Magazine editors should not eat peote buttons

[Duane Polcou]

This is just something for the "shake your head" category. I'm in Barnes and Noble and see "Silvershotz" magazine, a UK magazine devoted to "fine art" photography. The editor publishes an opening column about how "analogue" photography is now truly dead, with this sort of "We have thus declared it so it must be so here yea here yea" vibe. Then they have a lengthy article about how to make carbon prints. Hey, Silvershotz, I think you should re-name your magazine "Tequilashotz", or
"I don't actually read the content first that's someone named Ian's job shotz", or "isn't it ironic that silver is in our title and now we pronounce it dead shotz"

[Walter Calahan]

Ignore them and they will go away.

[MIke Sherck]

I've bought several copies of this magazine from Barnes & Noble over the course of the last couple of years. In some ways I feel sorry for them, in other ways they really tickle my sense of humor. It has to be tough, really tough, to start an 'art photography' print magazine in these times and I suspect that the editors are doing this out of love, in their spare time, while they try to hold down jobs and families. I admire their optimism but I also feel that they would have better chances of long term success if they took the time to figure out just what the heck they want to say. It has seemed rather scattered from what I've seen and I assume it is because they're doing the job in bits and pieces after long days making a living. If they survive I assume they'll find some coherency in thought and message but in the mean time, while my better nature wants to laud their admirable effort, my dark side wants to kick them in the pants and shout "think first, publish second!"

Oh, well: I wish them the best of luck.

Mike

[Aggie]

OMG film is dead? whoops someone forgot to tell me...... I guess Emulsion is dead.....NOT!

[sanking]

This is just something for the "shake your head" category. I'm in Barnes and Noble and see "Silvershotz" magazine, a UK magazine devoted to "fine art" photography. The editor publishes an opening column about how "analogue" photography is now truly dead, with this sort of "We have thus declared it so it must be so here yea here yea" vibe. Then they have a lengthy article about how to make carbon prints. Hey, Silvershotz, I think you should re-name your magazine "Tequilashotz", or
"I don't actually read the content first that's someone named Ian's job shotz", or "isn't it ironic that silver is in our title and now we pronounce it dead shotz"


I would have to read the editorial myself to know exactly what was said to understand the intent. Most of the material I have seen published in Silvershotz was prodocued by analogue methods, or by a combination of analogue at the front end with film and digital at the output. In fact, they are publishing a lot of alternative work. They did a three piece series on pt./pd. by Tillman Crane, and the article on carbon printing (mine) is the first of a three part series, with the last one scheduled to be on color carbon prints. Much of my own work involves analogue capture on film which is then scanned and the file corrected in Photoshop, from which I print a digital negative, and from that contact print the carbon print. The fellows who are doing color carbon are also all working from digitally produced negatives.

So on the whole it sure does not appear to me Silvershotz is proceeding as if analague were dead. Of course, I don't believe it unfair to say that analogue as a most of us knew it ten years ago is in fact dead, and has been dead for some years now. You only have to look at the change in the commerical market (portrait, weddings, sports, news, etc.), together with companies like Agfa and Kodak getting out of many of the analogue markets, to understand this. I would say that even in the area of fine art photography pure analogue photography, of the type promoted on APUG, is very much the exception rather than the standard.


Sandy King

[steve simmons]

I've heard through the grapevine that Kodak has experienced an increase in film sales the last year. This must be confusing the experts!

steve simmons
publisher, view camera magazine
www.viewcamera.com

[Duane Polcou]

Maybe I read too much into that little editorial, but the editors probably should not announce film's demise if they intend to include it as part of their publication's content. I agree with Mike, they should figure out who they are and what they believe in and what they want to say.

[sanking]

I've heard through the grapevine that Kodak has experienced an increase in film sales the last year. This must be confusing the experts!

steve simmons
publisher, view camera magazine
www.viewcamera.com

I would not be at all surprised to hear that there has been an increae in LF film sales. I could be mistaken, but my impression is the LF is more popular now than it was ten years ago. Perhaps View Camera or someone else has done some surveys on this? If not, that would be something interesting to know.

On the other hand, I would be rather surprised that sales of MF film have increased, since large numbers of professional users have switched to digital capture. And shocked to find out that sales of 35mm film have increased. Almost all of my friends who are casual users of photograpy (family snaps and such) who used to use 35mm have switched to digital.

Sandy King

[BrianShaw]

I've heard through the grapevine that Kodak has experienced an increase in film sales the last year. This must be confusing the experts!

steve simmons
publisher, view camera magazine
www.viewcamera.com

It will only confuse the experts who actually seek out and look at the data. For all of the other "experts"...

[Daniel Grenier]

....... my impression is the LF is more popular now than it was ten years ago. .......Almost all of my friends who are casual users of photograpy (family snaps and such) who used to use 35mm have switched to digital.

Sandy King

How true. LF, especially ULF, sure seems to be far more popular than 10 years ago.
I'd be curious to see hard numbers to back that up but I do have my own numbers to show how fast the decline was for 35mm. For years, and until 3 or 4 years ago, we used to shoot upwards of 10,000 rolls per year (yes, ten thousand) where I work. Now, we shoot Zero !

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Well, now that you all mention ULF, who is selling 12x20 film? With the exit of J&C I have no idea where to get film. I looked at Freestyle, but they don't list it. So, any ideas?

[Oren Grad]

Jorge, Freestyle is showing BPF200 and also Efke PL25 and PL100 in 12x20. Go to B&W sheet film and select 12x20 on the "size" menu.

[sanking]

Jorge, Freestyle is showing BPF200 and also Efke PL25 and PL100 in 12x20. Go to B&W sheet film and select 12x20 on the "size" menu.


The View Camea Store is listing both FP4+ and HP5+.

Sandy King

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Thanks guys....now I have to test again....grrrrrr....

[sanking]

Thanks guys....now I have to test again....grrrrrr....

Just be thankful you learned how to test film with BTZS. At least you can get all the data you need about a new film in an evening of testing instead of days with the other system.

Sandy

[steve simmons]

The "other" system works just as quickly and gets you to the same place.

Lets not start another series of snide remarks and competition as to which is the best. There are many ways to skin this cat. There has been too much of this and the peace and quiet the last few months has been refreshing.

steve simmons

[sanking]

The "other" system works just as quickly and gets you to the same place.

Lets not start another series of snide remarks and competition as to which is the best. There are many ways to skin this cat. There has been too much of this and the peace and quiet the last few months has been refreshing.

steve simmons

I think your comment is out of line. My remark was directed to Jorge and was not in any way meant to be snide, merely to point out the fact that since he uses BTZS testing he will be able to quickly compile exposure and development data for his new film.

The other system is certainly capable of fine results and may eventually get you to the same place. But it definitely will not get you there as quickly. BTZS testing is without question more efficient, and almost everyone who has used and really understands the two systems would agree with that assessment.

And BTZS testing is especially useful in a case like this where one has to start working with a new film. In two hours of testing and plotting Jorge will have all the information he needs to expose and develop his new film, for any process exposure scale and for any subject lighting condition. There is no way anyone could compile that much data with the other system as quickly. That is not to say that the other system is defective or that it is not also capable of excellent results.

Sandy King

[Doug Herta]

Don't mean to get back on topic, but I read the editorial and it seemed to say that most commercial photography has gone digital and analogue is dead for that sector of photography. It goes on to say that it is a kind of blessing for fine art photography because it makes analogue work more unique and "collectable". I think the editorial was trying to state that this could be considered a positive trend by making the analogue fine art photography more distinct, and raise more interest in the medium.

Sandy - I really enjoyed your article. I will be subscribing to get the rest of the series of carbon print articles.

[steve simmons]

But it definitely will not get you there as quickly. BTZS testing is without question more efficient, and almost everyone who has used and really understands the two systems would agree with that assessment.


Anyone familar with the Picker method can do one test with 6 negatives processed in one batch and determine their

personal EI
proper proof time
dev time for normal scenes.

Perhaps someone familiar with BTZS can do the same but certainly not any more quickly.

If someone is not familar and just beginning the Picker method is far more user friendly.

That's it for me in his discussion.

As I said, there has been peace and quiet here in this area of the forum for several months and I appreciate that very much

There are many ways to skin this cat and they will both get you to the same place. Regardless of your system, your vision will require a certain density for your desired tonal range and either system, or a hybred which is what most BTZS people really use, will get you to the same place.

We have placed descriptions of both approaches in the Free Articles section of the View Camera web site. We invite any and all to read the articles and use whatever method works for them

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com

[sanking]

[I]
Anyone familar with the Picker method can do one test with 6 negatives processed in one batch and determine their

personal EI
proper proof time
dev time for normal scenes.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com


BTZS testing will give you the above data, and much more. For example, it will give you the proper exposure and development time *not* only for normal scenes, but for N conditions ranging from N-6 to N+2-4. And it will do this for *any* process exposure scale, whether the process be carbon, silver or palladium. And you get that data in about two hours of testing, with a new film about which you know little or nothing.

I also encourage people to read as much as they can and make up their own minds as to which system best suits their needs.

Recently you published in View Camera an article by Phil Davis on BTZS, for which I sincerely thank you . Hopefully you can make this article available in the free articles section on the View Camera web site to which you often direct readers here on the LF forum.


Sandy

[sanking]

Don't mean to get back on topic, but I read the editorial and it seemed to say that most commercial photography has gone digital and analogue is dead for that sector of photography. It goes on to say that it is a kind of blessing for fine art photography because it makes analogue work more unique and "collectable". I think the editorial was trying to state that this could be considered a positive trend by making the analogue fine art photography more distinct, and raise more interest in the medium.

Sandy - I really enjoyed your article. I will be subscribing to get the rest of the series of carbon print articles.

Your reading of the editorial is very consistent with my own understanding of the goals of the editor. Thanks for your comments.

Glad you liked the article. Did you see the carbon article and images in the web journal MagnaChrom 1:3 and 1:4? If not, there is a lot of detail there on carbon printing that might be of interest to you. For the most part, though, my personal images in Silvershotz and MagnaChrom are different.

Sandy King

[Jim Rice]

Alas, Steve, the way I read your article on the Picker method it requires 12 sheets. Six for film speed and six for development times. Is that not correct?

[steve simmons]

Alas, Steve, the way I read your article on the Picker method it requires 12 sheets. Six for film speed and six for development times. Is that not correct?

If you are starting new with the method yes. But at this point I can do it with six if I start with a new film.

The BTZS system seems to be very difficult for new people to learn how to use. In fact, when we did the two part series we had trouble finding people who are using it in its pure form. Even many of it's staunch advocates are really using a hybred approach where they resort to a spot meter in difficult situations and then essentially blend the BTZS and zone system into their approach.

I try and not get involved in too many heated discussions about which is best. My encouragement of the Picker version of the zone system is because it is easy to understand and use and does not require calculators, densitometers, step wedges, etc. which are intimidating to many people

Either way, BTZS or some version of the zone system, your vision will require certain densities to get the tones you want on your prints. You can and will find these densities regardless of which way you get there. Just pck the method that seems comfortable for you.

steve

[sanking]

I fully agree that a person should chose the film testing system that they are most comfortable with, and anyone who feels uncomfortable with the more technical approach of BTZS should clearly not go that way. In fact, many people feel that Zone system is itself too technical and I know many photographers making great images who don’t understand either Zone or BTZS. However, don’t let anyone distort facts, and the fact is that while any system may eventually get you where you need to go the BTZS system of film testing is much more efficient and provides a lot more data in less time than Zone type testing. This can be important for people who uses several films, or for people who have to change films for one reason or another.

There is some confusion, however, about BTZS. It is a system that involves various parts. One part is a film testing procedure that gives data that can be used in the field with both incident readings using the SBR method, or with spot metering using the Zone system and N values. The choice of reflected versus incident metering is fully integrated into Davis’ system and is both described in his book and supported in WinPlotter. I think it is a credit to Davis in that he fully understood that either system of metering might be preferable in a given lighting condition. I personally use both incident and reflected readings in field work, depending on the subject and the lighting conditions. There are definitely many conditions when one system of metering is better, faster, more accurate or more creative than the other.

These discussions are complicated by the fact that virtually every BTZS user is a photographer who started with the Zone system and later switched to BTZS, at least for the method of film testing. Thus, they fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of each system. And for me the essence and most important component of BTZS is the efficiency of its film testing method. Comparing BTZS to Zone based on incident versus relfected metering is a false argument because BTZS film testing fully supports working with either incident or spot meters.

Sandy King