Wynn Bullock and Zone System, as told by Edna Bullock

[Deleted member 88956]

Below from Darkroom Cookbook by Steve Anchell (I had never seen this before)

[QTE]

Wynn Bullock was a contemporary and good friend of Ansel Adams. While Wynn was renowned for his print quality, he rarely used light meter and when he did it was in most rudimentary fashion - aim at a subject and take a reading. Ansel was often seen coercing Wynn to learn the Zone System. Finally, Wynn acquiesced and purchased a spot meter and densitometer. Ansel told him what to do, and Wynn began testing his materials.

Wynn's darkroom was in a basement of his home which was accessed by wooden stairs outside back door of the house. One day his wife, Edna, was in the back room working on a project of her own. She heard Wynn clumping up the stars from the darkroom, the back door thrown open, and then the sound of "clang and clang" as Wynn tossed something into the circular trash can next to the back door. She then heard him say "To hell with this damn testing! I'm going out and make some pictures".

After he had stormed off with his camera and tripod, Edna went to see what he had thrown away. There in the trash can was Wynn's sport meter and densitometer. She fished them out and later Wynn gave them to Ansel.

[EQTE]

I'm one of those who are not crazy about testing. Reading above passage was to me a fresh reminder of conclusion I came to after reading through the entire "Controls in Black and White Photography" by Richard J. Henry - one can test anything to death, but depending on objective, it is likely to end up being either a regretful waste of time, or extremely limited in added value.

There are times and places where testing is not all wrong, but devoting endless hours to it is procrastinating actual picture making. The time some spend on testing, retesting, endlessly "solving" a hardly existing problem, in fact creating new problems when they don't seem to have one, is time lost, time never to be reclaimed, time not used to improve own eye, situational awareness, putting together building blocks needed to get better, or to better understand direction one wants to take. None of these blocks exist in a testing room.

There is of course technical aspect to creating an image, sometimes making all the difference in final delivery of pre-supposed image. Testing though is a selective need, not a primary reason for experiencing photography.

At what point testing is too much? Why some clearly have trouble getting out of that testing rut?

 

[Lachlan Young]

If there's one thing that Henry's 'Controls...' makes clear through its rigorously applied scientific approach and well executed experiments, it's that an awful lot of the books that purport to teach technique belong in the same place Bullock put the densitometer (and I firmly include the 'Darkroom Cookbook' in that category) - and that many supposedly 'technically-minded' (pseudo-technically would be more accurate) photographers may actually be relying more on the safety margins built into many B&W emulsions (hence all the whining about t-grain films which reduced some of those margins in favour of better image transmission capacity). At the end of the day, sufficient exposure (easy enough to do with even a fraction of common sense) and reasonably well controlled processing with very conventional developers like ID-11/ D-76 are going to net overall better quality sufficiently easily that you will have no excuses not to get on with making images. And this is the heart of the problem: wasting time on pseudo-technical metaphysical doubts is attractive to a certain mentalité because these assumed technical qualities can be reduced in facile and errant ways to a set of supposed numbers that 'prove' something (rather than the rigorous and complex science that underpins the materials etc), whereas composition & art practice etc cannot be subjected to a similar set of facile reductions to simple calculations, the application of which will automatically turn you into a Great ArtistTM.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

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.

 

[Vaughn]

...
There is of course technical aspect to creating an image, sometimes making all the difference in final delivery of pre-supposed image. Testing though is a selective need, not a primary reason for experiencing photography.

At what point testing is too much? Why some clearly have trouble getting out of that testing rut?

I did two years of 'testing' before finding how to make a process mine (single transfer carbon printing). I was aided by the fact that I never saw a carbon print other than my own for the first ten years or so of working with the process. But there were countless all-night printing sessions with no decent prints. Lessons learned, of course, something to build on.
I suppose it was more like R&D...the testing was trying to make prints -- working with the exposure/development of the negatives to match my ever-changing formula for the carbon tissue. I made changes based on my past experience with silver gelatin printing and what I was discovering with the carbon process...and I kept good notes. And it ended up that working with the process changed the way I see and work over-all. Pretty cool to have the testing expand one's vision rather than just confirm it.

But it was not too tough to go out into the redwoods to expose some more film to try different developing time/concentrations. That was the fun part. Photo: Mill Creek, CA, 4x10 Carbon Print

 

[Deleted member 88956]

In a court of law, would using Zone System be a misdemeanor or a felony?

There are aspects of ZS that do allow a useful level of control. Sadly, ZS for as long since word was spread out, has been far more a misunderstood technical drag than a helping hand. Had writers planned to make it as enigmatic as they "explained" it, or was/is the effect just an anecdotal result of well intended - ill delivered content?

There are a few images from Ansel Adams that are hard to ignore from aesthetic perspective (of course this varies with whichever eyes are evaluating). Yet it is unfortunate that he's more associated with Zone System, than photographs he made. I will say though that the triplet Camera-Negative-Print are great books to own, read and again - spend more time with. This especially applies to the original (but later) hard bound versions. They can have a very positive effect on a person, develop a will to keep on trying to improve. But one needs to get past their implied purpose and appreciate more how they were written, organized, and printed.

As for Adams-Weston debacle? Both have become names people who immerse themselves in photography get to know, willing or not. There are many more. It's not easy to disassociate WHO made it from WHAT was actually made. Anything made by well known individual has the inherent distortion of implied quality.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Below from Darkroom Cookbook by Steve Anchell (I had never seen this before)

[QTE]

Wynn Bullock was a contemporary and good friend of Ansel Adams. While Wynn was renowned for his print quality, he rarely used light meter and when he did it was in most rudimentary fashion - aim at a subject and take a reading. Ansel was often seen coercing Wynn to learn the Zone System. Finally, Wynn acquiesced and purchased a spot meter and densitometer. Ansel told him what to do, and Wynn began testing his materials.

Wynn's darkroom was in a basement of his home which was accessed by wooden stairs outside back door of the house. One day his wife, Edna, was in the back room working on a project of her own. She heard Wynn clumping up the stars from the darkroom, the back door thrown open, and then the sound of "clang and clang" as Wynn tossed something into the circular trash can next to the back door. She then heard him say "To hell with this damn testing! I'm going out and make some pictures".

After he had stormed off with his camera and tripod, Edna went to see what he had thrown away. There in the trash can was Wynn's sport meter and densitometer. She fished them out and later Wynn gave them to Ansel.

[EQTE]

I'm one of those who are not crazy about testing. Reading above passage was to me a fresh reminder of conclusion I came to after reading through the entire "Controls in Black and White Photography" by Richard J. Henry - one can test anything to death, but depending on objective, it is likely to end up being either a regretful waste of time, or extremely limited in added value.

There are times and places where testing is not all wrong, but devoting endless hours to it is procrastinating actual picture making. The time some spend on testing, retesting, endlessly "solving" a hardly existing problem, in fact creating new problems when they don't seem to have one, is time lost, time never to be reclaimed, time not used to improve own eye, situational awareness, putting together building blocks needed to get better, or to better understand direction one wants to take. None of these blocks exist in a testing room.

There is of course technical aspect to creating an image, sometimes making all the difference in final delivery of pre-supposed image. Testing though is a selective need, not a primary reason for experiencing photography.

At what point testing is too much? Why some clearly have trouble getting out of that testing rut?

the knowledge, I gained from testing, is something I wouldn't like to miss and it kept me out of the bars for years.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

the knowledge, I gained from testing, is something I wouldn't like to miss and it kept me out of the bars for years.

You are in a unique position to say this. To start, it took a lot of testing to support Way Beyond Monochrome. At the same time, owning all its versions (odd one included), I take the book as all encompassing technical work, supported by meaningful photographs, graphs where relevant, and yet not one that shouts to every reader: go out and test, test, test! WBM is to some all they need to know about technical aspects who just get it and move on, some who perhaps need to see some own tests to better understand tis implications, yet others who end up just asking questions and never see the light of day. But it is one of the very few books that belong in the category : if I had to have only one, this would be it. You have seen praise all over for it and it is well deserved.

One the other hand, Richard Henry's book I mentioned, clearly took a scientist's mind set to get the data, and it was lacking in images (and more down to earth approach), to show what he tried to prove. Lack of photographs kills that message more than the daunting task of getting through the text without trying to step on a ledge and jumping off. His work was nothing to discredit, just not very helpful in achieving better photographs. Unless better is one that proves itself in a testing lab.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Fortunately, I don't have a darkroom to get involved in all that testing which I;d probably do because I'm a great procrastinator and perfectionist. So the only testing I've done is to try different emulsions to see what I like. Then, I send my film to pro labs to develop, no pushing or pulling. They seem to know what they're doing. When I get around to printing, I'll have to find a lab that does it well too. I like rich tones across the spectrum. Tmax seems to do that.

 

[Lachlan Young]

One the other hand, Richard Henry's book I mentioned, clearly took a scientist's mind set to get the data, and it was lacking in images (and more down to earth approach), to show what he tried to prove. Lack of photographs kills that message more than the daunting task of getting through the text without trying to step on a ledge and jumping off. His work was nothing to discredit, just not very helpful in achieving better photographs. Unless better is one that proves itself in a testing lab.

It seems like you missed the larger scale view that Henry's work delivers in merciless yet understated detail. Don't bother with all sorts of fanciful developers - ID-11/ D-76 (for example) are actually highly optimal [I think people seem to very casually dismiss the extent of effort that went in to trying to understand & improve on the D-76 formula by Kodak, Ilford etc]. Don't waste time on all sorts of strange film testing procedures, the ISO rating on the box is correct, if you understand how to key exposure (much simpler than people who've spent too long with various zone manuals want to admit). The rest is about not being sloppy in temperature or agitation - and that at anything above absolutely zero agitation they won't alter anything (outwith experimental error) other than overall contrast, no matter how hard charlatans on the internet or in books/ magazines want you to believe they will. At a slightly more advanced level, there's some basic maths and flare factors that can be applied to zero in on a more optimal film process time for the way you want to print.

Another context that you need to keep in mind is that the zone system was conceived at a time when electronic lightmeters were bleeding-edge, and densitometers seemed like sci-fi instruments that lurked in the tiny number of colour labs & manufacturers' R&D (and were unspeakably expensive). In those contexts, determining useful exposure etc via sweat equity was much cheaper.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

It seems like you missed the larger scale view that Henry's work delivers in merciless yet understated detail. Don't bother with all sorts of fanciful developers - ID-11/ D-76 (for example) are actually highly optimal [I think people seem to very casually dismiss the extent of effort that went in to trying to understand & improve on the D-76 formula by Kodak, Ilford etc]. Don't waste time on all sorts of strange film testing procedures, the ISO rating on the box is correct, if you understand how to key exposure (much simpler than people who've spent too long with various zone manuals want to admit). The rest is about not being sloppy in temperature or agitation - and that at anything above absolutely zero agitation they won't alter anything (outwith experimental error) other than overall contrast, no matter how hard charlatans on the internet or in books/ magazines want you to believe they will. At a slightly more advanced level, there's some basic maths and flare factors that can be applied to zero in on a more optimal film process time for the way you want to print.

Another context that you need to keep in mind is that the zone system was conceived at a time when electronic lightmeters were bleeding-edge, and densitometers seemed like sci-fi instruments that lurked in the tiny number of colour labs & manufacturers' R&D (and were unspeakably expensive). In those contexts, determining useful exposure etc via sweat equity was much cheaper.

On the same token, you appear to have missed the main "point" his research proves - you cannot follow in his footsteps hoping to attain same level of temperature control, water quality etc., which is basically saying: do it all within constraints of your set up, yet don't think of it all as much as I had to in my tests.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It seems like you missed the larger scale view that Henry's work delivers in merciless yet understated detail. Don't bother with all sorts of fanciful developers - ID-11/ D-76 (for example) are actually highly optimal [I think people seem to very casually dismiss the extent of effort that went in to trying to understand & improve on the D-76 formula by Kodak, Ilford etc]. Don't waste time on all sorts of strange film testing procedures, the ISO rating on the box is correct, if you understand how to key exposure (much simpler than people who've spent too long with various zone manuals want to admit). The rest is about not being sloppy in temperature or agitation - and that at anything above absolutely zero agitation they won't alter anything (outwith experimental error) other than overall contrast, no matter how hard charlatans on the internet or in books/ magazines want you to believe they will. At a slightly more advanced level, there's some basic maths and flare factors that can be applied to zero in on a more optimal film process time for the way you want to print.

Another context that you need to keep in mind is that the zone system was conceived at a time when electronic lightmeters were bleeding-edge, and densitometers seemed like sci-fi instruments that lurked in the tiny number of colour labs & manufacturers' R&D (and were unspeakably expensive). In those contexts, determining useful exposure etc via sweat equity was much cheaper.

Could you explain: "...the ISO rating on the box is correct, if you understand how to key exposure (much simpler than people who've spent too long with various zone manuals want to admit)..."

 

[Deleted member 88956]

If you read Adams carefully, and if you know his work well, the strongest of his images typically succeed despite having been poorly exposed/developed negatives.

Film records information. Expose sufficiently, develop to a normal gradient, and work on the print.

Hard to disagree. I'll add to this: give your eyes time and opportunity to develop and connect with camera and end print.

 

[Lachlan Young]

On the same token, you appear to have missed the main "point" his research proves - you cannot follow in his footsteps hoping to attain same level of temperature control, water quality etc., which is basically saying: do it all within constraints of your set up, yet don't think of it all as much as I had to in my tests.

No, what it says is that if you take the effort to eliminate process variables, you discover that most of the popular technical books are making wildly misleading/ errant claims. The problem is that in order to comprehensively disprove that propagated nonsense, you have to do massively more work than those spraying the firehose of BS.

Could you explain: "...the ISO rating on the box is correct, if you understand how to key exposure (much simpler than people who've spent too long with various zone manuals want to admit)..."

Think about it this way at a very basic level: exposure keying for highlight detail retention matters on transparency (light the shadows if you need to), keying your exposure for shadow detail retention is the aim with negs for stills ( because in B&W you can control highlight density via process times/ burning in/ using a different grade of paper etc if needed - there are variances in terms of what you can or can't do with colour neg, but C-41 is also able to control highlight densities in ways that B&W can't).

 

[Deleted member 88956]

No, what it says is that if you take the effort to eliminate process variables, you discover that most of the popular technical books are making wildly misleading/ errant claims. The problem is that in order to comprehensively disprove that propagated nonsense, you have to do massively more work than those spraying the firehose of BS.

I suppose I have to start laughing at all your nonsense?

I will repeat somewhat differently. Henry proves beyond reasonable doubt that absolute majority of film photographers CANNOT control the process in order to get his "conclusive" results. This is for a number of reasons. Just one look at a summary of what he devised for his tests is proof of that. But I suppose you know for sure it is a non issue. And I also have to assume that all your darkroom work is exactly as precisely controlled as in his tests. Even if it were, it makes absolute zero difference in actual final results.

I don't examine my negatives nor prints under microscope. I don't care, if I got to last piece of emulsion grain, nor whether it has blossomed to technical "perfection" during processing.

As I also stated, Henry proved by showing ZERO images to show the difference. Why? Is he just such an inept photographer, that if he did show them, he would have killed every processing argument he tried to prove? Or did he in the end, just like myself and many others, arrived at a conclusion: it's all a crock of shit anyways, it's better to just spend more time on actual photography?

I understand you have a problem with what I am saying, or with Steve Anchell. Fine. I can respect your perception of Henry's added value to film processing. And I mentioned his book not exactly for reasons to end up bashing him. I stated clearly, his dedication to that scientific study needs to be acknowledged and on many levels even appreciated. The only thing I do not agree with, is that all that time in the lab (not darkroom mind you, it was a tight laboratory set up) proved nothing, and added nothing to better film photography as a visual art form.

Quite possibly though, his results would have been useful in highly technical photography where last detail is needed for evaluative purposes. And I'll end on this positive note.

 

[pentaxuser]

I wonder, if in the case of Edna Bullock's description of what Wynn did was transcribed as a tale coming from a newcomer to film and Photrio of whom we knew nothing, what might we have said to that person. I fear it might not have been very complimentary. We might even have metaphorically " chased that person away" had he/she shown no sign of "mending his/her ways"

pentaxuser

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I wonder, if in the case of Edna Bullock's description of what Wynn did was transcribed as a tale coming from a newcomer to film and Photrio of whom we knew nothing, what might we have said to that person. I fear it might not have been very complimentary. We might even have metaphorically " chased that person away" had he/she shown no sign of "mending his/her ways"

pentaxuser

Did you see Quote/End quote there? What is your point? Who is that newcomer to Photrio?

 

[Lachlan Young]

@VTLD Getting more than adequate control of B&W processing is extremely easy unless you are terribly ignorant of basic technique and/ or have fallen into the ditches of irrelevant pseudo-technical delusions - both of which are sadly very prevalent amongst those who espouse zone-ist whataboutery. I have observed nothing significant that would lead me to disagree with Henry, indeed it's quite amusing to make very high resolution scans on high-end kit and notice that his observations about Rodinal and D-76's sharpness/ information capacity hold up very accurately. The point is that if you understand how to use a lightmeter, and have reasonable (really quite a wide margin of error here as long as you don't screw up the first agitation cycle by being too delicate) consistency in time/ temp/ agitation (or have the very basic knowledge of how to compensate thereof), you can make incredibly easy to print negatives in just about as long as it took me to type this. You also need to account for a certain amount of macho-artist-posturing from Adams and others who want to emphasise how hard wrought their prints (and therefore their worth as artists) were.

And finally, as @michael_r has said above, Henry's book isn't pretending to be a hold-your-hand paint-by-numbers here's-how guide to basic process technique. It's rigorous, but very accessible when compared to much imaging science literature.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Keep in mind the title of Henry's book - "Controls...." The book is mostly about busting myths and showing what various controls do or do not. Central to this is objective evidence, which is why among other things he went to the trouble of incorporating microdensitometry into his testing. Most of the books out there are written by people who not only lack theoretical knowledge (which might at least help them to evaluate whether or not their assertions are even reasonable), but have done no objective testing. They simply parrot long outdated/incorrect ancient "wisdom", present second hand opinions as fact, and add their own hyperbolic nonsense. Darkroom Cookbook is one example, but there are many others.

Henry was not trying to improve anyone's photography. That's a totally different thing. He was simply evaluating some of the technical "controls". Objective testing (along the lines of what the manufacturers do) can often lead to a simplification of technique, and potentially better results. By jettisoning the gobbledygook, snake oil etc. one can focus on the real controls, and also avoid problems.

Not exactly how I see this. But I can agree it is another way of looking into it. We all interpret what we read, and while my conclusions are what I've said they are, the book may be of fine reference to some.

 

[ajmiller]

There's a great interview on Lenswork with Edna Bullock and Barbara Bullock-Wilson from 1984 talking, amongst many other things, about Ansel.

 

[DonW]

I get a great kick out of going into the "woods" with zoneies. I wander around and take maybe two incident readings. One in the shade and one in the light. That's all I need unless the light changes. Generally at that point I apply the HVFF to any subsequent exposures.

After several hours I will have created 8 or 9 very well exposed, creative and hopefully expressive images. The zonieies will have exposed maybe 2 or 3 AA wannabe images. What with all that spot meter waving and note taking it's a wonder they got that many.

Each to their own though. We do what we do because that's what our temperament finds enjoyable and rewarding.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

We do what we do because that's what our temperament finds enjoyable and rewarding.

Agree, but hopefully all that measuring of a scene is not deterring from seeing that scene. Unless, of course, the sole purpose of being there is to nail that measurement, so it can later be measured again in the darkroom, and then some more in the dayroom.

 

[pentaxuser]

Did you see Quote/End quote there? What is your point? Who is that newcomer to Photrio?

There in no newcomer to Photrio. It was hypothetical. What Wynn Bullock did in throwing out the spotmeter and densitometer might have seemed to have been a reckless act had a newcomer to film photography done the same thing. The newcomer in doing this might have been seen as someone who was being arrogant and would have been criticised for this act but perhaps our attitude is different to Wynn Bullock whom we respect as a famous photographer

I think our attitude to the newcomer might have been that he did not want to learn anything about how to take good pictures but of course we take a different view of Wynn Bullock as he was a respected photographer.

I hope I have explained this OK in terms of the point I was trying to make and but don't worry about it. It was not a challenge in any way to the points you are debating with others here

pentaxuser

 

[Deleted member 88956]

There in no newcomer to Photrio. It was hypothetical. What Wynn Bullock did in throwing out the spotmeter and densitometer might have seemed to have been a reckless act had a newcomer to film photography done the same thing. The newcomer in doing this might have been seen as someone who was being arrogant and would have been criticised for this act but perhaps our attitude is different to Wynn Bullock whom we respect as a famous photographer

I think our attitude to the newcomer might have been that he did not want to learn anything about how to take good picture but of course we take a different view of Wynn Bullock as he was a respected photographer.

hope I have explained this OK in terms of the point I was trying to make and but don't worry about it. It was not a challenge in any way to the points you are debating with others here

pentaxuser

All is fine, thanks for taking time to expand on it.

 

[Lachlan Young]

I wander around and take maybe two incident readings. One in the shade and one in the light. That's all I need unless the light changes.

And you could largely reduce that to just a shadow indexed incident or spot reading, unless you are super worried about the contrast range. Either way, it takes a couple of seconds to do.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

No, what it says is that if you take the effort to eliminate process variables, you discover that most of the popular technical books are making wildly misleading/ errant claims. The problem is that in order to comprehensively disprove that propagated nonsense, you have to do massively more work than those spraying the firehose of BS.



Think about it this way at a very basic level: exposure keying for highlight detail retention matters on transparency (light the shadows if you need to), keying your exposure for shadow detail retention is the aim with negs for stills ( because in B&W you can control highlight density via process times/ burning in/ using a different grade of paper etc if needed - there are variances in terms of what you can or can't do with colour neg, but C-41 is also able to control highlight densities in ways that B&W can't).

Recently, I've been using a digital camera as a meter. Once the histogram is set and the picture looks right in the LED display, I add a half stop for negative film and reduce by half a stop for chromes.