Wynn Bullock and Zone System, as told by Edna Bullock

[Alan Edward Klein]

Once again, Michael has shown his basic ignorance of proper view camera technique. He made the frequent mistake of buying the wrong model camera for where he lives in Canada. He should have bought a northern hemisphere model instead. As it turns out, he apparently has a southern hemisphere view camera which renders a right-side-up ground glass image south of the equator, but upside-down in the north. Well, what if you happen to be photographing right on the equator?... that's what reversible backs are for, seeing the image sideways.

It's not northern vs southern hemisphere. When I was young, I was told that f you dig deep enough, you wind up in China where everyone is standing on their heads. That's why I bought a Chinese-made Chamonix view camera. But someone lied to me.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I generally prefer incident over spot because for me spot is too fussy with most people-pictures.

There should be very little in it between incident & spot - if spot-metering is 'too fussy' you're overthinking it or attempting to guess & meter mid-tones that aren't. The IRE scale does however have several skin tone indices for matching between lighting setups.

 

[DREW WILEY]

In studios, lighting ratios can be balanced for the film in advance. But in "environmental portraiture" outdoors, the light can change, and a spotmeter can quickly determine if something is suddenly out of bounds and needs exposure adjustment or not. Or it can far more easily resolve what will fall into deep shadow below, or white specular highlight above. There is nothing "slower" about a spot meter at all. But with any version, one needs to become familiar enough with their own chosen metering method and specific film that it becomes spontaneous; that's the most important thing of all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I dunno, Michael .... Sometimes people have asked to look through my groundglass at the composition, after I took the shot, and they termed it a "revelation" in multiple instances, because it was no longer just a scene, but had merit as a composition even upside down. In fact, I recently made two identical prints for sake of a diptych, with one to be mounted rightside-up, the other right next to it, upside-down. And it's darn difficult to tell which is which, and which better. No, certainly not all subjects begin to do that; but this one does. Otherwise, just stand on your head if you prefer it the other way. Maybe when commercial space flights become more affordable, someone will turn one of those spaceships into a gallery, and people can float around weightless, viewing the pictures any orientation they wish.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Well, everyone is giving their opinion here. Aren't I entitled to mine?

Yes, of course you are. But someone else already beat me to the response. When you present an opinion as if it’s a fact, or you make a claim that can’t really be backed up, you should expect some contrary opinions and dialogue to result. IIRC, you said that nobody cares about shadows, that shadow details make pictures boring, and that Ansel Adams made lots of pictures with black areas that have no detail. All of those statements will invite discussion, and I still haven’t seen any proof of that last assertion. If someone challenges you on that, they aren’t taking away your right to have an opinion.

 

[Mike Lopez]

I dunno, Michael .... Sometimes people have asked to look through my groundglass at the composition, after I took the shot, and they termed it a "revelation" in multiple instances, because it was no longer just a scene, but had merit as a composition even upside down. In fact, I recently made two identical prints for sake of a diptych, with one to be mounted rightside-up, the other right next to it, upside-down. And it's darn difficult to tell which is which, and which better. No, certainly not all subjects begin to do that; but this one does. Otherwise, just stand on your head if you prefer it the other way. Maybe when commercial space flights become more affordable, someone will turn one of those spaceships into a gallery, and people can float around weightless, viewing the pictures any orientation they wish.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The upside-down and reversed image lends an immediate detachment and sense of abstraction that invites real scrutiny of the composition. All too often people will get all hung up over what the photograph is of, rather than how it looks. And I, too, have had experiences similar to yours when emerging from beneath the dark cloth. When you are really into your work and it’s engaging you, it’s possible to come out from under the dark cloth and think “Wow…I was looking at that?”

 

[Mike Lopez]

As selling Adams' photos became good business, newer compilations of his work started to pile up. And that sadly meant quality "had" to go down.

On line is not the only source of bad reproductions. And the "400 Photographs" is the biggest, shameless publication of them all. It has a LOT of photos with black holes (and forget brilliance or tonality) that even in his calendars were much better reproduced, plus there should have ever been 400 photographs in one book to start with, as it sadly showed Adams' sameness, lack of photographic vision and as result, supporting all negative opinions of his work. The book of course has not put a dent in the sale prices of his originals, but successfully diminishes his purported life time achievements on aesthetic levels. Or perhaps arsthetics as @Alan Edward Klein likes to put it

As for detail in shadows, we could argue for the rest of this planets life whether viewers are first drawn more to highlights or shadows. An articulate composition will take care of that.

If we make photographs for viewers to approve, we are not presenting our own vision of a scene. So kick ass, stand up to the norms, make those shadow details visible to the last hair or black them out, it's your choice. Now, when lack of shadow detail becomes a felony, you may have to reconsider.

I didn’t get into the many, many books, calendars, posters, coffee mugs, mouse pads, etc., but I agree, there are any number of poor reproductions out there. Since Adams appeals to so many masses the way he does, there have been ample opportunities for bad reproductions to appear. Nothing beats seeing original prints, and it would be a mistake to form opinions based solely on what one sees on their computer screen.

 

[jtk]

There should be very little in it between incident & spot - if spot-metering is 'too fussy' you're overthinking it or attempting to guess & meter mid-tones that aren't. The IRE scale does however have several skin tone indices for matching between lighting setups.

If you're shooting people in action spot meters are probably wildly inappropriate. IMO most photographers want to use appropriate tools.

 

[tballphoto]

I didn’t get into the many, many books, calendars, posters, coffee mugs, mouse pads, etc., but I agree, there are any number of poor reproductions out there. Since Adams appeals to so many masses the way he does, there have been ample opportunities for bad reproductions to appear. Nothing beats seeing original prints, and it would be a mistake to form opinions based solely on what one sees on their computer screen.

Honestly that raises the question. Is the massive industry generated around reproducing prints by Adams and others like Weston, any other then a way to capitalize on the bourgeoisie desire to have items about the house and work space that make them appear to be more worldly and sophisticated then they are? Its not a new phenomenon, been around for over a century. A good number of crime noir films and novels make use of it. Several episodes of Columbo deal with that aspect of life.

 

[MattKing]

Better that people buy Adams reproductions than William Wegman or Anne Geddes reproductions.
It really doesn't matter though - some will be inspired by each of them to make wonderful work of their own, others will be inspired to seek out much less mainstream work and others will simply have pictures on their walls that they like and think others will like, which is reason enough to have them on their walls.

 

[DREW WILEY]

jtk, why would spotmeters be any more appropriate to action photography than an incident meter? Measuring the background contrast in advance of the race horse rounding the corner won't delay the shot itself.. News photojournalism and sports events existed long before TTL metering and automated exposure setting ever existed, or even any kind of light meter. Movies too. But yeah, I have pro commercial photographer friends who probably couldn't breathe without all the bells and whistles. Personal choice, even of career.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Michael - I wonder what sport Damien Hirst would have taken up if he hadn't been a celebrity artist - Olympic champ at flipping round colored tiddlywinks? (Yeah, I like to ridicule him too, but he does in fact have a very sensitive eye for hue; those dot colors aren't random at all, as much as I regard it as a stunt too similar to Pop Art for my taste).

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, of course you are. But someone else already beat me to the response. When you present an opinion as if it’s a fact, or you make a claim that can’t really be backed up, you should expect some contrary opinions and dialogue to result. IIRC, you said that nobody cares about shadows, that shadow details make pictures boring, and that Ansel Adams made lots of pictures with black areas that have no detail. All of those statements will invite discussion, and I still haven’t seen any proof of that last assertion. If someone challenges you on that, they aren’t taking away your right to have an opinion.

Mike, we're arguing about aesthetics which is based on personal beliefs and opinions. There are no facts that shadow areas are better if more open, darker, black, or in between. I'm just giving my opinion. If someone foolishly takes my opinion as fact, then I don't know what to say. They shouldn't give me so much credit.

As far as Ansel Adams, some of his pictures that I saw on the web had black details in many shadows. If that's because the photo didn't download or scan correctly by the person who posted it, well, it's not my fault. I based my statement on the facts as were given to me. There was no way for me to know the actual condition of the photo. In any case, someone corrected my misunderstanding which I appreciate them doing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. The upside-down and reversed image lends an immediate detachment and sense of abstraction that invites real scrutiny of the composition. All too often people will get all hung up over what the photograph is of, rather than how it looks. And I, too, have had experiences similar to yours when emerging from beneath the dark cloth. When you are really into your work and it’s engaging you, it’s possible to come out from under the dark cloth and think “Wow…I was looking at that?”

Is that your opinion or are you presenting it as a fact?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

As selling Adams' photos became good business, newer compilations of his work started to pile up. And that sadly meant quality "had" to go down.

On line is not the only source of bad reproductions. And the "400 Photographs" is the biggest, shameless publication of them all. It has a LOT of photos with black holes (and forget brilliance or tonality) that even in his calendars were much better reproduced, plus there should have ever been 400 photographs in one book to start with, as it sadly showed Adams' sameness, lack of photographic vision and as result, supporting all negative opinions of his work. The book of course has not put a dent in the sale prices of his originals, but successfully diminishes his purported life time achievements on aesthetic levels. Or perhaps arsthetics as @Alan Edward Klein likes to put it

As for detail in shadows, we could argue for the rest of this planets life whether viewers are first drawn more to highlights or shadows. An articulate composition will take care of that.

If we make photographs for viewers to approve, we are not presenting our own vision of a scene. So kick ass, stand up to the norms, make those shadow details visible to the last hair or black them out, it's your choice. Now, when lack of shadow detail becomes a felony, you may have to reconsider.

What is the "correct" print? Adams made different versions from the same negative. Once I visited the AIPAC show in NYC a few years back. It's where photo dealers from around the world gather once a year to sell their wares. About 4 to 5 booths were selling Adams prints. Each had the Moon Over... shot running from around $55K to around $100K. All were different. Which was the right one?

 

[Mike Lopez]

Mike, we're arguing about aesthetics which is based on personal beliefs and opinions. There are no facts that shadow areas are better if more open, darker, black, or in between. I'm just giving my opinion. If someone foolishly takes my opinion as fact, then I don't know what to say. They shouldn't give me so much credit.

As far as Ansel Adams, some of his pictures that I saw on the web had black details in many shadows. If that's because the photo didn't download or scan correctly by the person who posted it, well, it's not my fault. I based my statement on the facts as were given to me. There was no way for me to know the actual condition of the photo. In any case, someone corrected my misunderstanding which I appreciate them doing.

I don't think we're going to get anywhere with this. You made statements as though they were unassailable facts ("detail in shadows makes the picture boring," etc.). When I countered those opinions, you acted as though you aren't allowed to have an opinion at all, which seemed a little over the top.

Regarding Ansel Adams, I would argue that what you saw on the internet are not "facts," but bad reproductions, which was the point of my first statement ("I suspect you are looking at poor reproductions online."). It turns out that you were, in fact, looking at poor reproductions, as someone else pointed out. That's all my statement was meant to be--a suggestion that perhaps you don't have the most accurate information and that your viewing experience might be improved upon. Which seems like an important thing to have in place before making proclamations about someone's work. I believe I was right. There's a whole lot of information on the internet, but not all of it is accurate.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Is that your opinion or are you presenting it as a fact?

It's about as near a fact as anything else in this thread. The response you received about the brain in post #177 states this far better than I ever could. Go check that one out.

 

[Mike Lopez]

What is the "correct" print? Adams made different versions from the same negative. Once I visited the AIPAC show in NYC a few years back. It's where photo dealers from around the world gather once a year to sell their wares. About 4 to 5 booths were selling Adams prints. Each had the Moon Over... shot running from around $55K to around $100K. All were different. Which was the right one?

I don't mean to answer for VTLD, but that particular photograph was reimagined and presented by Adams in a number of different ways over time. (This could probably be a thread of its own).

But I don't think that VTLD was asserting that any of them are or were "correct." VTLD's post was about bad reproductions showing up in cash grabs (I took a little liberty there) published with apparently little regard for the original prints. Bad reproductions are bad reproductions, regardless of which interpretation of a given print they are depicting.

And for what it's worth (a grain of salt, perhaps), I agree with the rest of VTLD's post--the saturation levels that Adams' work has achieved makes it very easy to see the sameness, lack of vision, etc., that seems to emerge over time. I've sometimes wondered just how many tripod holes Adams left returning to his favorite spots to photograph the same scenes over and over again. I read somewhere that he wasn't really photographing the landscape--he was photographing the weather. That has always seemed like a good observation to me.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Reading through comments and getting back to the zone system (or similar system), I want to add that a photographer that discounts the reason to learn contrast control is in part similar to accepting “bad reproductions” as good or acceptable. From my experience in photography classrooms, not everyone sees the difference. I have always said it was like their vision was tone deaf as someone can be with sound. It is only a problem if they want to pay the bills via photography. Otherwise they tend to spend money looking for magic bullets and grow frustrated when they feel their work is not getting any better over time. To learn the craft of photography opens up the door further to pursue art with a lens and light. Photography’s contribution to art is the ability to shape and capture beautiful light besides suspending moments in time. We can become better photographers when we study light control as our craft and composition as our art.

Very well put. Contrast control in film developing (expansion/contraction) and in paper and chemistry selections will always be vital. I wish that the full range of papers available in the past were still with us today.

 

[jtk]

Adams prints have been all over the map forever. That has nothing to do with ZS, it has to do with his own shifting eyeball standards or the standards of the people who printed for him over the years.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Today's premium VC papers are way more versatile in terms of scale and printing resilience than the graded papers of the past. Negatives which were once hard to print well have become relatively easy. But still, some of those classic graded papers had special qualities I miss.

But one feature of the Zone System in particular which I set aside long ago is contraction development. I'd rather use a longer scale film appropriate to the scene, or resort to supplemental unsharp masking, then crush the sparkle and life out of the midtones by employing "minus", or "pull", or "compensating" development. And it annoys me how people go back to AA all the time as an example of a master printer. Well, he was certainly proficient enough to know what he wanted and how to get there using his own tool kit. But that hardly makes his advice and methods ideal today, when we have a not only a bigger tool kit, but superior films and papers. Ever see some of his negatives up close? Many are a mess, and that's why he had to work so hard to print them well. And it sure didn't help that some of them had water damage due to a studio fire.

And as far as AA's Trust goes, they have enough financial momentum to provide very high quality press reproductions, as well as postcards and so forth. He wanted his images democratized. You can still even get real darkroom prints from his original negs at a reasonable price, made by his former assistant Alan Ross. For serious collectors, there's always the option of spending a hundred times as much for the real deal printed and signed by AA himself, which ironically might not look quite as good as a modern reproduction. So it's really that vintage signature you're paying for, along with the visual flaws that characterize period authenticity.

 

[jtk]

Reading through comments and getting back to the zone system (or similar system), I want to add that a photographer that discounts the reason to learn contrast control is in part similar to accepting “bad reproductions” as good or acceptable. From my experience in photography classrooms, not everyone sees the difference. I have always said it was like their vision was tone deaf as someone can be with sound. It is only a problem if they want to pay the bills via photography. Otherwise they tend to spend money looking for magic bullets and grow frustrated when they feel their work is not getting any better over time. To learn the craft of photography opens up the door further to pursue art with a lens and light. Photography’s contribution to art is the ability to shape and capture beautiful light besides suspending moments in time. We can become better photographers when we study light control as our craft and composition as our art.

I will simply point out that many/most the aesthetically and technically best photographers have LONG worked with transparencies, including the first Ektachrome and the first color version of Kodachrome. As well, few of those spent significant time in classrooms....more often learned from more genuine mentors (as assistants), from graphic designers and art directors. The commercial world is far more demanding than the fine art world.

 

[Mike Lopez]

Today's premium VC papers are way more versatile in terms of scale and printing resilience than the graded papers of the past. Negatives which were once hard to print well have become relatively easy. But still, some of those classic graded papers had special qualities I miss.

But one feature of the Zone System in particular which I set aside long ago is contraction development. I'd rather use a longer scale film appropriate to the scene, or resort to supplemental unsharp masking, then crush the sparkle and life out of the midtones by employing "minus", or "pull", or "compensating" development. And it annoys me how people go back to AA all the time as an example of a master printer. Well, he was certainly proficient enough to know what he wanted and how to get there using his own tool kit. But that hardly makes his advice and methods ideal today, when we have a not only a bigger tool kit, but superior films and papers. Ever see some of his negatives up close? Many are a mess, and that's why he had to work so hard to print them well. And it sure didn't help that some of them had water damage due to a studio fire.

And as far as AA's Trust goes, they have enough financial momentum to provide very high quality press reproductions, as well as postcards and so forth. He wanted his images democratized. You can still even get real darkroom prints from his original negs at a reasonable price, made by his former assistant Alan Ross. For serious collectors, there's always the option of spending a hundred times as much for the real deal printed and signed by AA himself, which ironically might not look quite as good as a modern reproduction. So it's really that vintage signature you're paying for, along with the visual flaws that characterize period authenticity.

I only make contact prints, using a naked light bulb, and I’m having a lot of fun doing it. I’m aware of the capabilities of VC papers, but I’m sticking with my methods. They work for me.

 

[Vaughn]

It's about as near a fact as anything else in this thread. The response you received about the brain in post #177 states this far better than I ever could. Go check that one out.

Well, it is kick-in-the-pants fun to introduce students to an image on the 4x5 GG. As if I did not have enough fun introducing them to TLR cameras! It challenges them on how they perceive the world through a camera and how to put together an image in a different way. They take that in and then they move on. Their experience may or may not influence their future work. In the late 70s at college I used a 4x5 for a required class assignment, and have continued to use LF cameras since.
Others in the class swore they'd never touch one again...and some of those did anyway.

I use a printing process the reverses the image. I print using camera negatives and the process' physical properties do not allow for printing the negatives reversed.
So...when I am looking at the upside-down image (but not backwards) on the GG, to 'visualize' my finished print from what I see on the GG, I have to mentally turn the image right-side up for one printing process (rotate it 180 degrees), but then also mentally mirror-image it for another printing process.

Actually after a few decades and without effort; for platinum prints I just mentally stick a pin in the center of the GG and rotate the image a half turn (180 degrees...now right side up and not backwards).
For carbon prints I mentally place a horizontal axis from side to side through the center of the GG and spin the image a half turn. (right side up and backwards).

Whatever works and however one works...Bullock just did not need the tests, nor the tools, of the Zone System.

 

[Ivo Stunga]

Here's a fun insight on how our brains perceive and construct the story of reality around us. Namely the Huge Moon illusion (our cameras don't suffer from this) on the horizon and how to unsee it with no tools.


So there easily could be something truly beneficial by perceiving the scene differently, possibly noticing something otherwise missed/misread as with that huge Moon.