Wynn Bullock and Zone System, as told by Edna Bullock

[jtk]

I went to commercial art school (SVA) before I went to photography school (Portfolio Center, now Miami Ad School). I worked in advertising as a comp artist and graphic designer before I made the career change to commercial photography. I began my career shooting 4x5 transparencies for product photography and learned quite fast what the difference 1/3 of a stop can make with chromes. While you will not get a disagreement from me, I think a lot of people today shooting film for fine art tend to shoot black and white film, thus the discussion in this thread.

Today I look forward to retirement from commercial work in 2024, but until then I shoot ALPA technical cameras with digital backs in a studio environment. I find the medium format digital back is pretty close to shooting chromes, although with a larger dynamic range.

Best to you!

darr...I'm confident that Minor would have arrived at a place (a moving place, if place at all) something like yours if he had lived till 90 or so, knowing that he, like you, was evolving his life and not limited to work he did in some hobbiests idea of photography.

 

[christophern]

I know this will strike a lot of people the wrong way, but I always thought zonies were boring people who make pretty boring pictures. That includes Adams. They concentrate so hard on the "system" that they don't pay attention to the images. The system is a crutch they lean on to avoid walking.

I always ask people if they prefer Adams or Weston. That answer usually tells me all I need to know.

 

[christophern]

Patrick, Just wondering how much large fomat photography you've done?

 

[MattKing]

Patrick, Just wondering how much large fomat photography you've done?

Potentially, 3+ years more since the post you are responding to - this thread has been dormant since December 2021.

 

[koraks]

Patrick, Just wondering how much large fomat photography you've done?

It's probably also not a very good idea to continue on this foot.
I'll lock the thread now; if someone wants to add to it in a constructive, non-insulting, non-trolling manner, I invite them to use the 'report' function and we'll evaluate the request to re-open the thread.

@christophern has provided the following explanation for the post I quoted above; I'll repost it here with his permission:

I live in France — and have for more than 30 years. As you probably know, large format photography (especially landscapes and still life), historically, has never been as popular here as "people oriented" photography. Cartier-Bresson is king, here; Ansel Adams is largely unknown. Lie many on this forum, I studied with Ansel. He helped me understand the difference between the appreciation of the print as an object (the "Fine Print", whre the actual subject is secondary) vs photography whose content is its priority. Even here in France — a country where [I believe] the general level of art culture to be superior to that of my native U.S. — I've had to constantly explain that difference, and it has opened eyes. (usually this is easy once I mention that, when one sees a painting by Monet, they don't say, "Oh; a bowl of oranges. How boring"!) Therefore, I was curious to find out if Patrick — whose profile listed 35mm RF as his format — had formed his opinion from a "French" point of view.

I misjudged the intent of the shorter message and would like to apologize for the misunderstanding, which was entirely on my end. Please carry on!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Patrick, Just wondering how much large fomat photography you've done?

Beaucoup.

I don't think it is insulting per Koraks. I didn't take it that way at least. Just a question....

I picked up a 4x5 over 30 years ago now. I use it off and on. It is a lot of work to use it, so I only use it when it is worth it. Not a fan of carrying it around.

I worry more about what is in front of the camera than any zonie thing like I said above. The Zone System is just too boring for me to use. Most people use it as a crutch. I have this discussion often enough with other photographers. Good photographs are good photographs regardless of how they are made. Adams used the Zone System, Weston basically took a meter reading and added a stop if what I've read is correct. He developed by inspection too, so no real science behind it.

My basic approach to large format these days is just to make sure I get enough exposure, then I develop in a staining/tanning developer which limits the highlights. I probably develop more than I am "supposed to" as well. I use PMK again these days after years of using Pyrocat-P. I did a deep dive a few years ago and found I liked the highlights with PMK better.

I put 35mm RF since that is what I usually shoot walking around, but I have beaucoupz of cameras. Lol.

You are right about France. I should have never left... Although photography in the US is pretty spectacular for the most part. Not so much these days though.

 

[christophern]

Hello Patrick,

Thanks for understanding the essence of my question. I've seen some of your beautiful images on your website, so I have no doubt that you understand the concept of a "Fine Print".

That said, the "boring" part of the ZS, for me, is only at the beginning of setting up your whole system, when doing the necessary testing and calibration of all your materials and equipment. But that takes only about a weekend.

Afterwards — just like a game chess or a crossword puzzle — I find it kind of exhilarating and, if I can say, "intellectually interesting" (or, substitute the words, "fun" and "useful") to apply ones knowledge and then see if it actually worked.

It's bit like when I cook: if my tomato sauce is a little too acidic, I know that adding carrots and some sugar will correct the problem. I know this because I've — inadvertently — previously "tested" (empirically, by previous failures ... that's the "boring" part).

In short, I guess what I mean is that the Zone System can help you make great spaghetti ... or you can just buy some Chef Boy-ar-Dee!

Happy rest of 2025.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't think I've posted before on this thread, and certainly don't have the time to read its several years of input. I've certainly my fair share of Wynn's prints, and also have a lovely book of his signed posthumously by his wife, who was also a photographer. Something to keep in perspective is that Wynn, to my knowledge, exclusively contact printed, and specifically on Azo, which has a very long scale quite forgiving of negative overexposure, especially with certain films of that era. Additionally, he tended to work mostly right there in the Monterey Area where the light is fairly predictable per season and location. In other words, he had a lot of experience with it.

Ansel had much different expectations and traveled a lot more, and primarily enlarged his images onto conventional graded papers. He also perceived the teaching value to the Zone System. I personally regard the ZS as just a rite of passage, now in the rear view mirror for me, but still find it valuable as a kind of common denominator lingo for many black and white photographers, especially of the sheet film variety.

 

[christophern]

I don't think I've posted before on this thread, and certainly don't have the time to read its several years of input. I've certainly my fair share of Wynn's prints, and also have a lovely book of his signed posthumously by his wife, who was also a photographer. Something to keep in perspective is that Wynn, to my knowledge, exclusively contact printed, and specifically on Azo, which has a very long scale quite forgiving of negative overexposure, especially with certain films of that era. Additionally, he tended to work mostly right there in the Monterey Area where the light is fairly predictable per season and location. In other words, he had a lot of experience with it.

Ansel had much different expectations and traveled a lot more, and primarily enlarged his images onto conventional graded papers. He also perceived the teaching value to the Zone System. I personally regard the ZS as just a rite of passage, now in the rear view mirror for me, but still find it valuable as a kind of common denominator lingo for many black and white photographers, especially of the sheet film variety.

Drew (regarding the ZS as a "rite of passage"), I agree with you, especially to the extent that — even after a basic understanding of the principals behind the ZS (even if not the whole ZS itself) — using that as a base and combining it with empirical knowledge helps us to arrive more quickly at our own system, which I jokingly refer to as "The NO System"!

That said, I'll happily concede that — to produce remarkable work — no one "needs" to use the ZS. Wynn and Edward Weston are just a couple of great photographers whose work proves that. But, again, anyone interested in arriving at consistent results (or, more at, a way to predictably create images that correspond with their vision) must certainly fall into making some sort of 'system' of their own, of course.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm not so much into a formal system as an almost automatic one due to long familiarity with various films, both b&w and color. I almost subconsciously visualize the actual film characteristic curves and know where to place the values. One of the big differences is how much the classic ZS ala AA relied upon compression (minus) development to handle high contrast scenes. I'd far rather tailor the film to the scene by choosing a film with a longer straight line to begin with, than compress it as the expense of midtone value gradation, or if necessary, apply supplemental contrast masking. Of course, these days we have the luxury of excellent VC papers which make the job easier. I miss the classic ole graded papers, but dealing with fussy negatives is indeed easier today.