40, you will get a very printable negative, because it ensures that the subject will be within printable limits.

This indeed fully justifies the name 'Beyond the Zone System' BUT it is not the same as actually measuring the SBR. [bold letters added by poster]

As for the way people use meters, indeed, any meter must be applied with intelligence. But the person using a spot meter knows where he is pointing the meter; can if he wishes describe that area in terms of Zones (the naming of which I freely admit to be unalloyed genius, even in my counterblast, mentioned above); and can, unlike the user of an incident meter, actually measure the subject brightness range rather than inferring it.

Cheers,

Roger

Click to expand...

Without wading into the fray of this argument I would at least like to publicly agree with my friend Roger on one point (though he's not said it in as many words). . . and even shout it to the high heavens:

BTZS is NOT "beyond" the zone system. Is is simply another system. Whether —or how— it works or not is beside my point. Phil Davis felt that the Zone System was not precise enough (admittedly, is "bubble gum sensitometry", as I call it). A number of years ago, Phil and I exchanged a series of letters on the subject. If memory serves, he didn't even like the concept of zones (though this may have had to do with the Heiland densitometer that measured in zone values as well and log D).

Here again I'll agree with Roger: whatever other criticism one might have of the Zone System, the concept itself of zones was a stroke of genius! .. it's what allows the photographer to visualize* the final print, or as I like to say, "hum the tune before he writes the music". To me, the concept of zones is what finally allowed traditional, non-ALT photography to be on equal footing with the fine arts.

It's worth remembering that Ansel Adams and Fred Archer devised the Zone System, in part, in order to "fool" non-technical, non-photographer design students into using an approach which was, in it's way, at least closer to sensitometry, but without saying the scary word out-loud.

In my opinion, "real" sensitometry —the basis of BTZS— is a hobby or discipline in and of itself, in addition to picture-taking. One might cook good spaghetti, but pasta-making is another exercise! BTZS takes a bit more set-up work than the Zone System and employs more toys and navel-lint searching (and ostensibly takes away even more time from actual picture-taking than does the Zone System, depending upon the techno-weenie level of its user). Many people enjoy this.

Again: the light measuring methods, terminology and philosophy behind BTZS is sufficiently different from the Adams/Archer Zone System to be considered
a different system (this is also borne out by the elements in the current argument between Roger and Sandy). By the way, it seems pointless to get into which system is "better", as both are a bit of plankton-sifting anyway and —judging by some of the incredible images I've seen— both systems seem to work well enough for their devoted users.

Hey, anybody ever hear of the Eastman Kodak ring-around test? The "no" system? Works damned well!

Best,

Christopher
Techo-weenie and proud of it!

*PS to Roger* - (Re: does Adams say "visualization" or "previsualization") You often say —and have even published— that you regret that Adams coined the term, "pre-visualization, which you find dumb and redundant. Roger, I have never noticed this term, neither in his writings nor in his discourses in the workshops I took with him (Others have used the term, yes!). If you can disprove this, please post it here and I'll gladly eat crow. If not, hey why not let-up on him, dude?! ;o)


.

I don't know why I was thinking AA coined "previsualization" either, but I just double checked my copies of The Camera and The Negative and The Print, and the first chapter in all 3 is to do with "visualization".

I must say that although it is difficult to see arguing amongst such peers, I have learned alot from this thread and the outsourced information it has led me to. Roger's website was extremely useful to me, and is helping me to understand BTZS a bit better as I read through it (density curves, ISO, and such). This material is as complex as it was when I first started this thread, but at least I understand it now. Thanks everybody, you've all been very helpful.

Tim

p.s.- I'm rethinking my sig file now

timbo10ca said:

Hear Hear!!!! (or is it Here Here!!!! ???)

Click to expand...

I would say "Hey you there! Hear!!"

So, Tim, do you have some funny anecdotes about film testing? With all that discussion it would be a shame not to have any practical results to tear apart!

I'm sure Art is probably stuffed with popcorn and laughter too... It is quite an interesting read!

Christopher Nisperos said:

BTZS is NOT "beyond" the zone system. Is is simply another system..

Click to expand...

Ouch, my ears! If I may respectfully disagree, please see my very diametrically opposed #13 post in this thread. Although I am taking some latitude in my claims, every exposure "system" is always doing the same thing:

* Given a certain range of brightness in a given scene, expose the film to have sufficient shadow detail, and develop it so that you can print it on a given paper, from shadows to highlights.

In practical terms, an exposure system consists of:

* a type of meter (incident; reflective)
* If needed, a measurement of a given optical system's flare that provides practical numbers coherent with the rest of the procedure
* an assessment of a given film's sensitivity to light (EI), and knowledge of its variation between picture-taking conditions.
* a heuristics to interpret meter readings and determine the absolute amount of light to fall on the film (add 5; place on a zone; substract 3 stops; etc)
* a development procedure that is subservient to the needs and limits of the final tone reproduction medium (direct positive; projection prints; contact prints; opaque/transparent material; transfer procedure; etc).

Colour work functions within this system, AFAIK, but adds a few more variables to control.

A proper exposure system will start backwards from the contstraints of the final product and work its way up the list I've given.

So what's so different between ZS and BTZS? The first one gives you an EI and a development time for your film to be printed on a given paper. The second one gives you an EI and a development time for your film to be printed on a given paper. That's a whole world of differences.

The problem with flaming someone about their proposed knowledge or lack of it is that the end result from doing so usually does not impart knowledge or understanding. It is possible to use an incident meter to evaluate the amount of light falling on a subject and subsequently use that information in a well thougth out and repeatable manner to obtain quality negatives for silver gelatin, alternative processes, photomechanical processes, etc. Because it is done on a regular basis by people of all levels of photographic experience I would be a bit reserved about decrying its use for that purpose. I think the passionate discussion about photography are useful until someone starts demanding that they are more intelligent (don't substitute "experienced "here)than someone else. Minor White/Ansel Adams capsulized for us a method to approach the photographic process. Phil Davis never meaning to discount their work or the Zone system offers another approach, BTZS...starting with the evaluation of print materials and then crafting negatives to match their specific charecteristics. In regards to the scientific aspects ...postulate,test, observe,theorize, retest and observe...both methods are valid. All would do well to respect the notion that " we stand on the shoulders of giants..." and from that perspective we all gain our view.

Miles

Roger,

Words and terms, including SBR, have multiple meanings. When we use words and terms that have multiple meanings we don’t get to pick and choose the meaning that best supports our point of view. But that is what you are doing.

Donald Miller used the term SBR to discuss measuring subject brightness range in a very specific way that persons who understand BTZS would immediately understand. Your apparent lack of knowledge of this particular use lead you to make disparaging and insulting remarks about his comments. I don’t know Donald Miller personally but I found your comments offensive because his remarks made perfect sense within the framework of the discussion.

If we were discussing the art of sensitometry from a more scientific point of view your more restrictive understanding of its meaning would be entirely appropriate. But in a thread where the subject was at least in part the merits of ZS versus BTZS Donald Miller’s use of the term was not nonesense, as you suggested, because it was entirely consistent with the way BTZS practioners use the term.

Sandy King

mhv said:

I would say "Hey you there! Hear!!"

So, Tim, do you have some funny anecdotes about film testing? With all that discussion it would be a shame not to have any practical results to tear apart!

I'm sure Art is probably stuffed with popcorn and laughter too... It is quite an interesting read!

Click to expand...

heh heh heh.....

Trust me- I'm not trying to stir any pots here.

Hey, at least we're not depressed and brooding over some kind of doom scenario, or making a hate-fest for a specific company!

jd callow said:

To a large degree this thread is an interesting read and more informative than it is contentious. If it were to go forward with the former and not the latter it would be great.

Click to expand...

That would be rather like Justinian telling the citizens in the Hippodrome in Constantinople, "let the games continue, but there will be no more gladiators, killing of beasts or gouging out the eyes of our enemies."

Sandy

I didn't know there were gladiators in Constantinople. The things you learn on APUG!

jstraw said:

I didn't know there were gladiators in Constantinople. The things you learn on APUG!

Click to expand...

The Byzantine Empire tried to replicate the glory of Rome, and in many ways Constantinople far surpassed the splendor of Rome, so I rather assumed the part about the gladiators and beasts. I could be wrong abou this, but for sure they did a lot of gouging out of eyes in Constantipole.

Sandy

I think (but not certain) the Hippodrome was for horse and chariot racing, but I get the point. I'll go back to being a voyuer.

That's a lot to get done before Constantine find's Jesus!

I don't know, but from now on, I will refer to all spot meters as "bananas," and just claim that it's one of those colorful terms they use on film sets.

David A. Goldfarb said:

I don't know, but from now on, I will refer to all spot meters as "bananas," and just claim that it's one of those colorful terms they use on film sets.

Click to expand...

So what will you call incident meters? Plantains?

Sandy