Why not incident?

[cyrus]

Can someone list the pros and cons of using an incident light meter for LF photography versus reflected/spot?

[Geert]

Well, I'm not a big fan of it, but think about applying the zone system wit an incident light meter.

G

[David A. Goldfarb]

I don't think there is any obvious connection between format and meter choice, except for the fact that it's easier to use the Zone System with sheet film, and the Zone System is generally conceived around spot metering.

For landscapes, a spot meter lets you know the reflectance of something far away and can take account of atmospheric haze and to measure the reflective contrast range of the actual objects in the scene.

It's not always easy to take an incident reading at the location of a distant object, but on the other hand, the light at the camera position may be the same as at the subject position, so then you can use an incident reading to know where to place Zone V, or you can use bright and shadow readings to determine the contrast range of the scene with the BTZS system.

Incident meters are handy in the studio, where the lights, camera, and subject are all close at hand. You can point the meter at different lights to determine the contrast range, and then use the domed diffuser on the meter pointed at the camera from the subject position to get a final exposure reading.

Any of these approaches applied thoughtfully can get you to the right exposure and contrast range.

[Alan Davenport]

The key word, already used in previous replies is, "thoughtful." There's really no reason not to use incident metering, but in doing so you must also mentally factor in the reflectivity of the subject and the contrast range of the scene. For "typical" landscapes (whatever those are) an incident reading will usually be fine. In fact, I usually take an incident reading after I have done my reflective readings and already calculated an exposure. The incident reading is never confused by shadows and highlights and tells me whether my chosen exposure is in the ballpark or if maybe I messed up somewhere (I know, it's hard to believe but it does happen.) :D

[GPS]

It's in no way an either - or choice. But there is an interesting element, not often mentioned - because during the incident metering you don't look through any eyepiece and you don't see exactly where you aime the meter then the spot metering easily allows you greater control over the process.

[Ed Richards]

I use incident metering exclusively for 4x5 black and white. I scan and print digitally, so I make no representations about whether my approach will work for silver. I know the Zone system and am old enough to also know that it was designed in great part to make up for the limitations of old films. Tmax in 1:3 Xtol has such great exposure latitude that you can you can use a modified zone system based on eyeballing the scene. If you need +1 or -1, do not worry about it, the film will work fine. If you need +2 or -2, change the exposure by a stop in the appropriate direction and up or decrease the developing. You should be able to look a scene and use techniques like shadowing the meter with your hand to figure out the range accurately enough for the latitude of the film. Really difficult lighting really needs a spot meter, but that is pretty rare. The worst I had recently was shooting into the interior of an old fort from outside in the blazing sun. I would have bracketed and gotten the shot, but as soon as the first shot was done, a grounds keep came by with a leaf blower and filled the space with dust.:-(

[Ken Lee]

Shooting in a studio, you can lay an incident meter on its back and take a reading, confident that middle gray will be rendered as middle gray.

However, you have no immediate way to know whether any high values will exceed the capacity of your film, or how dark the low values will be either.

The same can be said of a landscape scene such as this one (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/Conway2.htm), where there is a fairly small area in the distance, whose correct rendering is critical for the success of the image.

With a spot meter, such matters are instant and trivial. You directly measure the light reaching the camera. That's it. There's no need to run a mile to the barn on the hill, and take an incident reading. ;)

[Leonard Evens]

For a well lit average outdoor scene with normal contrast, an incident light reading will be perfectly adequate. But in tricky circumstances or where there is high contrast in the scene, it is likely to result in underexposed shadows. The advantage of a spot meter is that you can from the camera position guage the values in the shadows and base the exposure on that. Remember the old admonition, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. The Zone System is just a quantified form of that rule.

I have a flashmeter which also functions both as a(non-spot) reflected light meter and an incident light meter. I sometimes take an incident light reading to check what I've decided on by using my spotmeter. The readings mostly agree, but sometimes there are significant differences, and the incident reading would lead to an underexposed negative.

[Bruce Watson]

Can someone list the pros and cons of using an incident light meter for LF photography versus reflected/spot?
It all comes down to finding a way to expose for the shadows. If you want shadow detail on the film, you have to give the film sufficient exposure. There's no way around this.

How you get there is an interesting question. There are methods of exposure that are built around incident meters, and methods built around spot meters. Any method, and any meter, that helps you gives your film sufficient exposure to carry the detail you want, is fine.

What you have to do is find a method with which you are comfortable. A method which gives you consistent and reproducible results. Most of us want a metering methodology that we can reduce to a simple quick set of steps so we can concentrate on the art, and not on the mechanics of metering.

So, none of us can tell you which method to use. What I think are pros and cons, you might think are cons and pros. That's because much of this is about how you think, and no two people think exactly the same way.

What I can tell you is that I personally use a spot meter to implement a modified zone system that works for me. With a spot meter I can quickly measure the various shadow areas of the scene I'm working and determine in seconds what my exposure is going to be. I find it quick, easy, intuitive, and very precise. You might find it awkward and slow, because YMMV.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

All it takes to use an incident meter is learning how to think differently about zones and how to use the meter. The BTZS method uses incident measurements and after using the zone system for many years I have found the incident method far more accurate. The only time I needed to use spot metering is when I was standing at the bottom of a valley unable to get out of the shadow.

If you use the BTZS the advantage is not only the calibration but that you only need to take 2 readings, shadow and light, unlike the zone system where for some reason most of us spend minutes taking different readings....

[Mike Castles]

If you use the BTZS the advantage is not only the calibration but that you only need to take 2 readings, shadow and light, unlike the zone system where for some reason most of us spend minutes taking different readings....

So that's what I've been doing wrong ;) only using 2 readings for shadow and light.

How you doing Jorge? Actually, some good folks like Jorge here helped me learn that even with the Zone system you can take just 2 readings and it has worked out pretty well for me. Know it may not be pure to the Zone System, but I do like using the spot readings...guess in the end it's what works for you.

[Shen45]

All it takes to use an incident meter is learning how to think differently about zones and how to use the meter. The BTZS method uses incident measurements and after using the zone system for many years I have found the incident method far more accurate. The only time I needed to use spot metering is when I was standing at the bottom of a valley unable to get out of the shadow.

If you use the BTZS the advantage is not only the calibration but that you only need to take 2 readings, shadow and light, unlike the zone system where for some reason most of us spend minutes taking different readings....


As Jorge has said incident is so simple. I use BTZS and because the film, developer and paper are integrated to one another exposure is always correct. Like Jorge I used the zone system for years in the field and got reasonably good results but with the incident method of BTZS and of course the precise control of individual development of each sheet [for me] there is no comparison.

The exampe given above of the white building in the dark trees is a simple metering challenge that doen't require a spot meter. It does however require correct tested film, film developer and paper so that the high value reading with the incident meter falls within the Es of the paper and the DR of the film.

Whichever sytem you choose to use make certain the capability of your paper is considered in the development of your film. Film can hold much more information than you can normally print on paper. When you match the two you will love which ever meter choice you have.

[Michael Kadillak]

Can someone list the pros and cons of using an incident light meter for LF photography versus reflected/spot?

The pros are that it is quick and very easy to learn how to use ( I strongly recommend the Beyond The Zone System as devised by Phil Davis), it provides excellent results and it is very iexpensive since nearly everyone already has an incident meter.

The cons are that you need to re-tool your thought process and read the BTZS manual to understand the tactical approach. Phil Davis points out the reason that having command of both exposure systems is a very positive thing.

I can only tell you that since I took the time to understand the BTZS procedure, I have never arrived at an exposure quicker nor had produced better negatives in the darkroom. I now find that I look more carefully into the scene for the quality of the light in my photographs and that is a very good thing for developing consistency in my work. While I continue to carry a spot meter (by habit), my incident Spectra is my main man.

Cheers!

[sanking]

The pros are that it is quick and very easy to learn how to use ( I strongly recommend the Beyond The Zone System as devised by Phil Davis), it provides excellent results and it is very iexpensive since nearly everyone already has an incident meter.

The cons are that you need to re-tool your thought process and read the BTZS manual to understand the tactical approach. Phil Davis points out the reason that having command of both exposure systems is a very positive thing.

I can only tell you that since I took the time to understand the BTZS procedure, I have never arrived at an exposure quicker nor had produced better negatives in the darkroom. I now find that I look more carefully into the scene for the quality of the light in my photographs and that is a very good thing for developing consistency in my work. While I continue to carry a spot meter (by habit), my incident Spectra is my main man.

Cheers!


What Michael writes reflects a very great majority opinion of folks who learned photograhy with the Zone system method of testing, and later switched to BTZS. Not everyone, mind you, but the percentage of folks who learned BTZS and later returned to Zone is very small, or so it seems to me.

Knowledge of both Zone and BTZS methods of metering can be a real advantage. In my own work I use both, and don't think a moment that there is any contradiction in "world view" in doing so. But for the great majority of scenes, I find that BTZS incident type metering is much faster and more reliable than Zone metering.

For film testing, there really is no comparison. Zone system type testing as described by many of the Zone "Gurus" is very inefficient, and provides specific data only for the specific camera/lens/shutter system in use. BTZS type testing eliminates the camera/shutter/lens variable, and though perhaps counter-intuitive, is IMO a much more useful approach than Zone type testing.

Sandy King

[Daniel Geiger]

Some of us do color, so ZS/BTZS does not work, as development is fixed (ignoring push/pull and cross-processing). Whenever I can, I use incident as it provides more consistent results. For high contrast scenes, I may check range with spot, and if it is over, then conscienciously decide what I want: blown out highlights, sumped shaddows, Provia or Velvia, grad ND, or abandon all together.

Also, for flash, good luck with spot meetering. Usually, I don't do it all manual (measuring distance, and calculate from guide number and bellows extension), but rather use incident at the subject plane. Haven't done through-water flash with LF (done it lots with SLR-flash); that could get interesting as part is reflected, part refracted, with the ratios depending upon incident angle.

[Kirk Gittings]

One of the advantages of using a spot meter and the Zone System is it "provides specific data only for the specific camera/lens/shutter system in use." as Sandy contributed above. Which is precisely what I want to know.

The Zone System can also be used very simply. For instance really "you only need to take 2 readings, shadow and light [read highlight?]". hence it is extremely quick and logical and does not require that you carry an additional piece of equipment, a palm pilot (or the BTZS Powerdial) and as most have admitted above they end up carrying two light meters, an incident and a spot.

Confusing? Not really. Both systems work extremely well. They can both be overcomplicated or used as a barebones approach.

May I suggest that the important thing is that you use some consistent method of exposure/developement. Surprises in these areas are almost always huge disappointments. Looking at a scene and taking a simple incident or reflected grey card reading is at best like using a dull edged axe vs. using a finely honed surgical instrument.

However, rest assured if you delve into either the Zone System or BTZS it is not necessary to buy into the cultish tribalism that many practitioners display. In the end it is just another tool. Good tools certainly, but just tools.

[sanking]

One of the advantages of using a spot meter and the Zone System is it "provides specific data only for the specific camera/lens/shutter system in use." as Sandy contributed above. Which is precisely what I want to know.




I recognize this point. If you are using just *one* or *two* specific camera/lens/shutter system Zone type testing meets all required standards, though the testing is still very inefficient and time consuming compared to BTZS, IMHO.

However, to be the devils's advocate, "do you personally test for every camera/lens/shutter system you use? You are aware that these systems can be off by more than 1/3 to 1/2 stop, in optimum conditions, and more than that when things go south. And did you test for all conditions of subject contrast, say from N-2 to N+2? And if you did not, how do you really know that you are getting what you say you *precisely* want to know? In my opinion, unless you have specifically tested every combination of camera/lens/shutter sytem you actually use in the field, your degree of preision will be considerably less than if you just test the fim/develper independently of the camera, as we do in BTZS type testing.


Sandy

[JW Dewdney]

However, to be the devils's advocate, "do you personally test for every camera/lens/shutter system you use?

You would HAVE to, if that's the case.

Personally, what I've gleaned from the zone system is that I increase or reduce development 'a bit' (shocking!) if I want to increase or reduce the contrast in a scene. I don't do spot meter measurements. If I'm looking for something 'clinical' or 'documentary' looking - this holds. But sometimes it can rob the life from an image - such as, let's say, a foggy scene or something with a very limited tonality (and can also add some very unrealistic, harsh textures - you can see this in a lot of AAs work). So - I'll be pretty 'off the cuff' about it. And I'm generally very pleased with the results. I don't bother 'calibrating' or 'measuring' shutters/lenses (t-stops, etc) or anything anymore. I don't see there being a point. I'm not usually more than 1/3 to 1/2 stop out ever - so I figure - as long as I get the shadow detail, I'm good. There's no meaningful difference in doing otherwise, as far as the resulting image goes, unusual or 'difficult' scenes with 'blocked up highlights' notwithstanding. The shape/slope of the curve to me is far more important than where the values lie on it - as long as it's in range.

[Brian Ellis]

What Michael writes reflects a very great majority opinion of folks who learned photograhy with the Zone system method of testing, and later switched to BTZS. Not everyone, mind you, but the percentage of folks who learned BTZS and later returned to Zone is very small, or so it seems to me.

Knowledge of both Zone and BTZS methods of metering can be a real advantage. In my own work I use both, and don't think a moment that there is any contradiction in "world view" in doing so. But for the great majority of scenes, I find that BTZS incident type metering is much faster and more reliable than Zone metering.

For film testing, there really is no comparison. Zone system type testing as described by many of the Zone "Gurus" is very inefficient, and provides specific data only for the specific camera/lens/shutter system in use. BTZS type testing eliminates the camera/shutter/lens variable, and though perhaps counter-intuitive, is IMO a much more useful approach than Zone type testing.Sandy King

I think some of the things in Sandy's message quoted above and in a couple other messages here may be a little misleading to anyone who isn't familiar with the BTZS system. People don't actually have to choose between the zone system and BTZS or switch from one to the other. And there isn't actually a "Zone and BTZS method of metering." BTZS is a system of testing, exposure, and development. It can be used equally well with a spot meter and the traditional zone system or with an incident meter applied in the way that Phil Davis teaches. Similarly, there isn't any reason that someone using a spot meter and the traditional zone system can't use the BTZS method of film testing. I used the BTZS system of testing, exposure, and development for many years with a spot meter and the traditional zone system. Phil's exposure program is set up so that it can be used either that way or with an incident meter.

[Gordon Moat]

I predominantly shoot colour transparency, and mostly use incident metering. There are situations when I use reflected readings, though rarely. As mentioned above, the two reading method of light and shadow provides a good working process. You don't have to be right next to your subject to get an incident reading, though sometimes that is nice to do.

On the other hand, if you learned first with a spot meter, and are more comfortable with that, then perhaps best to stick with that. Changing from many spot readings to few incident reading can seem like an inaccruate switch to some. Ideally, you might want a meter that does incident, reflected, and spot; then use all them and compare which gives you the most consistent results.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Kirk Gittings]

Sandy,

You have taken me too literally. I was musing (and amusing) on the perceived weaknesses and misconceptions of the ZS, which are from my point of view strengths. Quotes were the most pointed way to accomplish that.

But I do periodically do the testing when I change something in the mix or something looks amiss, but in all honesty I usually only do it on the lenses I use most often. I don't test for the sake of testing. Why would I test if everything is bang on? Maybe you have time for that but I don't. Sometimes though, a problem is as simple as a thermometer or shutter gone astray, so I always check the simple stuff first.

Trust me, I don't need your advice on how to implement the Zone System.

But in all honesty, I am not an idealog and have no interest in cultish photo groups. I could care less which system people use as long as it works for them. If I had the need and time I would do the BTZS testing. I bought the book and materials months ago, because I was curious. I have not had the necessity or burning interest to get into it. I have been and continue to be way too busy.

You cannot get me going as you do with Steve, because I have no emotional investment in how I expose or process film. I do care when people propagate ironious information. I could care less how people make good prints as long as they are good.

[cyrus]

OK - I get the zone system (expose for shadows, adjust development time for highlights)

So how's that different from the BTZS?

[sanking]

I think some of the things in Sandy's message quoted above and in a couple other messages here may be a little misleading to anyone who isn't familiar with the BTZS system. People don't actually have to choose between the zone system and BTZS or switch from one to the other. And there isn't actually a "Zone and BTZS method of metering." BTZS is a system of testing, exposure, and development. It can be used equally well with a spot meter and the traditional zone system or with an incident meter applied in the way that Phil Davis teaches. Similarly, there isn't any reason that someone using a spot meter and the traditional zone system can't use the BTZS method of film testing. I used the BTZS system of testing, exposure, and development for many years with a spot meter and the traditional zone system. Phil's exposure program is set up so that it can be used either that way or with an incident meter.

Perhaps you should re-read what I have written. I use both
Zone and BTZS in systems for metering in the field and have made that point very clear in my previous messages on this subject. Also, Winplotter program, if you choose to use it, provides very complete data on use in the field of either Zone or BTZS incident type metering.

However, BTZS metering to determine SBR, as described by Davis, is essentially incident type. Go read his website, or his book, if you don't agree with me. Davis describes the differences between BTZS incident metering for SBR and Zone metering and notes advantages and disadvantages of each in Beyond the Zone System. BTZS is essentialy set up to work, with greater precision than Zone, with SBR and an incident system of metering. This is made very clear in his book, "Beyond the Zone System," and it is also stated very clearly by Davis at www. btzs.org.

Also, BTZS testing can not done in the field with a a spot meter, at least not as I understand the system as described by Davis. It is based on on testing with a exposure system that eliminates the camera/shutter/lens combination. That is an essential part of the BTZS system.



Sandy King

[sanking]

Sandy,

You cannot get me going as you do with Steve, because I have no emotional investment in how I expose or process film. I do care when people propagate ironious information. I could care less how people make good prints as long as they are good.

Kirk,

I am not sure why you chose to insert Steve in this exchange. I am involved here in exchanging information, and whether you "get going" or not is completely irrelevant to me. And, as far as I understood, this had nothing to do with Steve, nor with Dick or Harry.

However, if I have been guilty of any propagation of "ironious" information, please point this out to me so that I can make amends.

Meanwhile, perhaps you might consider that you read more into my message than what was either stated or implied. I don't believe that I said or implied anything that would justify making this matter personal by invoking another person's name.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry you p_____ me off when you started lecturing me on how I am supposed to use the ZS to meet your standards. I sometimes overreact to being patronized.

[Brian Ellis]

"Perhaps you should re-read what I have written. I use both
Zone and BTZS in systems for metering in the field and have made that point very clear in my previous messages on this subject."

I read what you wrote. I didn't say anything about what systems you use so I don't know why I should care that you've made your systems clear in any previous messages . I simply said I thought it was misleading for people who don't know anything about the BTZS system to refer to the "zone system" of metering and the "BTZS system" of metering as though they are two separate things when they aren't. The BTZS system can be used with a spot meter/zone system or with an incident meter. Both ways are encompassed by the term "BTZS system."

"However, BTZS metering to determine SBR, as described by Davis, is essentially incident type. Go read his website, or his book, if you don't agree with me."

I've read his book many times. I've also attended two of his workshops and I used the BTZS sytem as long ago as when the expo/dev program was loaded into a Casio pocket computer. I don't know what you mean by saying that BTZS metering is "essentially" the incident type. I do know that with the BTZS system you can determine SBR using a spot meter just as well as with an incident meter. I know because I've done it thousands of times. I also know that Phil has a personal preference for incident meters but he certainly didn't limit the determination of SBR only to incident meters. In the two workshops I attended there were a total of about 15 participants and I dont think any of us used an incident meter. But that didn't seem to bother Phil and it certainly didn't prevent any of us from learning and using the BTZS system.

"Also, BTZS testing can not done in the field with a a spot meter, at least not as I understand the system as described by Davis. It is based on on testing with a exposure system that eliminates the camera/shutter/lens combination. That is an essential part of the BTZS system."

I didn't say that BTZS testing can be done with a spot meter. I know how film is tested using the BTZS system and it doesn't involve use of either a spot meter or an incident meter. If you read what I wrote you'll see I said that someone could use a spot meter and also use the BTZS method of film testing, i.e. that you don't have to use an incident meter in order to take advantage of the BTZS method of testing film.

[sanking]

I read what you wrote. I didn't say anything about what systems you use so I don't know why I should care that you've made your systems clear in any previous messages . I simply said I thought it was misleading for people who don't know anything about the BTZS system to refer to the "zone system" of metering and the "BTZS system" of metering as though they are two separate things when they aren't. The BTZS system can be used with a spot meter/zone system or with an incident meter. Both ways are encompassed by the term "BTZS system."



I agree that both Zone type metering and incident type metering is encompassed by what is known as BTZS, and both systems can be used from BTZS type testing. This is not well understood, however, and most people, IMO, understand BTZS as an incident based system. And that is why, for clarification, I wrote:

"Knowledge of both Zone and BTZS methods of metering can be a real advantage. In my own work I use both, and don't think a moment that there is any contradiction in "world view" in doing so. But for the great majority of scenes, I find that BTZS incident type metering is much faster and more reliable than Zone metering."

I do see Zone type metering and BTZS incident type metering as conceptually two very distinct and different ways metering, even though both methods can be derived from BTZS testing. However, the point I was trying to make is that both systems are useful and in some situations one or the other might offer an advantage.

Sandy King

[steve simmons]

Over the history of photography thousands of photographs with absolutley no knowledge of BTZS have made thousands and thousands of magnificant photographs. When I ask the best practitioners working today what they think of BTZS they tell me they have never heard of it.

It is the final image that matters. When the BTZS group can actually show me a body of work that begins to stand equally along side those that have no idea BTZS even exists then I will start to listen. Remember the YOB system back in the late 70s? It was another attempt to 'discover' sensitometry for the first time. It was so convoluted as to be absurd. Many of us have seen this cycle of new people coming along and 'dscovering' something old and simply using new terminology - the principles of sensitometry have been known for 50+ years and they are still the same, claiming it as their own, and brow beating anyone who does not recognize their genius.

I have done article after article in View Camera explaining how to make practical use of the zone sysem. You need just two readings - the important shadow areas and the important high value area. You can not get these in the field with an incident meter.

While th BTS group touts the superiority of their system I will wait for them to begin producing meaningful work. In the meantime I will enjoy the photographs made by those luddites who know nothing of BTZS.

steve simmons

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Over the history of photography thousands of photographs with absolutley no knowledge of BTZS have made thousands and thousands of magnificant photographs. When I ask the best practitioners working today what they think of BTZS they tell me they have never heard of it.

Yep and thousands and thousands of photographs have been made without knowledge of either the BTZS or the ZS, hardly a debating point. As to the "practitioners" you ask, well.....birds of a feather flock together.....no?

[sanking]

Yep and thousands and thousands of photographs have been made without knowledge of either the BTZS or the ZS, hardly a debating point. As to the "practitioners" you ask, well.....birds of a feather flock together.....no?

Dick Arentz, one of the best platinum printers in the world, has a very large body of work based on the use of BTZS. Check it out at http://www.dickarentz.com/

Sandy

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yeah well, I am sure Mr. Simmons did not ask him.

[Helen Bach]

I don't think of the two-reading incident system as 'BTZS', I think of Minor White's succinct description in the single-page Chapter 8 of his 1954 Zone System Manual.

Best,
Helen

[steve simmons]

"I think of Minor White's succinct description in the single-page Chapter 8 of his 1954 Zone System Manual."

My point exactly. The BTZS group has not discovered anything except how to apply new terminology to longtime tried and true methods. They have taken an existing knowledge base,twisted it around and claimed it is new, and brow beat us who 'don't get it." We do get it. That is the problem. We have been around long enough to get it.

steve simmons

[JW Dewdney]

Dick Arentz, one of the best platinum printers in the world, has a very large body of work based on the use of BTZS. Check it out at http://www.dickarentz.com/

Sandy

Good for him. And many other photogs, even more talented, have bodies of work NOT based on BTZS. What are you trying to say here?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

"I think of Minor White's succinct description in the single-page Chapter 8 of his 1954 Zone System Manual."

My point exactly. The BTZS group has not discovered anything except how to apply new terminology to longtime tried and true methods. They have taken an existing knowledge base,twisted it around and claimed it is new, and brow beat us who 'don't get it." We do get it. That is the problem. We have been around long enough to get it.

steve simmons

Now see, you dont get it and although Helen is very knowledgeable she is off the mark on this one. The BTZS uses a very different metering method and terminology than the ZS. In fact if I am challanged to explain the differences between the BTZS and the ZS I have to say that the bottom line difference is that the BTZS is based on the reflection properties of prints in different papers, while the ZS is based on the transmission porperties of negatives.

In any case, just because the BTZS uses some of the same terminology does not mean it is the same. Dr. Kary Mullis invented PCR which opened up the entire field of genetics, for this he had to use the existing knowledge in chemistry and biology, are you saying that he did not invent anything new because he used some of the same terminology as those who came before him? You clearly dont understand how science works if you think this way.... Now that I think about it, there is no surprise here.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Good for him. And many other photogs, even more talented, have bodies of work NOT based on BTZS. What are you trying to say here?

What he is trying to say JW is that you would think that the editor of a "journal" in photography would be at least aware of the different methods if not familiar with them, even if he does not agree with them.

If you send an article to the ACS Journal, it is reviewed by your peers who are familiar with your methodology, and if they are not familiar they are at least aware of it's existence and how it is used. How is Mr. Simmons going to evaluate an article sent to him that uses the BTZS if he is not only ignorant of it, but the "practitioners" that he surrounds himself with are in the same boat?

What is worse and really sad is the reluctance Mr. Simmons has to at least try and understand something new. Unlike Mr. Simmons, many of us who use the BTZS have tried most of the other techniques out there. Personally I tried his silly little test (minimum time for maximum black) I sat down with Adams' book "The negative" and even went as far as calculating the logs of the light units to make sure the book was right, and then moved on to the BTZS. Of the three I found the BTZS to be the most practical, accurate and easier to use. Mr. Simmons has only tried one way, only knows one way and he tells us how the other method is useless when he does not even know it. The irony is that with respect to testing, the BTZS is far more economical and faster than the "minimum time for maximum black" test, not to mention infinitly more accurate.

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge, Whether you like it or not, Steves "silly little test" works perfectly fine and is entirely accurate enough for quality work. I know because I have used it as a part of my workflow for many years (long before I knew Steve). The proof is in the pudding. Come out to my upcoming show in Hollywood and tell me it doesn't work. All the work is silver and all used Steve's "silly little test". By the way Fred Picker invented the "silly little test".

Can we get past this ridiculous chest pounding over systems? The real truth is: THEY ALL WORK IF YOU ARE CAREFUL, CONSISTENT AND ATTENTIVE TO DETAIL!!!!

[Kirk Gittings]

Dick Arentz, one of the best platinum printers in the world, has a very large body of work based on the use of BTZS.

I forgot this. Dick Arentz has a large body of extraordinary work based on the fact that he has a great and passionate vision. BTZS is just a tool as is the ZS and Dick would produce great work with any approach because he is a dedicated and careful worker.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Steves "silly little test" works perfectly fine and is entirely accurate enough for quality work.

I judge a testing method by the amount of useful data you obtain, which is the purpose of testing. Wether you like it or not, the silly little test is one of the worst if not the worst for testing purposes.

I suspect it works for you after ruining many negatives and trial and error, which should not be present in a testing methodology. I am sure your prints are very nice, but maybe this says more about your printing ability than the usefulness of your testing method. Would your prints be as good if you could not do any dodging or burning or hold them to a minimum? I dont have that luxury and I can tell you without any doubt that the silly little test does not come close to providing a negative with this qualities as the BTZS does.

In the end Kirk, I will tell you what I told Mr. Simmons, I tried your way, get back to me when you have tried mine... :)

[JW Dewdney]

While you guys are busy arguing and measuring with your densitometers, I'm going to go out shooting. Have fun. You should try photography sometime...! :)

[sanking]

While you guys are busy arguing and measuring with your densitometers, I'm going to go out shooting. Have fun. You should try photography sometime...! :)

Gee, must be close to midnight there in Los Angeles. What do you shoot this time of night?

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge, I extensively burn and dodge prints because I want expressive very personal prints. There is no negative that I would not extensively burn and dodge. I am not a documentary photographer. No straight print would ever make me happy.

And....I do not, nor have I ever said that BTZS did not work very well. I have always conceeded that. It is you who has the need to trash all methods but your own.

You are like a dogma with a bone.

That has a nice ring to it. Maybe we could put it to music.

Goodnight and sweet dreams.

[JW Dewdney]

Gee, must be close to midnight there in Los Angeles. What do you shoot this time of night?

Sandy
Sandy - just trying to make a rhetorical point. I hope you won't need an explanation...! Though - I DO shoot mostly at night lately.

[JW Dewdney]

You are like a dogma with a bone.


Actually more like a dogma WITHOUT a bone...! (j/k - no offense Jorge -)

Reminds me of one of the best bumper stickers I've yet seen: "Your Karma ran over my Dogma"

Kirk - where's your 'hollywood show' going to be? Freestyle? Just curious. I'd like to see it, since I'm in the 'hood.

[QT Luong]

When I ask the best practitioners working today what they think of BTZS they tell me they have never heard of it.


Names ?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Jorge, I extensively burn and dodge prints because I want expressive very personal prints. There is no negative that I would not extensively burn and dodge. I am not a documentary photographer. No straight print would ever make me happy.

And....I do not, nor have I ever said that BTZS did not work very well. I have always conceeded that. It is you who has the need to trash all methods but your own.

You are like a dogma with a bone.

That has a nice ring to it. Maybe we could put it to music.

Goodnight and sweet dreams.

Well, would it be nice to get the same expressive print without having to do all that burning and dodging?

So, on the one side, we have guys like me who are saying "we have tried all the methods described, are knowledeable in them and have found the BTZS to be the one which is the most accurate, simpler, that provides useful information and which yields the negatives that are easier to print," on the other side we have guys like you who say " we know nothing about the BTZS have never tried it, but find it too diffcult, and not necessary when we can rely on film's latitude and a mediocre test"..... Yep, I most be the dogmatic one.

In the end the purpose of these forums is information, people like Sandy and me are trying to provide it and give sound reasons why we think this way, you have never given us an explanation of why your method works other than "look at my prints" and "I have used it for 30 years" or my favorite from your friend "I am not a lab tech"...... yet you are in each and every one of these threads with your friend Simmons.

I think Sandy will agree with me when I say it is no skin off our noses if people want to spend hours dodging and burning when there is a better way. The only reason I participate in this threads is to correct the mistaken myths that the BTZS is "too dificult" or "adds levels of complexity" propagated by people like you and Simmons who know nothing about it, have never tried it yet feel qualified in dimissing it......

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Actually more like a dogma WITHOUT a bone...! (j/k - no offense Jorge -)

Ah, you must be the type of jerk who looks you in the eye and tell you "I mean no disrespect, but...." and you know it is the first thing they mean to do. So in that vein, the "jerk" part..... (no offense JW)

[Kirk Gittings]

Well, would it be nice to get the same expressive print without having to do all that burning and dodging?

This is just plain naive. You know nothing about my aesthetic.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

This is just plain naive. You know nothing about my aesthetic.

I sure dont, I am asking you who is working in the darkroom if it is not better to get the information in the negative the way you want it to look in the print to beguin with? I thought this was the purpose of visialization and the ZS and which IMO having used the ZS is better achieved with the BTZS. But hey, you want to make acrobatics in the darkroom, knock yourself out and have fun.

[SAShruby]

So, Jorge and Kirk,

Fighting battles on the two fronts (two threads to be precise?)?
I am keeping my eye on both. You guys don't even know how much people can learn from you guys. I always just make my own decission.

Jorge, Kirk and Steve and Sandy keep up good work. I mean it, honestly. It's not right you guys attacking each other, but you guys are making best contribution to this forum.

I am your biggest fan.:)

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge,

My printing gymnastics are not about making up for deficiencies in the negative but deficiencies in the world I photograph that does not fit my vision. You appear to a pretty "straight" printer. I am not.

[Don Hutton]

I personally find BTZS very helpful in two areas, where I believe that it is big improvement on straight ZS:

1. I shoot to print on a variety of different materials - silver enlargement, Azo and Pt/Pd. With BTZS, I can test my substrates once each and any film once - I don't need to test film and substrate together each time.
2. When printing with alt processes, a difference in shadow density can make a huge difference to final print times - where you are dealing with exposures that can easily tun much longer than 15 minutes, get too much exposure in the shadows, and you can easily double you exposure time, which means that your printing time pretty much becomes half as productive. I personally have had better experience with getting shadow detail for alt processes "just right" with BTZS - with ZS, it tended to be quite hit and miss - with the ZS, there's often a tendency to give it a little more exposure (fear of loss of shadow detail...) which makes negatives take a lot longer to print. Put your shadows at zone 4 instead of zone 3, and your printing time suddenly doubles - so on a 15 minute exposure, you are suddenly taking an hour to expose a print and test strip, instead of half an hour...

I'll also add that I am gobsmacked by Mr. Simmons' complete ignorance of the work of Dick Arentz (or perhaps it's "not up to scratch" in his eyes?.....) It may be the most substantial modern body of work of it's kind; but hey, you know better!

[JW Dewdney]

Ah, you must be the type of jerk who looks you in the eye and tell you "I mean no disrespect, but...." and you know it is the first thing they mean to do. So in that vein, the "jerk" part..... (no offense JW)

Silly fellow! It was an excuse for wordplay -not a personal slight! (that was the reason for the 'no offense' - why would I have written it if I wasn't trying to say something with that? I thought that 'dogma without a bone' sounded more appropriate and funnier in the way kirk used it - and it could be towards anyone...! I have absolutely nothing against you - and, if anything generally appreciate what you have to say...!

But I did enjoy your rebuttal anyway... whether or not you like it...!

[Curt Palm]

I sure dont, I am asking you who is working in the darkroom if it is not better to get the information in the negative the way you want it to look in the print to beguin with? I thought this was the purpose of visialization and the ZS and which IMO having used the ZS is better achieved with the BTZS. But hey, you want to make acrobatics in the darkroom, knock yourself out and have fun.

If I have two objects on my negative that are the same density and I want one to end up lighter or darker than the other on the final print, I'd say dodging or burning is how to achieve that, I don't think any exposure system could achieve that result.

[BrianShaw]

Hey, guys... what ever happened to "push the button and let Kodak do the rest?" Just curious. :D

[MJSfoto1956]

Can someone list the pros and cons of using an incident light meter for LF photography versus reflected/spot?

For most people, incident for color is the way to go.
For most people, spot for black and white is the way to go.

[Kirk Gittings]

If I have two objects on my negative that are the same density and I want one to end up lighter or darker than the other on the final print, I'd say dodging or burning is how to achieve that, I don't think any exposure system could achieve that result.

Exactly, I have even reversed the b&w tonalities of nuetral colored objects, created foreground shadows when none existed, etc. etc. all of which require a good negative, but none of which can be created in the exposure and dev phase wihout skewing everything else to hell in the scene. Many of my prints are not at all faithful to the original scene and the effect can only be created by some form of extensive burning and dodging.

[Charles Webb]

This has been a very amusing thread, many chuckles and a lot of plain stubborness, but this quote is one of the least intelligent comments I have ever heard.


QUOTE=Kirk Gittings]
"My printing gymnastics are not about making up for deficiencies in the negative but deficiencies in the world I photograph that does not fit my vision. You appear to a pretty "straight" printer. I am not."[/QUOTE]

Wow, I guess I have wasted the past, nearly 60 years trying to make the perfect negative. A negative that would reprersent the best possible representation of the original subject matter that I could possibly make. The results of this negative saved me and my lab tech's time and money by not having to diddle wirh it in the dark. Customers always preferred Straight Prints other than those requireing special burning or dodging, because the straight print saved them money. I personally use the Zone Systerm learned many years ago during a workshop in Carmel taught by a bald headed dude wearing his glasses on his forhead. The ZS worked, but it was not long before I found that it wasn't everything it could be. So the modifications began. Years later the BTZS showed up, and I found much useful information in it that fit right in with what I had been doing. The BTZS is eaiser for me to use, but I don't use either without my own modifications.

Each and every instructor I ever had, preached "get it in the negative" not add it in the darkroom!!

Dosn't matter one bit to me how some one else gets good results, but I am concerned about those who make comments like the one above. I am going to save it and show others what the thought process of some folks playing picture make's spout!

Sorry Kirk, Pretty dumb remark huh?


C Webb

[Helen Bach]

...
Helen... is off the mark on this one. The BTZS uses a very different metering method and terminology than the ZS...

Well, I won't argue with that.

My vague idea was to compare only Minor White's "Two Reading Routine" for incident measurements with Phil Davis' two reading incident method as ways of determining the Contrast Range or Scene Brightness Range. They give remarkably similar results. I didn't intend to compare the entire System, honest.

A two-stop difference suggest a CR of 7 stops according to MW and an SBR of 7 stops according to PD.

Three stops difference leads to a CR of 8 and an SBR of 8,

and so on.

Well I think it's similar anyway.

Best,
Helen

[Kirk Gittings]

DIDDLING IN THE DARK......


Wow, I guess I have wasted the past, nearly 60 years trying to make the perfect negative. A negative that would reprersent the best possible representation of the original subject matter that I could possibly make. The results of this negative saved me and my lab tech's time and money by not having to diddle wirh it in the dark.


Sorry Kirk, Pretty dumb remark huh?

Charles,

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, dumb describes it pretty well. Much of art photography is about represenation, but at least as much is not.

Was I talking about how you should make images? Of course not. Was I criticizing straight photographers? Of course not. Read the thread! I was talking about my work. Your defensive comments are completely off base. I was being told, by someone who knows nothing about my work, how I should make negatives and make prints. I like his (Jorge's) photography. I think he is a great straight photographer. I even bought one of his prints. But I have 0 interest in doing work like him.

I have never used a "lab tech" to do my prints in 36 years working in this business, because there is no lab tech who could interpret my vision unless I was standing over him and then I might as well be doing it myself.

"Diddling in the dark", as you put it, is where much of the "art" is in photography and most of the fun. I "diddle in the dark" as often and as much as I can.

[Charles Webb]

Kirk,
Of course you must have the last word, best of all you are absolutly correct in all of your comments! (correct in your own mind, but not in the minds of others) I am still laughing and most likely will be doing so for some time to come.

A. I did read your concept of the thread over several times, it is still amusing!

B. That you were talking about your own work, well that never came accross. It sounded very much like everyone making pictures should do it your way, and if they don't they are somehow wrong.

C. Any one who has ever stepped behind a big box knows that there are many ways to skin the cat. To believe and support your way as the only way is indeed amusing.
Your statement of justification is with out a doubt very funny and yes I am still laughing.

D. Your pitiful attempt to justify your comment just dosen't float. In your mind I am the enemy, NOT I simply laugh when I read in a thread your expressed thoughts!

E. I am glad you enjoyed my teminology for those who go into the dark with a less than perfect negative and try to convert it into art by "diddling" with it. Believe me, the better negative you take in to print the better the final print will be.

F. For the record, I am not defending anything, you put your foot in your mouth, I simply pointed it out to you.

G. I totally disagree that much of the art is in the darkroom, The true artist knows before he enters the dark room what the finished print will look like. No guess work involved, he makes a the best possible negative he can, to be able to reproduce the visual image he has in his head in the final print. Can you print 1 dozen 8x10's exactly alike using burning and dodging, hell no and niether can anyone else. The least manipulation of the print in the darkroom, the better you future sales will be.

I have nothing more to say, now you can jump in and get the last word!

Happy "Diddling" ! I do wish you great success in your up coming show!

Still Chuckling,
C Webb

[Kirk Gittings]

Charles,
Lets agree to disagree. As far as my statement goes, it said exactly what I wanted it to say. My only regret was repeating your "dumb" reference in a snide manner. I know I teed off on you a bit, but after two days of battling with the indefagitable Jorge, I was primed. Sorry about that. I should spend more time diddling and less time on this forum. Cheers.

[OldBikerPete]

Really difficult lighting really needs a spot meter, but that is pretty rare.
Try landscape photography in Australia - you will find that 'difficult lighting' is the norm, rather than rare. I favour incident lighting measurement when I must work very quickly or I am absolutely sure that the dynamic range of the lighting in the scene is within the latitude of my film. At all other times I use a spot meter. BTW I use PORTRA 160VC in 5x4 exclusively.