Why do some photographers use sensitometry?

[sanking]

In a recent thread Steve Simmons suggested that he was concerned because some people insist that densitometers are necessary to make great photographs. I personally have never heard anyone make that statement and don’t really believe there is any great reason for concern on his or anyone elses' part. Most people who use sensitometry don’t care at all how others approach their photography, and by the same token we don’t need the KISS patrol to tell us how we should work.

However, I thought it might be interesting to point out some of the reasons many photographers, especially large format workers, find that sensitomery helps us in our work, so I started to jot some idea down. Them I remembered that Phil Davis, creator of BTZS, had already set forth some good reasons in his book Beyond the Zone System, so I say to myself, why invent the wheel? Here are the reasons set forth by Davis to explain the advantages that sensitometry offers over the trial-and-error approach. Most of the language is directly from Beyond the Zone System, 3rd edition, pp. 3-6, but I have added a sentence or two, in parentheses.

1. It is standard industry procedure so you will become familiar with the methods that manufacturers use to establish their published film speeds and paper contrast numbers.

2. It is objective and efficient.

3. The procedures provide much more data – and more accurate data, than can be discovered by trial-and-error testing. It also provides working information for all conditions of use, not just the specific conditions of the test.

4. The use of sensitometry results in a dramatic saving in time and materials. (This is of tremendous importance if you print with very time consuming processes, such as carbon, or very expensive processes, such as Pt./Pd.)

5. Sensitometry will add to your knowledge of the photographic process and suggest new way of controlling the image for your personal creative process.

6. Contrary to common prejudice, sensitometry does not impose any technical restrains on your creative efforts. The notion that the more you know the less you can image is simply fallacious. If anything, it’s more likely to be true that the less you know, the less you can imagine.

7. And finally, knowledge of sensitometry provides you with the knowledge to distinguish between good and bad information. If Joe Fool Blow reports that such and such developer/film combination provides an increase in film speed of 500%, or some other such absurdity, you know how to test for yourself and determine if this is right or wrong. This kind of knowledge is liberating because it provides the tools to make your own determinations without having to pay homage to the gurus and their authority.

In my own work I have found most of the above to be true. But if for any reason you don’t care to embrace sensitometry, before you criticize it consider the fact that many of us who have worked both ways find many advantages in this approach, not the least of which is that it actually saves a lot of time. Bear in mind that we “rocket science photographers” did not began our lives in photography with a densitomer stuck to our hip and logarithms rolling off our tongues. In fact, I only started working with sensitometry about 10-12 years ago, and have hundreds of nice negatives that were made long before I ever measured a negative density. In fact, many of them were made just by dutifully following the manufactures directions for speed and developing by the charts. But I spend a lot less time today testing film than in the days when I used the trial-and-error method, or even later when I worked with the Zone system.

[Andrew O'Neill]

A densitometre enabled me to learn about my film faster. I used it routinely to help me decide proper exposure and development of my unsharp masks. I really miss that little tool as it was stolen along with all my other stuff.

[Kirk Gittings]

Just an ignorant question. Why is BTZS quicker to use than the Zone System for determining things like personal asa.

[steve simmons]

Sandy has misrepresented what I said.

Here was my post

"I am concerend about the tendency to make large format seem like rocket science. The insistence by some that a densitometer is needed, all of the match that is put forth for focussing, etc. This approach will intimidate some people and may discourage their entry into using a big camera with sheets of film.

It would make more sense to me to present this more 'scientific' approach as one way but also to allow for the possibility of a softer approach. It feels like a little too much dogma sometimes about the right(one and only way) to do things. I realize that some people are more comfortable with a little harder approach but others see numbers, formulae, and a densitometer, as roadblocks.

Any comments?

steve simmons"

This started a very long and interesting thread that I would encourage people to read.

steve simmons

[steve simmons]

As I have said before, and to which Sandy has not responded, is that it is not necessary to study the working of an internal combustion engine to drive a cxar and it is not necessary to study metalurgy to be a metal sculpture. Some will do both while others will just drive the car and others will make wonderful photographs.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Kirk Gitting: "Just an ignorant question. Why is BTZS quicker to use than the Zone System for determining things like personal asa."

Kirk,

With BTZS you do only one set of negative tests. You expose five or six sheets of film to a 21 step transmission wedge using a light source of known value, or with a sensitometer which is even better, and you develop the five or six sheets of film in your chosen developer for different periods of time, ranging from 1/4 of what you believe to be normal development time to as much as two or three times normal time. Then you plot the curves from the five or six sheets. This takes about 1.5 hours and gives you all of the information you will ever need to expose and develop your film for a wedge range of differences processes and a wide range of lighting conditions. The test results will show you how long you need to develop for a given negative average gradient, or for any value of N expansion or contraction or subject brightness range.

The results work for all processes, from silver which needs a relatively low average gradient, to processes such as palladium and albumin that require very high contrast negatives. And you get the effective exposure index for any given time of development, and this generally increases with time of development. I used plain Zone system before, and to get as much information would take you at at least 25X the time needed for BTZS, maybe as much as 50X.

Assuming you continue to use the same film and developer, this one test, which as I say takes about 1.5 hours to complete, gives you all the information about exposure and development you will ever need. For any process. For any condition of subject lighting, from N-3 to N+3, assuming the film and developer permit that degree of expansion and contraction. And as I say, you will never need to test that combination again.

Also, the data you get form BTZS testing can be used with either the SBR system, based on incident readings, or the Zone system.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yep, and you did not respond to Brian's statement that some people read the owners manual.

Kirk, the BTZS is much faster than the Zone system because it gives you far more complete information with fewer exposures. You expose your preferred method of printing to a step tablet, you measure the exposure index that the paper or process has and then you expose 5 sheets of film to a step tablet which will yield information about developing your film to the paper or process range from N-x to N+x.

For example I like to use a middle range contrast solution for my pt/pd prints. So my solution #3 has a printing range of 1.45 density units. I then exposed 5 sheets of film to a step tablet, developed them at 5 different times, and obtained from this a range of N-5 to N+2.2 development and exposure (EI) times that will result in a negative with a density range of 1.45 units.

Notice how powerful this is, if I change papers or process, I dont have to do the film tests anymore. I just plug in the new density range in the program and I now have different development/exposure values for the new process or paper.

[clay harmon]

Kirk,

The quick answer to your question as to why it is faster: the classical Adams-esque zone system does not explicitly recognize that film speed is inextricably tied to development. The BTZS system lets you expose 5 sheets of film, develop them at various times, and you have all the information you need to relate development to film speed, and subsequently, the ability to use this information to tailor your final negative density range to the exposure scale of the printing process you intend to use.

That said, I understand the BTZS system, and I used it a lot for a while, but now it is just sort of stored in the grey matter. I mentally process this stuff on a intuitive level now, and it works just fine. A lot of photographers get to the same intuitive point by other routes, and it works just fine for them also.

The criticism seems to be that some workers place an excessive amount of belief in the precision of this method, and that there are some people who try to carry out the exposure and development calculations to 4 signficant figures, all at the expense of creative visualization. I personally think this is somewhat of a straw man argument.

Truly creative visualization is a rarity in any case, and is certainly not limited to the 'Palm Pilot' crowd, as a glance at any all-comers juried show will quickly confirm. At the very least, Phil Davis does not have a creative portfolio so well known that people continue to ape it ad nauseum, which cannot be said for the continued efforts by some to make a slightly better 'Clearing Winter Storm'.

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: Sandy has misrepresented what I said.

Steve,

IMHO I have not misrepresented in the least what you said. You may not have meant exactly what you said, or you may now want to nuance what you said, but you said what you said. And what you said was that you were concerned by "the insistence by some that a densitometer is needed."

But my purpose in starting this thread is not to start another argument with you. I respect your work in promoting lage format photography, both in publishing View Camera and in the conferences. And I don't claim to be better or smarter than you, or to make better photographs.

So please, let's just agree to disagree here and extend some respect to the other point of view. And we are responsible for our words, not for what we meant to say.

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "As I have said before, and to which Sandy has not responded, is that it is not necessary to study the working of an internal combustion engine to drive a cxar and it is not necessary to study metalurgy to be a metal sculpture. Some will do both while others will just drive the car and others will make wonderful photographs. "

No, I have not responded to that and did not think that you expected me to? As a general statement I can agree with what you say, but I don't find the statement to be a particulary useful analogy to the discussin of the previous thread.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Clay makes a very good point. The problem is carrying the method to a ridiculous degree. Most of us who use the BTZS become used to it and most of the time forget about the nuts and bolts. If you use the palm pilot the program will tell you to develop for 5.37 minutes. Clearly this is an uneeded accuracy, whenever I have film that has for example development times of 4.45, 5.27, 6.30 I just put all of them in the drum and develop for the average. Film is very forgiving and with a little of magic in the darkroom there is no need to take things too far. Of course, I now have negatives that I rarely have to dodge and burn.

[sanking]

Jorge: "Clay makes a very good point. The problem is carrying the method to a ridiculous degree. Most of us who use the BTZS become used to it and most of the time forget about the nuts and bolts. If you use the palm pilot the program will tell you to develop for 5.37 minutes. Clearly this is an uneeded accuracy, whenever I have film that has for example development times of 4.45, 5.27, 6.30 I just put all of them in the drum and develop for the average. Film is very forgiving and with a little of magic in the darkroom there is no need to take things too far. Of course, I now have negatives that I rarely have to dodge and burn."

This is pretty much the point. People who have mastered BTZS have it stored away in their grey matter and work in the field can be every bit free and intuive as with other systems. For most situations I can calcuate SBR and exposure in about 15 seconds. Then you make the exposure and put a lable on the holder to indicate how it should be developed, and that is that. Great precision is possible but not needed in most cases. About 90% of the negatives I make fall in the SBR 6, 7 or 8 range, and I don't worry about the differnce between 6.4 and 6.0. Regardless of what system you use there is enough latitude in develoment and printing to control small differences in negative average gradient.

[steve simmons]

From Jorge

" ...4.45, 5.27, 6.30 I just put all of them in the drum and develop for the average"

If you are going to BTZS and then average your development what is the point. In a situation like this you are off by 20% on your development time. You are plussing by 1 some of the negs and minussing by 1 others. Are you adjusting the exposure indices for this plussing and minussing?I would never do this. I develop 6-8 negs at a time for their specifc needed development time and I always adjust my ei for plussing and minussing..

Don't you ever give another lecture on why sensitometry is necessary or helpful. This post you made undoes all your claims of precision or the love of craft.

Amazing!!!!!

steve simmons

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge says,

" development times of 4.45, 5.27, 6.30 I just put all of them in the drum and develop for the average. Film is very forgiving and with a little of magic in the darkroom there is no need to take things too far."

After reading that I feel like a rocket scientist. That amount of generalizing developement times would be unacceptable to me even with my KISS standards. That means you are like 20% off 2/3rds of the time! Where is the precision?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

C`mon Kirk, I doubt you will see any difference between developing a film for 4 min 30 sec and one for 4 min 45 seconds.......as Clay said, one has to know how far to take the accuracy. Of course, with the BTZS you are free to be as accurate as you want, I doubt you can say that for the KISS methods.

[steve simmons]

"C`mon Kirk, I doubt you will see any difference between developing a film for 4 min 30 sec and one for 4 min 45 seconds"

that is not what you said.

Here is what you said

"example development times of 4.45, 5.27, 6.30 I just put all of them in the drum and develop for the average"

This means that a neg you were told should be developed for 4min 45 seconds would be developed for slightly longer than 5min 30 seconds. This would be about 20% longer than the neg should be developed for. A 20% increase in develoopment can have significant affest on the higher zones and a litle effect on the lower ones. This is enough that most of os would then adjust the ei for that negative,

This is much sloppier than those of us testng w/o a densitometer would ever do. We would know better!!!

steve simmons

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "This means that a neg you were told should be developed for 4min 45 seconds would be developed for slightly longer than 5min 30 seconds. This would be about 20% longer than the neg should be developed for. A 20% increase in develoopment can have significant affest on the higher zones and a litle effect on the lower ones. This is enough that most of os would then adjust the ei for that negative."

I would have to agree that Jorge's example, which suggsted a range of development between 4:45 and 6:30, is not a very happy one. I just looked at the practical result of developing a number of films in Pyrocat 2:2:100 in rotary at 70F for 4:45 and 6:30, and the median range is an average contrast from .45 at 4:45 to .65 at 6:30. This would be unacceptable to me.

Other developer/film combinations, say weaker solutions, would give less range in average gradient.

[robc]

I wonder how many of you sensitometry nuts try and produce the test prints AA produced. You know, the ones of the patches of hardboard for each zone. Its very informative to do it and doesn't require a densitometer and it will nail your film speed and dev time spot on.

Yes I know AA said you shouldn't calibrate to paper but if paper is not consistent in its range then nailing your calibration to some arbitrary numbers will never be spot on either. i.e. in relation to your prefered papers.

Just try it with a set negs for zone 0 thru zone N (N= how ever many zones you use) and see whether your negs actually fit the paper its supposed to. If not, which I suspect for most people, then tell me what exactly you are all arguing about. On second thoughts don't tell me!

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge,

I'm sure you were just pulling numbers out of the air for discussion purposes, but yes I can easily be as accurate as that example (at least) with my methods and test it with a simple proper proof every time I make a contact sheet. Don't forget I did the full blown Zone System for years and taught it at university level before backing off to a simpler approach. So I carry all that testing around in the back of my head just as you do.

[John D Gerndt]

Just getting back to the idea that a desitometer is seen by some as a scary thing, it was more scary when they were expensive, for me al least. I felt I had to have a great deal of knowledge to get my money's worth from an expensive instrument. They are plentiful now, I picked one up for less than $100. I'd have to say that it was a cheap AND easy way to bring some solid information to my process.

I have been a pretty good guesser in my day. This is better. You don't have to have a real grip on the science to use a simple tool. Density range is a junior high school concept. Just having a solid number to associate with my results can keep me from drifting off towards what I "think" is about the right paper and printing time.

As I believe knowledge is power, I will continue to struggle to get a lock on consistant negatives. I'll use my desitometer to keep track of my progress. Meanwhile, it is a great tool for saving time and paper.

Cheers all,

[sanking]

Rob: "I wonder how many of you sensitometry nuts"

I don't consider myself, or others like me who use BRZS, "sensitometry nuts," and your language is abusive and offensive.

But in answer to y our question, yes, I have made the tests you describe, and BTZS is more precise.

[sanking]

Kirk Gitting: "I'm sure you were just pulling numbers out of the air for discussion purposes, but yes I can easily be as accurate as that example (at least) with my methods and test it with a simple proper proof every time I make a contact sheet."

Kirk, thanks for that comment, which says a lot about your integrity.

I am sure Jorge was doing just that, pulling numbers out of the air to make a general comment about the limits of precision. Rather misplaced priority to piss all over him for that.

Sandy

[robc]

Sandy,
My use of "nuts" was not intended to be abusive or offensive. I think maybe its a cross Atlantic interpretation thing, maybe not.

Anyhow, tell me how BTZS can be more precise than the negative fitting the paper exactly.

[Paul Butzi]

Simmons writes: It would make more sense to me to present this more 'scientific' approach as one way but also to allow for the possibility of a softer approach. It feels like a little too much dogma sometimes about the right(one and only way) to do things. I realize that some people are more comfortable with a little harder approach but others see numbers, formulae, and a densitometer, as roadblocks.

and: If you are going to BTZS and then average your development what is the point. In a situation like this you are off by 20% on your development time. You are plussing by 1 some of the negs and minussing by 1 others. Are you adjusting the exposure indices for this plussing and minussing?I would never do this. I develop 6-8 negs at a time for their specifc needed development time and I always adjust my ei for plussing and minussing..

Don't you ever give another lecture on why sensitometry is necessary or helpful. This post you made undoes all your claims of precision or the love of craft.


Let me see if I've got this straight.

You make a long series of posts arguing that people are being overly anal about technique, that they're worshiping technique to the detriment of art and making it intimidating for newcomers to get started.

And then, when Jorge discusses how flexible he is, you insult him?

This causes the word 'hypocrite' to reverberate loudly here in the room where I"m typing this.

I would point out that many great photographers have made many fantastic photographs WITHOUT USING ANY PER EXPOSURE DEVELOPMENT CONTROLS WHATSOEVER.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is much sloppier than those of us testng w/o a densitometer would ever do. We would know better!!!

Once again Mr. Simmons you fail to see the forest for the trees. At the extremes of the curves, variances in time are negligible. For example, a negative developed to 3 min , and one developed to 4 minutes under my procedures only varies in the slope of the curve from 0.29 to 0.38. Given that I have included a margin of error on my printing so that I can print negatives which have a density range from 1.0 to 1.8 I can easily print a negative that has that 20% "error" you mention. Lets take the other end, a film developed for 15 minutes and one developed for 14 minutes, only vary on the slope from 1.0 to .91. Once again, this variance under my procedure it taken into account and it is easily printable. Of ocurse, one has to understand testing and sensitometry to be able to make these kinds of desicions.

I hope this gives you an example of how powerful a systematic methodology can be when making printing desicions. It seems to me for all your ranting about our method being too "difficult" that you spend far more time checking and rechecking your values as well as testing any time you change a paper. You seem to be far more worried about the consistency of your results than we are......

As I explained to Kirk, I can easily change from printing pt/pd to silver and use the same film tests I made to beguin with, all I have to do is tell the palm I want it give exposure and developing times for a density range of 1.0 instead of 1.45. You on the other hand, would have to redo all your tests and even when you do, you seem to be unclear as to the limits of the tests and what can be done with them.

I can easily say this because not only I have the curves to prove it, but I have done your kind of testing as well as the zone system and BTZS. Of all, the BTZS is the most powerful, easier and accurate. So, instead of arguing about this, get back to me and tell me I am wrong when you have become proficient in the BTZS.

It seems you really "dont know better" !!!

[sanking]

Rob: "Sandy, My use of "nuts" was not intended to be abusive or offensive. I think maybe its a cross Atlantic interpretation thing, maybe not."

Tell me more about this cross Atlantic thing. Are you a native speaker of English? I have been in many English speaking countries and in most of these places describing someone as a "nut" is offensive. But tell me why that is not offensive in your opinion?

As for your question as to how BTZS is more precise, please go back to my initial post, and read the second position of Phil Davis that I mentioned, i.e. "The procedures provide much more data – and more accurate data, than can be discovered by trial-and-error testing. It also provides working information for all conditions of use, not just the specific conditions of the test. "

Place particular emphasis on both sentences. For any given specific test conditions the Zone type testing you mention can provide absolute precision. However, when one diverts in any way from the standard, the precision is lost. BTZS data, on the other hand, has great precision over a much wider range of processes and development condition.

Just try it yourself.

Sandy

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I'm sure you were just pulling numbers out of the air for discussion purposes, but yes I can easily be as accurate as that example (at least) with my methods and test it with a simple proper proof every time I make a contact sheet. Don't forget I did the full blown Zone System for years and taught it at university level before backing off to a simpler approach. So I carry all that testing around in the back of my head just as you do.

Sort of but not far from the truth. Let me give you a real example since I just went and checked the data from my last outing. I had 3 negatives that I developed for the same time. One was supposed to be developed for 4 min 27 sec, one for 4 min 54 sec and another for 5 min 8 sec. I put them all together and developed for 4 min 45 sec. this is the result from one of them (the scan blew the highlights, you can see the lighted wall and edge of the wall in the print)

http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/jorge0658/Ebay/san_jose.jpg

In addition, I no longer make test strips or proofs, pt/pd is too expensive to be fooling around with that. With the negative I get, I read the low zones with detail, I read the light zones with detail, check my printing curves and make a desicion on contrast and printing time from this. 7 times out of 10 I nail it on the first try. Once you become proficient in this system it is so simple as far as time and money savings is concerned that it really should be outlawed.

[robc]

Sandy,

Nut equates to Fan. You need to consider it in the context it was used. If you choose to interpret it as offensive or abusive now that I have expressly said it was not intended as such then that is your prerogative. I have no further interest in the discussion which is mine.

[Bobby Sandstrom]

What's up with all the arguing boys? Let's face it. Art is to please both the artist and the recipient of the art. The latter doesn't care how the art was created, but the artist does. So, if you feel more in control, more free, or just plain happier by using one system vs another, so be it. Pleasing yourself is just as important as pleasing others. It's kind of silly to get on someone for doing it their way. In fact, I believe many misunderstandings arise because as lovers of photography we get excited when we discover a better mousetrap and want to share it with our pals. And besides, I hardly believe a new commer might be scared from photography because some promote the use of a densitomer and I doubt anyone might be swayed from trying to understand sensitometry because many beautiful photos were made without knowing the meaning of the word.

So, at the risk of sounding politically incorrect...

Merry Christmas

[sanking]

Paul Butzi wrote:

"Let me see if I've got this straight.

You make a long series of posts arguing that people are being overly anal about technique, that they're worshiping technique to the detriment of art and making it intimidating for newcomers to get started.

And then, when Jorge discusses how flexible he is, you insult him?

This causes the word 'hypocrite' to reverberate loudly here in the room where I"m typing this."

Paul,

Congratulations. !Y en hora buena naciste, fuiste criado, y hablaste!

You just made it to my all-time Hall of Fame for the most intelligently conceived and precisely expressed four sentences ever made about linguistic discord between phtographers.

[William Mortensen]

I suspect a beginner is more likely to be frightened away by the tone of these discussions than by rocket-science talk of sensitometry. Maybe Steve had better up the security at the next VC conference to break up the fist-fights...

Personally, I just put my negatives in the Maytag with a cup of All-Temperature D-76 instead of Tide, and vary development by setting to regular, permanent press, or delicates...

Merry Christmas, Bobby!

[robert_4927]

Mark, As they say in the Heineken commercial...BRILLIANT!!....Imagine a basket of some sort that would hold 20x24 negatives that would fit into a washing machine. Rotary development on a larger scale with ULF negatives .....BRILLIANT!....LOL.....Sorry just trying to lighten the mood

[sanking]

Rob: "Nut equates to Fan. You need to consider it in the context it was used."

OK, but I have no idea what "nuts equates to fan" means. My use of English does not allow me to understand what you mean. To say that someone is "nuts" means to to me, in English usage, that the person is "loco", "fou", crazy, or deranged, and it is a very pejorative thing to say. Now, if you were to say to someone in Spansih that he has no nuts ( balls), as in "Cabrón, y no tienes cojones?" you might have your own balls removed. The use of anothe language, Spanish posits an entirely diffeerent set of cultural responses . And in the US , you would have to consider further the hispanic context, wherein Spanish is largely understood by many educated citizens of the US. So, for example, you woudl not want to say to someone, "you are nuts" since that might be taken to understood, "tienes cojones." But the meaning is not the same.

Best,

Sandy

[FpJohn]

Hello:

Gentlemen, surely we all agree that it is good to know our materials and control the relevant variables?

yours and all the best
Frank

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry Paul but I think you missed the point. Jorge has been insisting that the approach that Steve and I use was imprecise and demonstrated sloppy technique. He then presents an example of his method that (even Sandy basically agreed) demonstrated sloppy technique. Steve was not being hypocritical in pointing that out. It was plain as day. I pointed it out too. It was glaringly obvious (though I am willing to give Jorge the benefit of the doubt that these numbers were pulled out of the air for discussion purposes). Your love of Steve Simmons is clouding your judgement.

[Brian Ellis]

Steve Simmns said:

"I would never do this. I develop 6-8 negs at a time for their specifc needed development time and I always adjust my ei for plussing and minussing.

This is the closest thing to rocket science I've seen here yet.

[Larry Smith]

Just trip the shutter. It is only film. The emulsion will turn out good or bad, and the rest of the world will more than likely never see it since we do the majority of our work for our own personal veiwing.

[Oren Grad]

Personally, I just put my negatives in the Maytag with a cup of All-Temperature D-76 instead of Tide, and vary development by setting to regular, permanent press, or delicates...

If I use a Whirlpool instead, do I have to recalibrate my BTZS numbers?

See p. 335 of David Vestal's The Craft of Photography for a photograph (partially) processed in New Blue Cheer.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sorry Paul but I think you missed the point. Jorge has been insisting that the approach that Steve and I use was imprecise and demonstrated sloppy technique. He then presents an example of his method that (even Sandy basically agreed) demonstrated sloppy technique. Steve was not being hypocritical in pointing that out. It was plain as day. I pointed it out too. It was glaringly obvious (though I am willing to give Jorge the benefit of the doubt that these numbers were pulled out of the air for discussion purposes). Your love of Steve Simmons is clouding your judgement.

Well, so which is it Kirk? if it is too precise then it is bad, if it is too flexible then it is bad... I have given you real examples of how flexible the system can be if you know where to make the right desicions. Sandy said he would not use those number simply because he is locked into obtaining a particular density range, I OTOH have modified my system so that I have greater wiggle room.

The difference between you and Simmons and me is that if I want to, I can be as precise as I need to be, down to developing to 1/10 of a degree and down to a second, having done the testing and used it for a while I know where I can get away with being less precise, you in turn probably develop your film to exactly the time your tests told you and never deviate because you are not sure if you can or not, funny, rocket science seems to be more forgiving once you understand it.

As to Simmons' statement about modifying EI with exposure, this is one of the things the BTZS gives you as a matter of course. I dont guess if I have to give one stop more or less, with the BTZS my modified EIs range from 1 and 1/2 extra exposure to 2/3 underexposure depending the development and are always consistent.

Finally, what I have said is that Picker's testing method itself is sloppy and full of flaws. If I want to, I can revert to very exact times for developing, you dont have that luxury when you use a testing method that is locked into wrong assumptions.

[Paddy Quinn]

Google fight:

http://tinyurl.com/a4uan

[Paul Butzi]

Sorry Paul but I think you missed the point. Jorge has been insisting that the approach that Steve and I use was imprecise and demonstrated sloppy technique. He then presents an example of his method that (even Sandy basically agreed) demonstrated sloppy technique. Steve was not being hypocritical in pointing that out. It was plain as day. I pointed it out too. It was glaringly obvious (though I am willing to give Jorge the benefit of the doubt that these numbers were pulled out of the air for discussion purposes). Your love of Steve Simmons is clouding your judgement.

Perhaps I missed the point, but I think not.

Steve has been more or less continually posting, advocating for acceptance of "a softer approach".

Ignoring for a minute the issue of Jorge picking example figures out of the air, Jorge then describes his practice, where he groups film for development taking into account the ability of his printing process to accomodate a range of negative contrasts.

Simmons then proceeds to jump all over him.

And yet, Simmons wrote these words: It would make more sense to me to present this more 'scientific' approach as one way but also to allow for the possibility of a softer approach. It feels like a little too much dogma sometimes about the right(one and only way) to do things.

But Simmons doesn't seem to do much 'allowing for the possiblity of a softer approach' when he interprets Jorge's words as and proceeds to try to stuff them back down Jorge's throat.

Horsehooey to that. He's a hypocrite, and if you think my opinion on this is clouded by my opinions of Steve I'd suggest that perhaps you and Steve being good buddies is more likely to cloud your judgement that my low opinion of Steve's personality is likely to cloud mine. At the very least, I appear to have the facts on my side.

Are Zone system and BTZS style development controls useful? I happen to think so, even when printing on VC paper - but I've actually done TESTING to come to that opinion, concluding that in some cases abandoning development controls and adjusting VC paper contrast gives a different tonal distribution.

In a case where the worker has demonstrated that the tonal differences are neglible and where the contrast control is sufficient to hit the window of contrast control of the printing process, I'd argue strongly that development controls should be relaxed in favor of convenience when processing film - just as Jorge advocates and practices.

Being precise and scientific does not mean that you need to adjust the development time of each individual sheet to within fractions of a second - it means that you test the system, determine how much resolution of development time is needed to control your process, and then set your system up accordingly. Jorge appears to have done this testing - and has made the admirable decision to not go pointlessly increasing his labors when he can simplify, reduce his labor, and maintain control of his process. It sounds to me like Jorge is AVOIDING exactly the sort of obsessive, destructive, slavish worship of technique that everyone has been saying interferes with attention to Art, and instead has balanced his approach in a sensible and workable way, carefully balancing convenience against control.

That's what the scientific method is about. Steve, however, sees fit to lecture Jorge with "Don't you ever give another lecture on why sensitometry is necessary or helpful. This post you made undoes all your claims of precision or the love of craft. "

It may be that Steve has experimental evidence to back up his assertion that Jorge's practice is inadequate and 'undoes all his claims of precision or love of craft". If he has the evidence, then I'd suggest it would be interesting if he shared it here, to back up his claim.

If he doesn't have the evidence, then it appears to me that he owes Jorge an apology.

[Hans Berkhout]

Lousy negatives can make outstanding prints. Moonrise over etc. by A.Adams is only one example.

[Kirk Keyes]

"OK, but I have no idea what "nuts equates to fan" means. My use of English does not allow me to understand what you mean. To say that someone is "nuts" means to to me, in English usage..."

Sandy - See definition 6B: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/nut

"Nut" in this use, means that someone is a fanatic about something, i.e. an enthusiast. You may think that General Mill's cereal-loving mascot Sonny was insane when he was "cockoo for Cocoa Puffs", but I'm sure General Mills meant that Sonny was merely an overly enthusiastic fanatic for the cereal. I.e, he was nuts about it!

Maybe it's not a term used in the southern US?

Kirk

[Kirk Keyes]

The other Kirk wrote, "He then presents an example of his method that (even Sandy basically agreed) demonstrated sloppy technique. Steve was not being hypocritical in pointing that out. It was plain as day. I pointed it out too. It was glaringly obvious"

But you guys failed to consider what the slope of the development curve may have been for his example.

Even though I don't use the BTZS system for determining exposure, I do find that the testing scheme described in the book to be one of the very best fo all the reasons that Sandy laid out in the very first post.

Perhaps the other Kirk or Steve Simmons could describe how they could get the same amount of development info using their testing schemes as can be determined with the BTZS film testing regime?

[Kirk Gittings]

tinyurl.com/a4uan (http://tinyurl.com/a4uan)

This is hilarious!

[Kirk Gittings]

Although the results are skewed by the fact that SS is a much more common name than JG and benefits from more SS's in his corner.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Here is another one

page (http://tinyurl.com/cz2gt).

[sanking]

One Kirk wrote: "The other Kirk wrote"

Wow, two Kirks. Just imagine a scenario where there were two of all of us: two Jorges, two Sandys, two Steves, two Pauls, etc.

We could waste up to 95% of our time in these kind of futile exchanges.

[Kirk Gittings]

FWIW,
I am actually intrigued by the claims made here by Sandy, Jorge et al about the accuracy and simplicity of the BTZS approach and intend to try it this winter when things slow down. Anything that has the potential for being more accurate AND simpler is very seductive. As always if I have been wrong, I will post that conclusion here.

[Paddy Quinn]

ah, but this is the correct one

http://tinyurl.com/cn3x7

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

http://tinyurl.com/7ayut

Ok, lets get the right one then...

[Oren Grad]

Kirk, apart from everything else that has been said about it here, BTZS is a superb tool for teaching applied sensitometry. If you get a chance to play with it, see what you think with your teacher's hat on.

[Paddy Quinn]

nah - don't even try it with the irish

http://tinyurl.com/8m6ct

[Bobby Sandstrom]

I almost said in my post that "Anyone who knocks BTZS" doesn't know BTZS." But I assumed that Kirk knew it as well as Steve and didn't post that. Definitely give it a try! It really is a speedy, concise, and elegant way to arrive at ALL of your numbers. And... it really IS very easy.

[steve simmons]

Butzi calling people names. Why am I not surprised. He is so anxious to bad mouth me he ignores the facts and twists everything around to fit his peevish purpose. He loves to bad mouth the magazine but never offers anything positive. Perhaps he might want to read http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/234.html

Jorge has been touting the more scientific approach and criticizing those of us who use the min time for max black approach as to simple (I am not quoting but this has been his attitude). The he gives an example that even Sandy King can not approve of. I called that contradiction to light. This does not make me a hypocrite. If Jorge wants to play it both ways fine but then be honest about it. The numbers he gave, even giving him credit for pulling them out of a hat, show a very bad example. To argue that a 20% increase in development time is not significant is giving the wrong impression. That is about what is usually required for a plus 1 development. The reason for determining a normal development time is to keep the high values from going to far up the shoulder of the film. A 20% increase in development on a somewhat contrasty subject could easily push these densities far enough up the shoulder that good separation in the high values is minimized.

As far as his claims that he can be more scientific than I am, or someone practicing the way I do is simply wrong. I have been making consistent negatives for 25+ years developing in trays with PMK and Tri-X, HP5+ and FP4 and +.

Sometimes in these forums when things get hot the goal seems to be to win rather than engage in honest discourse. This is unfortunate.

The previous thread was a better example of honest discourse than this one.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is what happens when you mess with the Basque, you get your ass handed to you.....

http://tinyurl.com/ax9wq

[Ed K.]

( climbing into bomb shelter...)

It would be interesting to see just one photo from each of the experts above, taken this month, that each expert is satisfied with, list the time, materials and system used to create it, and well, show the benefits of their approach with just that image.

I'm not knocking the experts either, just wondering if a photo might be worth a thousand words, and wondering why this thread got so mean sounding.

Hey Oren - pass me some of that new all TempaDev, maybe it will clean up a bad taste...

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Funny Mr. Simmons, when you attack someone it is ok, when another one shines the light on your hypocrisy you cry foul.....

The worst and sad part is your inability to understand why I am able to make judgment calls on my developing without affecting my results. Let me remind you that even though I do this for the sake of expediency I can easily revert to very accurate and precise work. Because I have the necessary knowledge (which you dont) I am able to depart from overly restrictive guidelines. I know you are unable to understand why anybody can tolerate a 30% "error" as you call it or as I prefer to call it tolerance margin, I am sure the distinction will go over your head.

This knowledge results from understanding and knowing testing procedures, not from using the simplest possible way that relies on the ability of film to have a wide latitude for error. This in fact is the bottom line, I have a system that allows for a wide tolerance margin and I know where that margin is you in turn rely on the high tolerance for error with film and dont know and fail to try to learn why is it that you get printable negatives.

To argue that a 20% increase in development time is not significant is giving the wrong impression. That is about what is usually required for a plus 1 development. The reason for determining a normal development time is to keep the high values from going to far up the shoulder of the film. A 20% increase in development on a somewhat contrasty subject could easily push these densities far enough up the shoulder that good separation in the high values is minimized.

See, once again you rely on your limited experience to make statements that do not take into account the details, and as usual you are wrong. A 20% increase in development might be significant for your printing process, but it might not be for mine. Since I know this I dont worry about it, but for me to make this assessment I first had to learn how photographic materials work. Once again the contrast range of my printing process can vary from 1 to 1.8 density range in the negative, if I was printing in silver with a much more restrictive range I would choose to have a much lower tolerance level.

It is sad that you confuse confidence on a testing method and the ability to understand how photographic materials work as "contradiction" just because the facts presented do not conform with your limited experience.....

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

It would be interesting to see just one photo from each of the experts above, taken this month, that each expert is satisfied with, list the time, materials and system used to create it, and well, show the benefits of their approach with just that image.

You can see the one I posted here. The subject brighness range (SBR) was 14.2 with the low EV at 2 and the high EV value at 11.2. Exposure was 17 minutes at f/16 with a 150 SS XL. The recommended development time was 4 min 27 sec, I developed for 4 min 45 sec. The resulting negative had a density range of 1.5 which required a small increase in printing time from 500 units to 575 units using my standard developer #3.

BTW, this is another great thing about the palm program, it wirtes down all the information automatically so you can reference it later if you need to. This is how I found out that I did not need to be as anal about developing times as I initially thought. I would go back and read the notes the program stored and I noticed that for similar SBRs (4, 4.5, 5) the change in contrast was so small with development that I could get away with using an "average" and still have negatives that fell within the tolerances of my printing method.

[steve simmons]

Judging from the article you sent to me a year or so ago it was apparent to me, and everyone who reviewed it, that you understand very little about film testing. The article was almost incomprehensible and the written conclusions were contradicted by the test prints you sent. This was not just my opinion but the other 5 people felt the same way about what you tried to put forth in the article.

When given a chance to show your skills and knowledge they came through loud and clear. If you are going to try and talk the talk you need to be able to walk the walk. You fell flat on your face.

My position has been that it is not necessary to do all this testing to make wonderful photographs. Judging by the number of photographers who are exhibiting, teaching, doing books, and selling their work who have not done this type of testing this is irrefutable.

Yes, you need to know how to use the camera, load the film, manage to get it processed somehow but you do not need to study metalurgy to be a metal sculpture.

so much for a mixed metaphor

steve simmons

[Ed K.]

Jorge - indeed, you did post a photo. I did say "each of the experts", "taken this month", and list the time it took to create it, however yes, that's one example. More data please - need the other expert's photos! Perhaps the experts might indicate if they tested their meters per the other heated thread on meters and color temp, etc. It would also be interesting to see which subject each expert selected for the example.

[Oren Grad]

( poking head out of bomb shelter, marveling at the rockets' red glare )

Hey Oren - pass me some of that new all TempaDev, maybe it will clean up a bad taste...

Hmm... I do have an ancient batch of Diafine still sitting in the back of the chemistry shelf in my darkroom. The ultimate anti-BTZS approach, that's for sure...

( ducking back into bomb shelter )

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Judging from the article you sent to me a year or so ago it was apparent to me, and everyone who reviewed it, that you understand very little about film testing.

What was apparent is your inahability (and your firends) to understand proper testing methods. Other people who reviewed the article and are familiar with proper testing procedures had no trouble with it and these were more than 5 people, as a matter of fact 15 people asked me to send them the article. 9 liked it, 3 thought it was a good first attempt but needed some clarification and 3 did not like it and thought it was too difficult to understand.

In the end, people reading this thread can make a judgement of my level of understanding and capabilities to back my claims with results. So far what we have seen from you is only hot air and BS with no proof, why dont you post one of your prints. You want to make this personal, I will gladly put any of my pt/pd prints against any of your silver prints, hell I will even accept your pal Gittings as the judge......

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The ultimate anti-BTZS approach, that's for sure...

Nothing is anti-BTZS...... :-)

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "Judging from the article you sent to me a year or so ago it was apparent to me, and everyone who reviewed it, that you understand very little about film testing. The article was almost incomprehensible and the written conclusions were contradicted by the test prints you sent. This was not just my opinion but the other 5 people felt the same way about what you tried to put forth in the article."

What you say is pure nonesense. I read Jorge's submission, after the fact, and it was very comprehensible. The negative evaluation of it that that was made at the time was due in large measure to your ignorance of Jorge's BTZS testing, and to that of the reviwers to whom you sent the article. This is a fact. The article was not perfect, but then how much in View Camera is perfect?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

The article was not perfect

I agree, Kirk Keyes gave me a very through critique and pointed the parts where I could have done better. Nevertheless some of the people who read it and did not practice the BTZS had not trouble understanding the graphs. I guess I should have put the roman numerals instead of the logarithmic values on the x axis so that Mr. Simmons could understand, but then I did not think this was necessary to do for someone who is the editor of the "journal of large format photography"......boy was I mistaken!

OTOH I fell for it and gave Mr. Simmons the oportunity to refuse it and make up an excuse. No big deal, thankfully I have other projects and other magazines to which I can send articles which will be impartially reviewed.

[William Mortensen]

Perhaps at next June's View Camera Conference, a purely technical "shoot-out" would be interesting. Two negatives to be made, each from a given spot of a given subject with a "normal" focal length lens, one in mid-day sunlight, one in subdued light. BYO film and developer, all to be printed on a common, neutral paper, (Ilford MGIV?). Negatives and prints all displayed, blind judging, only the top finishers' names announced publicly, so no humiliation no matter how bad my, I mean, anyone's prints are.

Beyond the "Rocket Science vs. Instinct" or "Precision vs. Wide Tolerance Margin" issues, I'd love to see how pyro compares to Rodinal to HC-110 to whatever developer, and stand vs. normal agitation, etc. With all the disagreement and differing approaches, would the final prints vary that much?

No it won't happen, but it would be interesting and informative.

Sorry to interrupt the arguing...

[John Berry ( Roadkill )]

I didn't know LF was a contact sport. I better get some pads.

[Brian Ellis]

Steve Simmons said:

"My position has been that it is not necessary to do all this testing to make wonderful photographs."

That isn't just your position, it's everybody's position. Nobody that I know of has claimed that it's necessary to do a lot of testing to make good photographs. Paul Butzi went so far as to point out that plenty of wonderful photographs have been made on roll film, i.e. without even being able to select individual exposures and individual development times. So why do you keep stating the obvious and claiming it as "my position" when nobody has taken a different position?

Then Steve Simmons said:

"Yes, you need to know how to use the camera, load the film, manage to get it processed somehow but you do not need to study metalurgy to be a metal sculpture (sic)."

Has someone said you need to study metalurgy to be a metal sculptor (I think you mean "sculptor" not "sculpture," one is a person, the other is an object, but I digress)? Of course they haven't. Nobody would take such a stupid position. As usual, you embrace the obvious as "my position" even though no one takes a different position. Apart from that, I'd suggest to you that artists in any field who wish to be able to convert their vision into works of art need to have a good working knowledge of their equipment and materials. I would also suggest to you that any photographer who knows nothing more than how to "use the camera, load the film, and manage to somehow get it processed" isn't likely to make excellent photographs except by the occasional happy accident. But that's a long way from saying a photographer must be an optical scientist or do a lot of testing to make good photographs.

[Brian Ellis]

Mark Sawyer said:

"Sorry to interrupt the arguing"

Apology accepted but please don't do it again. : - )

[steve simmons]

Yes, I do think the previous thread was much more civil and I should not have reacted to Butzi's name calling, Jorge's belittling, etc. etc. I came down to their level of discourse and I now regret doing so. Both Butzi and Jorge have personal issues with me, right or wrong, and get too emotional when they should remain cooler and calmer. Neither seem to read the previous posts but come out shooting.

It is a challenge to have them continually attack View Camera for spurious reasons. Believe me I have held my tongue more than once with Butzi. The game he played a few years ago with View Camera was about as ugly and hypocritical as possible.

My first post in the previous thread was perhaps my best one on this topic. I never said that anyone in either of these threads said densitometry was necessary. This is a baiting question with no purpose but to narrow the argument so the poster can win. I was reacting to what I felt was an overall tendency by some to use the perceived need for hard science as a gate keeping procedure that might intimidate some and keep them from picking up a large format camera. I never accused anyone in either of these threads of making any such statement in either of these threads.

With regards to posting a photo how do I do this and I will be happy to.

steve simmons

[Kirk Keyes]

Jorge wrote:

"The article was not perfect
I agree, Kirk Keyes gave me a very through critique and pointed the parts where I could have done better. "

This is true. I did read it and I thought it was very interesting and that it would have made a fine addition to VC's collection of articles. As Jorge said, I did think there were a couple of things that could have been rewritten to make a stronger article, but overall, I think it was 95% of the way there.

I really could not understand why Mr. Simmons claims it was an unreadable article. At least all the paragraphs were there and followed each other in the proper order.

[Michael Kadillak]

About a year ago I took the BTZS book I purchased years ago off of the shelf and over a cold spell when I could not photograph I read it. I found it to be actually the most important photography reference I have read because Phil Davis explains in detail the pros and cons of all aspects of the controls that folks use in photography (including the ZSone system) and offers it in an unbiased approach for any to take or leave it.

Sandy is absolutely correct that it is quick and easy and is not Rocket Science in the context that was mentioned.

It just works and that is all that needs to be said.

Cheers!

[Kirk Keyes]

Mark wrote, "Perhaps at next June's View Camera Conference, a purely technical "shoot-out" would be interesting. Two negatives to be made, each from a given spot of a given subject with a "normal" focal length lens, one in mid-day sunlight, one in subdued light. BYO film and developer, all to be printed on a common, neutral paper, (Ilford MGIV?). Negatives and prints all displayed, blind judging, only the top finishers' names announced publicly, so no humiliation no matter how bad my, I mean, anyone's prints are. "

Why not make it really interesting - give the participants a Mystery Film (notch code removed and replace with a plain code), a Mystery Developer, and a Mystery Graded Paper and Print Developer, and then have them test them and see who can make prints from a N-2 and a N+3 situation with the least amount of testing.

[Kirk Keyes]

Steve Simmons wrote, "Yes, you need to know how to use the camera, load the film, manage to get it processed somehow but you do not need to study metalurgy to be a metal sculpture."

No, but you will have to have some understanding about the properties of the different metals and alloys that you will be working with. You will have to know which metals can be welded, which can be brazed, what the melting points are, which metals can be in contact with each other so you don't have adverse reactions like galvanic action... And then you will have to know about the elemental compsition of your welding and brazing rods, and their melting properties, what gases you may want to use when welding or brazing... It just goes on and on. Seems kind of technical to me.

There are just so many of these things about metal that you would want to know to become a top artist in this field that I'm sure we as photographers just have no clue as to what they are.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Why not make it really interesting - give the participants a Mystery Film (notch code removed and replace with a plain code), a Mystery Developer, and a Mystery Graded Paper and Print Developer, and then have them test them and see who can make prints from a N-2 and a N+3 situation with the least amount of testing.

This is a great idea! I would propose the participants be given only 6 sheets of the mystery film and 2 sheets each of the graded and VC. This would be all that I would need to make the testing and make the first print.

[Chad Jarvis]

Eliminate the guesswork, and develop by inspection.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes, I do think the previous thread was much more civil and I should not have reacted to Butzi's name calling, Jorge's belittling, etc. etc.

What?!?.....this is typical of you, you love to dish it out but when someone gives you some of your own medicine, you immediately climb on your soap box and start whining. Go back and read who started posting insulting and belittling posts in this thread. I will help you out with some examples.

Don't you ever give another lecture on why sensitometry is necessary or helpful. This post you made undoes all your claims of precision or the love of craft.

This is your first post directed to me, even so I had the courtesy not to respond in kind to try and keep the topic civil....but no!! in your ignorance you continued spouting idiocies ...here is one more.

This is much sloppier than those of us testng w/o a densitometer would ever do. We would know better!!!

At this time I got tired of you taking pot shots at me without getting some of it back to you.

In the end, it is not my reputation that suffers. Displaying your ignorance of photographic materials and testing in public hurts you more than it hurts me. I am grateful that there are other much better magazines like Lenswork, Silverzhots, Shots, B&W photography UK, that I can submit my pictures as well as articles where I know they will be at least reviewed impartially from people who do have an understanding of photographic materials.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Special fo Sandy King: my OED lists "nut" as ". . . an enthusiast, a devotee. . ."

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "I was reacting to what I felt was an overall tendency by some to use the perceived need for hard science as a gate keeping procedure that might intimidate some and keep them from picking up a large format camera."

There is no question but that some people, for whatever reason, whether from intimidation or because they prefer a lower key approach to photography, are not going to be interested in a system like BTZS, or even Zone for that matter. And there are people who have learned BTZS very well, but for their own reasons have returned to work primarily with Zone. Brian Ellis, I believe, is one of those persons.

And all of that is perfectly fine. Most of us are photo hobbyists in one way or the other, at least as it comes to image making, and we should do what makes us happy.

I started this thread to explain some of the reasons many of us find BTZS useful since there do appear to be some prejudice out there about this type of testing, and I believe that ito some extent this prejudice is based on misunderstanding in believing it is more complicated than it really is. Most of the persons I know who have taken the time to master BTZS have not found it to be reocket science at alll. For actual field work a person can get outstanding results with both Zone or the SBR system, but the actual process of testing film is simply more efficient and more precise with BTZS. Whether that matters is a question ever person will have to answer for themselves, but it is impossible to evaluate and compare two system when you only understand one of them.

[neil poulsen]

I don't see any contradiction between Sandy's and Steve's basic tenets.

As a nut myself on standardization and reducing variability, also as a statistician, I certainly see Sandy's point of view. I bless Ansel Adams for helping us to learn a system that enables me to make good photographs. This was a major contribution, in addition to all those others. There is artistry, and there is craft. Improving one's craft facilitates artistry, it needn't replace or diminish it.

I also see Steve's point of view in guarding against giving the impression that one MUST invoke the methods of BTZS and the Zone System to do good large format photography. (I hope I represent his point of view fairly.) For one thing, there are a lot of people doing color out there, perhaps more than are doing B&W (???), and these methods don't apply nearly so aptly to color. For another, even when doing black and white, we must all begin somewhere. I doubt that few of us would ever have wanted to begin by trying to first grasp all the details of the more scientific approach. Were that the case, perhaps none of us would be doing black and white!

[Witold Grabiec]

Thanks Sandy for starting this thread. Some time ago I remember seeing a paragraph from Davi's book and it scared me to the point that I decided not to look into it. I fail to remember what it was, but this thread sparked my new interest in his technique, because it does sound like it's worth trying. This is not to say that I've ever found the Zone System difficult or all that time consuming.

[sanking]

Grump: "Special fo Sandy King: my OED lists "nut" as ". . . an enthusiast, a devotee. . ."



Grump,

OK, maybe I was too harsh in my reaction to Rob. Thing is, I have had a painful sinus headache for the last several days and I guess I am just, uuhhh, grumpier than usual.

[steve simmons]

When Jorge agreed to write the article I made it clear it would be reviewed by someone outside of myself. The first reviewer had some criticism and Jorge reposnded in a vile and vulgar manner. When the reviewer tried to keep a dialogue going Jorge quit responding. This is not the behavior of someone who is interested in a professional level discussion. I did not tell Jorge who the other reviewers were because I did not want them subjected to the same kind of abuse.

Jorge's article was unintelligible to most people outside the devoted BTZS crowd. This article may have been suitable for a BTZS publication but not for a more general photo magazine. He gave n o context for what he was doing and the fact that five people outside the BTZS crowd voted thumbs down was a clear indication the article was unsuitable. There were also discrepancies between the imnages he said he was going to send what what he did send. It really appeared that he wrote the conclusions before seeing the prints which arrived several days after the text.

He showed no willingness to do any additional work on the article which he should have expected given that it was going to be reviewed.

People like Jorge, Butzi and a few others use forums like this as a bully pulpit. Thgis is to bad becasue very knowledgeable people such as Gordon Hutchings and Alan Ross will not participate. These people have knowledge that could benefit us all. But when I ask them they specifically mention people like Jorge as a reason they will not make any posts. Butzi also resorts to name calling when he wants to attack people rather than staying with the topic at hand.

None of this is constructive to the large format community. It fractures us into splinter groups.

steve simmons

[neil poulsen]

Hi all. I've removed all responses related to the article. Believe me, I hate to do that. But, the topic adds no value to this thread and will result in name calling, etc. I don't wish to see this thread go the way of the previous thread on the article. That was awful.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I don't see any contradiction between Sandy's and Steve's basic tenets............"

Well said Neil.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Hi all. I've removed all responses related to the article

It seems you only removed my responses and not Simmons'. This does not seem fair to me.

[sanking]

Neil: "I don't see any contradiction between Sandy's and Steve's basic tenets."

Nor do I. Every person will develop their own working habits based on a variety of perspectives. And basically, systems don't make us better or worse photographers. Michael Smith and I are about as opposite as two people can be in their approach to exposing and developing negatives but we have enough respect for each other's approach to be working on a book together.

I think the friction here is because some people feel that their approach is under attack. I can not speak for anyone else, or take responsibility for what others may say, but there is no doubt in my mind but that Steve knows what he is doing and that the system he is using is perfectly adequate for making good negatives and prints. However, and I have repeatedly tried to make this point, it is not as precise as testing done with good sensitometry, nor can it provide as much useful information. This is just a simple, plain fact. OK, granted that for most practical situations the greater precision is not necessary. However, the moment you start comparing films and developers the precision is essential. There is just no way to accurately compare the effective film speed, either of different films or film/developer combinations, with in-camera tests. It just can not be done. Period. Double Period. The tolerances of shutters, lens apertures and metering systems just won't allow precision of much better than 1/2 stop, or perhaps 1/4 at the very best. I know because I have tested this many times. BTZS testing on the other hand, especially if done with a sensitometer or an exposure system using light integration, has very high precision, better than 1/20 of a stop in my tests.

So, assume you ask Steve and me to effective film speed tests of TMAX-100 in D-76, and he uses his in-camera tests and I use my calibrated BTZS system. Whose results are you going to trust? And why? Well, I suggest you had better trust mine, not because I am prettier or smarter, but because my system is more precise and less subject to error.

Does any of this make any difference? For most practical work, probably not. For accurate and reliable comparison of developers, films and film/developer combinations, absolutely.

[Kirk Gittings]

"It just can not be done. Period. Double Period. The tolerances of shutters, lens apertures and metering systems just won't allow precision of much better than 1/2 stop, or perhaps 1/4 at the very best. I know because I have tested this many times. "

Another dumb question. If this is the case why not have one person do the the BTZS tests for a given film/dev/agitation method publish it and then everyone else just worry about the accuracy of their light meter, dev. timer, shutters etc. I.E. there is a universal component to this and personal component.

[steve simmons]

I wonder about allegiances here with the moderators. A ferw weeks ago there was an attempt on mypart to help some Wisner customers and that thread was pulled (yes there was a pissing contest between Wisner and Dan Smith), Now, when Jorge comes on an attacks me for my sloppy testig etc. and I call him on the fact that he wrote an article on testing for View Camera that is pulled as well. That article and how badly it was done re directly relevant to anything Jorge says because it showed he could not write an article on film testing yet he presernts himslef here as an expert.

However, when I am trashed, called names and blatent lies are posted about View Camera and myself they are allowed to stay. Butzis post is allowed to stay. Next time he posts something negative about View Camera or myself I will share his previous behavior to show how he plays the game. Go for it Butzi!

Just curious.

steve simmons

[steve simmons]

from Sandy King
"Well, I suggest you had better trust mine, not because I am prettier or smarter, but because my system is more precise and less subject to error. "

This is the attitude I am talking about. I am better, my results are better, etc. because I use a densitometer. This is arrogant and self rightous. How can you be more tuned into their film, their paper, their light meter, etc. than anyone else???

No Sandy, you just don't get it. Your system is not better. It is just your system. You, and even Jorge, have admitted that there is a lot of slop in the system so that densitometric precision is really not necessary.

Now, what I would nave said is that everyone needs to test for themselves. Each of us has an idiosyncratic system of light meters, shutters, paper, paper developer, etc. Coming into a forum such as this and asking for ei and dev time is naive. You have to test for yourself. But you do not need a densitometer. The min time for max black test, without a densitometer is plenty precise.

Get over yourself Sandy.

steve simmons

[sanking]

"Another dumb question. If this is the case why not have one person do the BTZS tests for a given film/dev/agitation method publish it and then everyone else just worry about the accuracy of their light meter, dev. timer, shutters etc. I.E. there is a universal component to this and personal component."

Not a dumb question at all. In fact, what you suggest is very feasible, and it is one of the major reasons I have suggested that BTZS data is very portable, i.e. if you expose and develop as I do, your results should be very similar.

If you were to buy Phil Davis' Winplotter program you will find on it a large number of files for film/developer combinations, and each file contains information as to how the films were developed. All development of course in tubes, with continuous agitation in a water bath. If you use the same film and developer, and same method, i.e. in tubes, your results should be very, very close to those of Davis. I have tested myself about five times against Davis' results and the results in every instance were very, very close, say within about a average gradient of less than .03.

So yes, you could just use his data as is. Or mine, as I post it, since all of my BTZS testing is done according to the same method.

The only problem with this is that rotary processing in tubes does not gives the best sharpness. Others may disagree, but in my opinion the film needs to rest during development to get adjacency effects. So for my own personal work I run my own tests using minimal agitation techniques.

One other issue with BTZS not mentioned so far is that the level of precision is not as great when using staining developers and printing on VC papers because there is no specific color filter on any densitometer that I have used that gives an exact equivalence between density read and effective printing density. This is perhaps the major reason that Phil Davis has never recommended the use of staining developers. However, as much as I respect and admire Phil Davis, I disagree with him on this, and agree with Steve Simmons: in my opinion any of the good pyre staining developers, such as PMK, WD2D and Pyrocat-HD, are superior to non-staining formulas. The major difference for me in sharpness. Staining developers, because they tan the gelatin, tend to keep the development on the surface of the film, and reduce lateral migration of the chemistry, thus reducing the impact of light scattering. Pyro staining/staining developers are also very superior, IMHO, when shooting in strong back light situations. I saw some examples from one of Hutchings' workshop at the Formulary of this and the result was quite dramatic.

Sorry, got off the point here and started to wander.

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "No Sandy, you just don't get it. Your system is not better. It is just your system. You, and even Jorge, have admitted that there is a lot of slop in the system so that densitometric precision is really not necessary."

Sorry Steve, but you are the only one here who does not get it. My system is sensitometry. Sensitometry, when carefully controlled, is more accurate than your system of testing. If you don't understand that I suggest that you learn more about sensitometry. Until then, there is no point in further communication between you and me.

It would be very easy to show that you are wrong on this, but I doubt you have the balls to submit results to a third part. And after the way your treated Jorge, I sure don't trust what you do in View Camera and will not send anything there.

I have tried to be fair with you, but enough is enough. You just went off my radar screen.

Sandy

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Sorry Neil, but no good deed goes unpunished.

Now, when Jorge comes on an attacks me for my sloppy testig etc. and I call him on the fact that he wrote an article on testing for View Camera that is pulled as well. That article and how badly it was done re directly relevant to anything Jorge says because it showed he could not write an article on film testing yet he presernts himslef here as an expert.

If you for a moment think that Neil or QT have a preference or "alliance" with me you are sorely mistaken. Neil just wanted to avoid further unpleseantness in this thread. Of course, once again you love to dish out dirt but cannot stand it when you get a response.

As was stated here the article was read not only by you and your sycophants but by many other people, some which have far more experience and knoweldge than you in scientific testing. In fact and just so you know how miserable was your opinion, one of Kirk Keyes's job is to review articles for scientific publication in chemical journals, these are real journals not a rag pretending to be one. I feel comfortable with the knowledge that if someone like him said it was a publishable article that needed some polishing, then it was an article that you rejected out of ignorance and petty vindictivness.

You might think it was badly written, but in the end some people thought it was not any worse than the typical article appearing in your rag. I can only get better at writing, after 10 years, your rag cannot seem to improve and in fact is capable of only getting one error free issue out of six. I would have thought you would have learned something by now.

[Jonathan Brewer]

"The tolerances of shutters, lens apertures and metering systems just won't allow precision of much better than 1/2 stop, or perhaps 1/4 at the very best. I know because I have tested this many times. ".........................................................cumulative error, and also the fact that film speed varies from batch to bath, all the things involved in making a print into an image, from taking the shot to the final print are going to introduce errors that make it impossible to be absolutely precise by virture of calculation in what you get as a final print.

Sheet film is expensive, but if you're in front of what you think will be an absolute killer, bracketing will provide more a chance of a particular shot being on the money than taking 1 or 2 shots at the same exposure, because regardless of any calculation, a shot may 'LOOK BETTER' at a particular exposure that you hadn't calculated for, a shot may 'sparkle' a stop up from what you exposed and developed for, simple as that, it may 'look better', there are several versions of any shot, and these versions may look better/just as good at a different exposure than what you calcuated for.

Bracketing is MORE of a guarentee(assuming you can get in the ballpark) of getting the shot you want than assuming that absolute precision will give it to you in one shot, and is just as valid way of going about it as being a bit off because of cumulative error and spending the time and expense in the darkroom of running off several prints until you get it right. It's always better(what I did in the darkroom, and with my printer nowadays), to get it closer in the initial shot, and this attitude stuck w/me from using rollfilm, whether it's rollfilm or my 4x5, or my 810, if it looks like a dynamite shot, something special, I'm taking several exposures, because the shot's worth it, I think it's impossible or at least more difficult to be absolutely precise and nail what you want on one shot and the resulting print than to get it from one of 2/3/4/5 tries.

And if you get it absolutely right with one shot, and it happens that it doesn't 'look right, 'doesn't pop', 'doesn't sparkle', and you need to work on it some more on the other end, what have you've accomplised/spared yourself with absolute precision? That's a sincere question, so I'll ask for a sincere response without insults.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

ou, and even Jorge, have admitted that there is a lot of slop in the system so that densitometric precision is really not necessary.

I have not admitted such thing. This is you reading what you want to read not what was meant. I said I have modifed my working method to allow for a wide range of tolerance given my chosen printing process. But this modification is only posible if you understand and have the presicion of a sensitometric method.

What Sandy and I have said, is that film has an inherent big margin of error, thus the reason for you to be able to get away with a flawed test to produce printable negatives. Nevertheless, for the purpose of comapring films and developers, your testing procedure is incredibly inadequate.

In the end, testing requires presicion and accuracy. Testing for comparison purposes requires precision, accuracy and repeatablility. Your does not have any of this qualities.

[sanking]

Jonathan:" Sheet film is expensive, but if you're in front of what you think will be an absolute killer, bracketing will provide more a chance of a particular shot being on the money than taking 1 or 2 shots at the same exposure, because regardless of any calculation, a shot may 'LOOK BETTER' at a particular exposure that you hadn't calculated for, a shot may 'sparkle' a stop up from what you exposed and developed for, simple as that, it may 'look better', there are several versions of any shot, and these versions may look better/just as good at a different exposure than what you calcuated for."

I guess with a very complicated back light situation bracketing might be considered with sheet film. However, I absolutley never, every braket. Sometimes I will take a couple of shots form the same tripod position, just to avoind the chance of lens flare or light leaks, but not to provide other exposure possibilities. Also, you really want to avoid bracketing 12X20 film. Very expensive.

On the other hand, with medium format, which is usually off tripod and on the run, I may bracket like hell.

Sandy

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "You, and even Jorge, have admitted that there is a lot of slop in the system so that densitometric precision is really not necessary."

I meant to respond to this in my previous message, but failed to do so.

Steve, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but your reading comprehension is very poor. I never admitted to any slop at all in the precision of the system. I did state that I might lump negatives together with an SBR range of no greater than 6.4 to 6.0. However, this still in the range of much greater precision than your testing. In fact, it is less than about . 25 difference in Zone talk.

But your level of understanding of this issue obviously prevented you from full comprehension of what was said.

Quite pathetic.

Sandy

[Jonathan Brewer]

Sandy..........................agreed, if you're having the added expense of using cut down 12x20 film, I wouldn't either, I use a 4x5 and 810, but my point is that if you're off, if you didn't get what you wanted, or you want to print it another way, you're in for more work(or your printer) on the back end.

In the back of my mind as I say this is the fact that I bracket the most w/portraiture since a particular skintone may look 'wrong' at the 'right' caluculated exposure, and 'right' one or two stops up from what you calculated for. In exterior shooting I find sidelit and backlit scenics to present the same problem in terms of exposure bias, where it makes 'sense' to expoe that kind of scene one way, and it does not look right anyway, my point is that the precision part of it isn't always the point.

[William Mortensen]

(Rambling post alert)

I learned and used the ZS in the late 70's/early 80's,and used it pragmatically (not religiously) for perhaps five years, becoming fairly comfortable with it. I eventually drifted off to my own instinctive "little more exposure, little less developing time but punch up the developer strength..." doing stand developing and other, sometimes horrible, things to my film and paper. My negatives and prints looked different, maybe preferable to me, maybe less so to others, but I was happy and felt, if not in more precise control of the process, more personally involved...

Earlier today, sparked by the discussions here, I ordered a copy of Phil Davis' BTZS book, figuring going through the process might at least inform my decisions, even if I didn't follow the BZTS as a way of working. And Sandy King's promise of a simpler system, more precise and less subject to error, is attractive.

But I began wondering, too, how would Edward Weston's work look if he had standardized to the BZTS? Would Paul Caponigro's prints hold the same luminosity if he worked "beyond the zone system"? Would anyone here have told Paul Strand he was doing it wrong, that his negatives could better? If I used it, would I lose the effect of the "fine, yet somehow mysteriously crappy, print" I've spent years developing on my own?

It's been noted several times that there is no single "right" system, and I'm thinking more in that direction. Maybe it's the strange little things, the quirks and eccentricities we bring to our own system that, for better or for worse, sets our work a bit apart and makes it our own.

(Or maybe it's just a part of my aging personality to rebel against any standardized system. But there's room for that too...)

Oh, and just so I can feel like I fit in here, a note to whoever disagrees with me: your camera is ugly and you smell like sepia toner.

[steve simmons]

Lets see how I treated Jorge.

I gave him a chance to write an article on film testing for View Camera. I made it clear before he did so that I would have the article reviewed. He agreed. The first reviewer had problems with the article. What Jorge should have done, whether he agreed with the reviewer or not was listen, take the constructive criticism, and try and rework the article so it would be acceptable. Instead he became vile and abusive. I showed the article to four other people who all had the same complaints. The article was poorly written, incomplete, the logic did not flow, and the prints he submitted contradicted the written conclusions. When the first reviewer tried to keep a dialogue going with Jorge he quit the conversation and refused to continue. Not the behavior of a professional at all.

Now, Jorge may, and I say may, have written something that would have been acceptable to a BTZS publication. But that was not his assignment. If he was going to write something only a BTZS devotee would understand than he should have lengthened the article to give a context for what he was doing (even though it was not what he was assigned to write about.). Since BTZS is not a universally accepted theory or practice to write something for a broader publication that could only be understood by a small minority of people was simply wrong. Perhaps the problems could have been worked out but Jorge’s behavior made any compromise impossible.

Jorge claims to be using sensitometry to carefully control his negatives but then also says

“If you use the palm pilot the program will tell you to develop for 5.37 minutes. Clearly this is an uneeded accuracy, whenever I have film that has for example development times of 4.45, 5.27, 6.30 I just put all of them in the drum and develop for the average. Film is very forgiving and with a little of magic in the darkroom there is no need to take things too far”

“Given that I have included a margin of error on my printing so that I can print negatives which have a density range from 1.0 to 1.8 I can easily print a negative that has that 20% "error" you mention.”

“I know you are unable to understand why anybody can tolerate a 30% "error" as you call it or as I prefer to call it tolerance margin,”

“A 20% increase in development might be significant for your printing process, but it might not be for mine.”

:What Sand and I have said, is that film has an inherent big margin of error…”

And from Sandy King

“I would have to agree that Jorge's example, which suggsted a range of development between 4:45 and 6:30, is not a very happy one. I just looked at the practical result of developing a number of films in Pyrocat 2:2:100 in rotary at 70F for 4:45 and 6:30, and the median range is an average contrast from .45 at 4:45 to .65 at 6:30. This would be unacceptable to me. “

“Does any of this make any difference? For most practical work, probably not”

My point all along has been that it is not necessary to study sensitometry to be a good photographer. Apparently Sandy, Jorge and I agree.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "My point all along has been that it is not necessary to study sensitometry to be a good photographer. Apparently Sandy, Jorge and I agree.

Steve,

Lesson in Reading Comprhension 101. If you claim that someone agrees with you, please show that you have read what the other person wrote re: the specifc issue.

So here is what I said:

'However, the moment you start comparing films and developers the precision is essential. There is just no way to accurately compare the effective film speed, either of different films or film/developer combinations, with in-camera tests. It just can not be done. Period. Double Period. The tolerances of shutters, lens apertures and metering systems just won't allow precision of much better than 1/2 stop, or perhaps 1/4 at the very best. I know because I have tested this many times. BTZS testing on the other hand, especially if done with a sensitometer or an exposure system using light integration, has very high precision, better than 1/20 of a stop in my tests."

Did you read that? Do you really understand what was said?

If so, please address this specifc issue.

Thank you,

Sandy

[Kirk Keyes]

Steve Simmons wrote, "Now, Jorge may, and I say may, have written something that would have been acceptable to a BTZS publication."

You mean that View Camera is not inclusive to the BZTS side of the large format world? That's too bad - to shun people just because they use a certain technique of film testing...

[steve simmons]

I am not in the business of comparing films and film developers. I am in the business and interested in make evocative engaging images. I simply quoted what you said in this thread. Studying films curves and film developers is a separate endeavor. Perhaps that is where we differ. I have done the testing, min time for max black w/o a densitometer, to make evocative photographs. Now I want to continue making photographs. You ahve said yourself that you do not need the precision os 1/20 of a stop to make a photograph.

As far as you comments about my balls that was way out of line. But let me challenge you. If you have concerns about them my I invite you to climb on my 16 hand Morgan (who is now internationally famous for his strength, endurance and stamina) and lead a two day 70 mile horse drive. That is right, you lead horses. This means you would be in front of 500 horses going home. You have to keep them in check to prevent a runaway herd. One misstep and you are in a lot of trouble. As you lead these horses every mile or so you will be the first to come up on a ravine that is too steep for them to go down and up the other side or that has a barbed wire fence at the bottom. It is up to you and 2-3 other riders to turn and face the herd and get them to change direction. The second day was 11 hours in the saddle. No break. Lunch was in the saddle.

Ok, how about going to Idaho every June and working on a roundup where the range is so large you may go 4 hours without seeing another human. All you have is your horse and the 50 or so cattle you've gathered and are driving to the corrals. If you have an accident it may be hours before anyone knows you are mssing and many more before they might find you.

Or how about something more photographic. How about working year after year for the Heart Gallery. This is a program where you go into the foster home of an older child who has been abused in ways you can not imagine, who doesn't trust the system becasue he/she has been disappointed many times before and then trying to get an engaging photograph of them so they might be adopted. Two of the three that I have photographed, who have languished in foster homes for years, were adopted based on my photographs. If this program does not exist where you are how about stepping forward to help it get started. I did with CameraArts when the program existed only in New Mexico. Now it exists in 45 sates and 6 foreign countries.

Any/all of these activites take more of those things than it does to sit behing a keyboard 1500 miles away and say someting like that when you do not have to look the person in the eye.

steve simmons

[steve simmons]

Where did I say I was shunning anything. What i said was that View Camera was a broader magazine than a BTZS publication would be. Jorge did not explain anything in that article except what fellow devotees may have understood. This was not appropriate for a broader magazine. When given comment about that he became vile and abusive.

I stand by what I did say, not your interpretation.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "I gave him a chance to write an article on film testing for View Camera. I made it clear before he did so that I would have the article reviewed. He agreed. The first reviewer had problems with the article. What Jorge should have done, whether he agreed with the reviewer or not was listen, take the constructive criticism, and try and rework the article so it would be acceptable. Instead he became vile and abusive. I showed the article to four other people who all had the same complaints. The article was poorly written, incomplete, the logic did not flow, and the prints he submitted contradicted the written conclusions. When the first reviewer tried to keep a dialogue going with Jorge he quit the conversation and refused to continue. Not the behavior of a professional at all."

That is your story, and it does not play on my CD. The way I see this is as follows. You challenged Jorge to write an article comparing various pyro staining developers, knowing in advance that you would reject the article and embarrass him if his conclusions did not agree with yours, and/or if it were less than perfect.

And that is exactly what happened.

You have seen here comments from people such as Kirk Keyes and others that the article in question would have been a good contribution to View Camera, but you continue to do the weasel thing and find support in your hand-picked reviewers. . Your rejection of it , especially in light of the fact that you had requested the article from Jorge, is in my opinion one of the less enlightened decisions I have ever seen from any publisher/editor.

Now, if View Camera magazine were a referred journal with standards for reviewing articles for publications, you might be able to justify your weasel actions. But View Camera does not. You publish what you want to publish. That is very clear.

And yet, years after the fact, and for no reason, you insist on bringing this story up again in this thread, simply to embarrass Jorge.

Let me tell you this, Steve. You only embarrass yourself with this BS, and as far I am concerned, you just used up your last ounce of credibility.

Sandy

[sanking]

Neil,

I started this thread to discuss BTZS, not fight with Steve Simmons.

Would it be to much to ask to eliminate any messages from and about SS from this thread?

Sandy

[steve simmons]

Yes, I requested/invited the article but I made it clear from the beginning that the article would be reviewed. Jorge accepted the rules. The first reviewer does not even use a staining developer. He had no such bias. The second reviews also did not, and does not, use a staining developer. He did not care about the outcome one way or the other. Neither did the first. When I passed on the article I did not give any indication one way or the other how I felt. Three others also felt it was badly done. My handpicked reviewers included people doing business with Jorge and know him either personally or by phone/e-mail, etc. They were not his enemies or people who disliked him.. If Jorge had shown the slightest ability to work on the article and make some corrections it might have been published in View Camera. He did not. He became vile and aubusive.If Jorge's article was so good why has it not been published in another magazine?

You have repeatedly indicated that the precision of BTZS is not necessary to make a photograph. This is the public position you have taken.

...If so, please address this specifc issue.

here is my response

"I am not in the business of comparing films and film developers. I am in the business and interested in make evocative engaging images. I simply quoted what you said in this thread. Studying films curves and film developers is a separate endeavor. Perhaps that is where we differ. I have done the testing, min time for max black w/o a densitometer, to make evocative photographs. Now I want to continue making photographs. You ahve said yourself that you do not need the precision os 1/20 of a stop to make a photograph. "

Now, if someone wants to write an article on BTZS and how it works so it can be understood by someone other than a devotee I would be interested in opublishing it.



steve simmons

[steve simmons]

Neil,
I started this thread to discuss BTZS, not fight with Steve Simmons.

Would it be to much to ask to eliminate any messages from and about SS from this thread?

Sandy

--Sandy King 2005-12-10 20:12 PST

Perhaps it should be Sandy and his reference to my anatomy that should be removed. No one else has stooped to that level.

This is simply an effort to contol the flow of information view so he can have the pulpit to himself.

steve simmons

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "Now, if someone wants to write an article on BTZS and how it works so it can be understood by someone other than a devotee I would be interested in publishing it."

Two comments:

1) Given the background, who would trust you to treat the article fairly?

and

2) How does a person write so that the readership, other than devotees ( in your estimation), would understand it? Would they, for example, have to write at your level of understanding, or could one perhaps hope for a more sophisticated reader?

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

I would like to see such an article and I would be happy to be a reader on such an article (not a reviewer-there is a difference).

[steve simmons]

"2) How does a person write so that the readership, other than devotees ( in your estimation), would understand it? Would they, for example, have to write at your level of understanding, or could one perhaps hope for a more sophisticated reader? "

Since BTZS is not universally accepted or even understood you would have to explain the basis for such an approaoch how it evolved, and what it offers. Not everyone has heard of this so you can not write an article only for those who already undertand it.

"1) Given the background, who would trust you to treat the article fairly? "

This is another one of your stupid and insulting comments. Just becasue Jorge's article was reviewed and suggestions were made does not mean he was treated unfairly. If he had been willing to work with the reviewers it could have been published. He refused. That was his choice.

Once again I ask If Jorge's article was so good why has it not been published elsewhere?

steve simmons

[sanking]

Steve Simmons: "Perhaps it should be Sandy and his reference to my anatomy that should be removed. No one else has stooped to that level. "

Wow, after all of your nastiness toward folks like Jorge and Paul, you object that I suggest you have no balls because of your back-stabbing habits? And you say this after you suggested that I would not be able to look you in the eyes (anatomy right?) and say what I said from 1500 miles away.

OK, next time I am New Mexico I will make plans with you to look you in the eye.

Thanks Steve. You make my day. Reading Comprehensiont 101. You fail.

Sandy

[sanking]

Steve Simmons:" "1) Given the background, who would trust you to treat the article fairly? "

This is another one of your stupid and insulting comments. Just becasue Jorge's article was reviewed and suggestions were made does not mean he was treated unfairly. If he had been willing to work with the reviewers it could have been published. He refused. That was his choice. "

A stupid comment? The question was, who would trust you. I surely don't. Would Jorge trust you? Would Paul trust you? Why would anyone trust you? Your past actions cleary show, IMHO, that you are not trustworthy!

Sandy

[Nature Photo]

Frankly, I skipped over most of the thread, so maybe it was mentioned already... My question is: where can I learn about BTZS (website, book)?
Thanks.

[steve simmons]

"2) How does a person write so that the readership, other than devotees ( in your estimation), would understand it? Would they, for example, have to write at your level of understanding, or could one perhaps hope for a more sophisticated reader?"

It would have to be written so that someone who is not familiar with BTZS would understand the system. For example, how did it evolve, what are its advantages, how do you use it and what are its advantages. Not everyone even knows about this or understnads it so the article would h=ave to be understandable by these non devotees.

1) Given the background, who would trust you to treat the article fairly?

Just becasue Jorge's article was reviewed does not mean he was treated unfairly. If he had been willing to work with the suggestions that were made it could have been published. It was his choice. He refused.

steve simmons