Zen and the art of film testing

Donald Miller · Jan 23, 2004

lee said:
Don,
Picker did espouse that zone VIII exposure. I have done it and to some degreee it worked. He also later in life said he had never made a N+ exposure and saw no need for a N+ development. Maybe he just got weird in old age. It happens.

lee\c

Yep, that could explain what happened there. No doubt...

I do remember him saying that he thought that a print lived or died above Zone VI. I guess that was where his tastes ran.

juan · Jan 25, 2004

OK, you've made me get out the old Zone VI newsletters. Fred talked about exposing for Zone VIII in numbr 51, June 1987. But he says something very interesting, based on this thread and the threads over on michaelandpaula.com about exposure.

"But after a whole lot of negatives, I found myself constantly breaking both the 'expose for the shadows' rule and my own modification. It had finally dawned on my that when I made two exposures of a subject (to be absolutely sure I had enough exposure) the 'overexposed' one always made the better print. Right? The best negative is the one that places all values as high as possible without blocking.(emphasis in original)

So I began to consistently place the high value on VIII, regardless of where I wanted that value to end up in the print."

Now what is Fred saying here when he says "had enough exposure" and "overexposed?" Where I live (in the bright sun of Florida) making the exposure by placing a high value results in LESS exposure than placing a shadow on III or IV. Could it be that in Vermont, where Fred lived, that placing VIII gave him MORE exposure? Interesting to speculate.

As for Fred being a god, I don't regard him as such, but I did learn a lot from him (the referenced newsletter emphasises his "Try It" mantra) and he was popularizing large format photography at a time the few others were, at least, insofar as I knew.
juan

david b · Jan 25, 2004

First, I must say this is one of the better topics I have read in a while.
Second, I use a Pentax spot meter and normally place the shadow values on Ziii and then develope accordingly.
Third, I always use medium format APX 100 and when I started exposing it at asa 64, my negs began to look much better than when exposed as asa 100.
Fourth, thanks to all for such a great place to learn and laugh.

JMcLaug351 · Feb 26, 2004

Regarding fixer and weather or not it is heavier than water. I don't think fixer is heavier than water but fixer laden with unexposed silver salts as it would be when it is being washed out of an emulsion probably is. And I think that is what Picker meant.

And as for poor shadow separation the problem is in the development. Or tather in the agitation. Modern films do not need much agitation. I've swiched from the "ususl" twice a minute to once every two minutes. This equals less development so the time needs to be extended to reach normal scale. This gives the shadow areas time to develope fully.While holding back the highlights due to the standing effect The differences are amazing. And as Picker would say, "TRY IT"

I agree, this is one of the most intersting topics in a while. I wish you all good light and lots of film..
JOHN

Alex Hawley · Feb 26, 2004

juan said:
Now what is Fred saying here when he says "had enough exposure" and "overexposed?" Where I live (in the bright sun of Florida) making the exposure by placing a high value results in LESS exposure than placing a shadow on III or IV. Could it be that in Vermont, where Fred lived, that placing VIII gave him MORE exposure? Interesting to speculate.

Yes, the geographical location may very well make a difference. I remember Adams writing about this. According to him, before exposure meters were available, photographers carried around exposure charts of some sort. But they were derived from measurements (or experiments) at a specific location. Adams said he learned this when he tried his California charts on the East coast somewhere and found they were all hosed up.

Weston was fully engaged in photography well before exposure meters came along. That may explain why his legend says he never used on. I've learned that from my experience in the local area that the exposures are pretty much the same based on the cloud/sun conditions. I could probably get along fine without a meter anywhere in the region.

Jorge Oliveira · Feb 26, 2004

This is, indeed, a very nice thread.
I'm a 35mm only shooter, and my opinion has to be seen in this context.

I do a Zone 1 test to determine real film speed for a film/dev/lightmeter combo, but I do not worry about 0.1 or 0.15 or whatever above B+F (as a matter of fact, I've never had access to a densitometer).
Zone 1 for me is the least exposure that I can print in graded paper (Kodak fixed grade 3 - equivalent to European 2) and still see some difference from maximum black.

From then on, using dilluted dev and agitation every 2 min (it used to be 1, went to 2), I fine tune my dev time so most of the prints are made in this normal grade paper without lots of dodge/burn.

From there on, final contrast is done with VC paper/filters.

I like the results.

Jorge O

c6h6o3 · Feb 26, 2004

Bruce (Camclicker) said:
With all respect to every member of APUG, I hold Picker in the lowest esteem possible. He was a man without vision, imagination or talent, but he sure could sell snake oil.

Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone who finds him a god (small g). I just start ranting when his name is used in the same sentence with Adams.

I don't really know much about him, but more than one person of accomplishment in the fine art photography world (Paula Chamlee and Paul Paletti, both of whose critical judgment I trust implicitly) has told me that his prints were magnificent. Not just good, but stunning. Shockingly good. Nothing at all like anything we've seen in the Zone VI catalogues or the books.

As to commercialism, I can only speak from experience. I own three Zone VI products (a contact printing frame, a tripod and a modified Pentax spot meter) and all three are of the finest quality. Maybe not the best obtainable, but all three items represent outstanding value. They weren't cheap, but they've lasted about 15 years now and all function perfectly without ever needing repair. Maybe he did hype his products, but as Dizzy Dean was fond of saying: "If you did it, it ain't braggin'". In short, I think you're being unfair to someone who did a lot to promote the art of photography.

Bruce Osgood · Feb 26, 2004

c6h6o3 said:
Bruce (Camclicker) said:

With all respect to every member of APUG, I hold Picker in the lowest esteem possible. He was a man without vision, imagination or talent, but he sure could sell snake oil.

Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone who finds him a god (small g). I just start ranting when his name is used in the same sentence with Adams.

Click to expand...

I don't really know much about him, but more than one person of accomplishment in the fine art photography world (Paula Chamlee and Paul Paletti, both of whose critical judgment I trust implicitly) has told me that his prints were magnificent. Not just good, but stunning. Shockingly good. Nothing at all like anything we've seen in the Zone VI catalogues or the books.

As to commercialism, I can only speak from experience. I own three Zone VI products (a contact printing frame, a tripod and a modified Pentax spot meter) and all three are of the finest quality. Maybe not the best obtainable, but all three items represent outstanding value. They weren't cheap, but they've lasted about 15 years now and all function perfectly without ever needing repair. Maybe he did hype his products, but as Dizzy Dean was fond of saying: "If you did it, it ain't braggin'". In short, I think you're being unfair to someone who did a lot to promote the art of photography.

I haven't seen his body of work, perhaps when next there is a public showing or a touring gallery of his work I will have the opportunity. I'm sure there are many fine art photographers and printers who admire his work. And perhaps that's as far as it goes. Admiration is a good thing. But collecting and displaying is better. The aforementioned Paul and Paula probably are represented in more galleries and private collections than Mr. Picker ever visited. But I have no idea as to how many galleries he visited. And yes, the products are good but they are only good. More expensive than they are good. I too own the Pentax Spot meter but without the Z VI modifications and you know what, it works just the same as a modified meter. I put a piece of masking tape on it indicate Zones more than 10 years ago and it's still there.
I guess ignorance is bliss in my case.

Kind regards

Les McLean · Feb 27, 2004

c6h6o3 said:
Bruce (Camclicker) said:

With all respect to every member of APUG, I hold Picker in the lowest esteem possible. He was a man without vision, imagination or talent, but he sure could sell snake oil.

Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone who finds him a god (small g). I just start ranting when his name is used in the same sentence with Adams.

Click to expand...

I don't really know much about him, but more than one person of accomplishment in the fine art photography world (Paula Chamlee and Paul Paletti, both of whose critical judgment I trust implicitly) has told me that his prints were magnificent. Not just good, but stunning. Shockingly good. Nothing at all like anything we've seen in the Zone VI catalogues or the books.

I agree with Bruce on this one. I subscribed to the Picker Newsletters when he first published them and have to say that there is a lot of useful stuff in them but after a while they became a vehicle for Picker to promote his products and the good information dried up. I purchased a Picker print a couple of years after I started making photographs on the grounds that I needed a fine print as a reference point for my own work and couldn't afford an Ansel Adams print, incidently just as Picker said in his promotionial material to seel his prints. I still have it tucked away in a portfolio box and in my view it is considerably less that magnificent. I will not say that it is not a good print but magnificent, certainly not.

Some of his products were good, I own two Zone VI VC Cold Cathode Enlargers, and think that they are the best although I saw the new version recently when I visited Richard Newman, a friend who works for Calumet and it is a very interesting concept. My understanding is that Picker had some good ideas but the actual design etc was carried out by other people.

I think Picker was a good salesman with very limited talent and vision who recognised that there was a market place that had not been tapped and all credit to him for that. I believe that he was in fact a wine salesman before setting up Zone VI Workshops.

Donald Miller · Feb 27, 2004

I encountered Fred's company back in the mid 80's. I think that when we talk about Fred we would benefit from recognizing that he was a multifaceted person.

On the one hand we have Fred the visionary. He recognized the need for a good quality field camera at a time when manufacturers of these were in decline. He recognized problems in getting repeatable results from cold light heads. He ultimately recognized that photographers, such as myself, living in the hinterlands needed functional equipment. Yes, he did use other people in the process to design and to build this equipment. But then didn't Henry Ford, Bill Gates and others do the same thing?

Now on to the matter of his marketing...hell if my livelihood and of those associated with me depended on getting the "stuff out the door"...you bet your booties that I would be hyping the stuff. But then I see a lot of companies spend lots of money hyping automobiles, digital cameras, and an assortment of other products as well. So what is the big deal here?

Yes, I bought a reference print from Fred...(wish I could find it now). It may be worth more then I paid for it...probably not. But on to his prints...I have seen some of his work and it was quite good. Was it great? That begs the question in who's opinion. Someone once told me that opinions are kind of like one of our bodily orifices...we all have one.

Heck I was a farmer, an old field worker, a salesman, and a business owner...do those qualify me more or less as a photographer then a "wine salesman"? Maybe we all need to be concert pianists, accountants, and all of the other appropriate formative occupations in order to be "great photographers".

Fred was a human being...had some glitches and warts...had some damn fine traits...kind of a mixed bag...like you and me.

photomc · Feb 27, 2004

Well said Donald..

JMcLaug351 · Feb 28, 2004

Yes, Very well said. Or, as Fred might say. "Different is not the same".

Joe Lipka · Feb 28, 2004

It's interesting how these threads mutate as comments are added. Ol' Fred said that the zs was of primary help to Ansel Adams, Minor White and himself. Of the three, his explanations were the simplest and clearest. Thus, the source of his good fortune.

I received the latest Calumet catalog this week. On the back was a full color advertisement for, and I quote, "Brilliant, a name synonymouse with traditional, silver-halide fine-art papers, is now proudly applied to a new line for world-class-quality digial media."

Brilliant inkjet paper. The apocolypse is upon us....

c6h6o3 · Feb 29, 2004

Les McLean said:
I purchased a Picker print a couple of years after I started making photographs on the grounds that I needed a fine print as a reference point for my own work and couldn't afford an Ansel Adams print, incidently just as Picker said in his promotionial material to seel his prints.

The reference prints don't count. I wasn't referring to those. They were not, as you correctly point out, even close to fine. And I haven't seen the ones I'm talking about personally. I'm only relaying what others have told me. Paul Strand also thought his work was very fine, as Picker seemed endlessly to have kept reminding us. So there must have been something there.

Les McLean · Mar 1, 2004

c6h603 wrote:
The reference prints don't count. I wasn't referring to those. They were not, as you correctly point out, even close to fine.

Picker sold these prints as "fine prints" and if they did not count as you suggest then in my book Picker was guilty of deception. His sales pitch was that we should all have a fine print hanging on the wall as a reference point and because we couldn't afford a print by Adams he offered a "fine print" at an affordable price.

You may think that I'm anti Picker but that is not the case. I think he simplified the Zone System and made it understandable for many photographers. He had the business vision and drive to build a very successful photographic company that helped many photographers, myself included. He was responsible for having the ideas to develop better materials, the excellent Brilliant paper, equipment the Zone VI VC Enlarger and services for the serious black and white photographer, so please don't think that I'm just knocking the man. I do question his ethics, the "fine print" discussed here is one example.

Donald Miller · Mar 1, 2004

As I look back to the period during which I purchased the Picker reference print, I seem to remember that I didn't have a clue of where print tonal values could lie or what a good paper could provide. I think that his prints did seem to give me some idea of that. I think that Picker's print was about as useful as Howard Bond's workshop was in that regard. I think that they were about the same cost as I recall.

Was Picker guilty of deception? I don't think so. If I think that I am about to buy a print worth more then he was charging then I am going to be disappointed. Is it Picker's business practices or is it my inherent unrealistic expectations that would benefit from examination?

I don't think that any of us would sell a print that we worked hours to produce today for what Picker sold those prints for, even adjusted for inflation in the intervening period. He was explicit, as I recall, that these prints he was selling were produced without a great deal of manipulation. Is that deception?

I felt that I received value for my expenditure. That has not always been my experience with photographic matters.

Les McLean · Mar 1, 2004

A fine print is not defined by the amount of manipulation it receives so I cannot agree with you there Don, however, I do agree the print that I purchased did show the range of tones that particular paper was able to produce. Perhaps it is because I do know a little more about his ethics and business practices from a close friend who worked with him for many years that makes me critical. Clearly, it is wrong to discuss these on an open forum especially since Fred Picker has passed away. Perhaps I was naive when I purchased the print but it was bought because Picker did imply that it was the next best thing to an Ansel Adams.

Jorge · Mar 6, 2004

After I bought my Zone VI enlarger I bought the video and print thinking that someone who thought of such a great enlarger had a point with having a "reference" print that showed how things should be printed. If I recall correctly it was a snow and water shot.

I was terribly dissapointed when I got the video and print. The video did not show anything that I had not read before in other books and the print, well, it was pretty crappy. I would have thought he would have sent a print with full tonal range, what I got was black water and white snow, not a single gray in the print. While some might argue that this was done to show how blacks and whites should be printed, IMO the print was not that good even in those parts.

While a lot of his products did what he advertised they did ( I swear by the compensating devloping timer!) a few of his claims were deceptive, like fixer is heavier than water.....

Joe Lipka · Mar 6, 2004

I own one of Fred's fine prints. It's a good one and shows a great deal of skill in making a print.

I am told that the "reference" prints weren't very good.

Posts here seem to confirm this.

Francesco · Mar 6, 2004

I admire FP's courage to really make a go of it (the business of photography), to be visible and open to criticism and attack both as a businessman and artist. As a matter of taste, his work does not appeal to me but he certainly had a lot of skill and this I respect above all. I believe that this shows care for his artistic endeavours as well.

photomc · Mar 7, 2004

Back to the film speed testing, I have been working on finding my own film speed and have found many of the text a little wanting in information. While doing a search I found that one of our own APUG members, ThomHarrop has a very nice article still up at Photovision, link - http://www.photovisionmagazine.com/articles/behind-harrop.html

Thomas, after reading the article I went out and ran a couple of rolls through my camera, processed and will printing this morning. Your description/explanation got through this thick old head better than any others have so far.

Thanks, will update results later.

ThomHarrop · Sep 1, 2004

photomc said:
Back to the film speed testing, I have been working on finding my own film speed and have found many of the text a little wanting in information. While doing a search I found that one of our own APUG members, ThomHarrop has a very nice article still up at Photovision, link - http://www.photovisionmagazine.com/articles/behind-harrop.html

Thomas, after reading the article I went out and ran a couple of rolls through my camera, processed and will printing this morning. Your description/explanation got through this thick old head better than any others have so far.

Thanks, will update results later.

I hope it works for you. If you have any questions feel free to contact me.

Thom

Zen and the art of film testing

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency