Picker on exposure

[Randy]

In my teens I relied on average reflected reading of the scene.
In the early 80's, I was often disappointed with the exposure of my 35mm and 120 negs.
One day I stumbled on Fred Pickers "Zone VI Workshop". Finally, I understood how an exposure meter worked. I couldn't afford a nice 1 degree spot meter, so I started using incident readings as my method. It usually gets me close.

Jump ahead a few years - I had been subscribing to Pickers newsletters, and when I received #51, June 1987, he described what made very good sense - reflected reading of the brightest part of the scene and placing it on zone VIII - that's it.

I have recently acquired an old Zone VI modified Pentax Spot meter and was going to give this method a try. I was wondering if any here use it, have used it, can think of any faults in this method.

[Gem Singer]

Color transparency, or B&W film?

[Randy]

I assumed Fred was talking about B&W.

[Gem Singer]

With B&W film, it's a wise idea to place the darkest area in the scene, where you want to retain some detail, in Zone III. Merely aim the spot meter at the shadows, take a reading, then close down two stops (the meter always reads Zone V).

That will insure that the film receives adequate exposure. Placing the highlights in Zone VIII will not insure that the shadows are receiving adequate exposure.

"Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights."

That's the basic principle of the Zone System.

[cyrus]

Frankly, unless you're doing the entire zone system (not just exposure but also development adjustment, all previously tested and calibrated) or are going for some special effect or lighting circumstance, the incident meter reading should get you just about the same result as the 1 degree spot, well within the same exposure latitude of bw film...and so it may not be worth the price of a spotmeter.

[Robert A. Zeichner]

What Gem said about exposing for shadows and developing for the highlights summarizes zone system B&W photography. The first reading indicates what is needed to expose shadow areas sufficiently to extract detail from them in printing. The second reading helps you determine what kind of development will be needed to achieve a contrast range that will easily be printable without blowing out highlights. You sometimes need to make slight adjustments when extreme N+ or N- developments are indicated as zone III does change slightly when you over or under develop.

The whole idea of simply using one reading and placing it on Zone VIII seems risky at best and it is certainly not Zone System techinique as one reading will never tell you the contrast range of the scene.

Here's a simple starting point for using your meter:
1. aim the spot at the darkest area of the scene where you want to reveal distinct textural detail. Place that reading opposite Zone III.
2. take a second reading of the brightest area of the scene where you would like to reveal distinct textural detail and without moving the dial, observe what zone is opposite that number. If it's Zone VII, you are good to go with Normal (N) development. If it's in Zone VI, expose as indicated, but give the film Normal +1 development. If it's in Zone VIII, expose as indicated, but give the film Normal -1 development. Depending on the type of film you are using, you might be able to give the latter example normal development and still extract detail in the print, but it's a lot easier to step up the contrast filter in the darkroom than to burn in overly dense areas of the negative.

[Bruce Pottorff]

In a scene with an extended brightness range, such as I frequently find here in the desert Southwest, Pickers method will very often dump your shadows into a very unsatisfying Zone 1 or 2. It is, however, easy, and will give a printable negative more often than not. I am with most folks around here who would prefer to work a little harder and get robust shadows with plenty of detail.

[Gem Singer]

Robert,

I didn't explain how to read the brightness range, in order to determine the development time, because that was not the question that the OP asked.

He wanted to know if placing the highlights in Zone VIII was the proper way to determine exposure for B&W film when using a 1 degree spot meter.

It would be a good idea for the OP to make a Zone dial for his Pentax spotmeter.

[bob carnie]

I have always thought it to be a matter of compression, expansion or normal.

If the lighting ratio is 1:3 to 1:5 I will consider normal process
!! 1:5 and greater I will consider compression process
!! 1:3 or less I will consider expansion process

I agree with Robert and Gem about exposing for the shadow and letting development time control the highlights.
I also agree with cyrus about metering.

using the right developer for lighting ratios is also a consideration. I find PMK great for compression , but not so great for expansion development.
HC110 type developer great for expansion, not so great for compensation.

[Peter De Smidt]

Fred's point, I believe, was that most scenes contain 5 stops of areas in which we want detail, and often there is less of a range. Moreover this was for roll film, where there were frames taken of scenes of differing contrast on one roll. If you place the brightest area in scene that you want to retain detail on Zone VIII, then the shadows will fall on Zone III or higher. If you place the important shadows one Zone III, on the other hand, then on the lower than normal contrast frames, the brightest element where you want detail would fall lower than Zone VIII, and Fred felt that the first option lead to better tonality, since if the shadows fall higher than Zone III, they'll have more tonal separation than if they fall on III.

So basically Fred thought that giving the most exposure without risking blowing the highlights was the way to maximize image quality on rolls of film with frames of varying contrast.

Notice that he said to place the brightest part where we want detail on Zone VIII, and not that we should place the brightest areas of the scene on Zone VIII. Light sources and specular highlights would fall higher than Zone VIII.

I used this system for years with roll film, and it worked well.

[Bruce Watson]

...#51, June 1987, he described what made very good sense - reflected reading of the brightest part of the scene and placing it on zone VIII - that's it.

I have recently acquired an old Zone VI modified Pentax Spot meter and was going to give this method a try. I was wondering if any here use it, have used it, can think of any faults in this method.

I have all the old Zone VI newsletters too. My reading of them is that Mr. Picker was enamoured with highlights. He thought that the highlights were what made a print "sing". I'm not sure I'd want to argue with him about that; he certainly made some beautiful photographs. So his philosophy of "expose for the highlights and let the shadows fall where they may" worked well for him.

As someone who's more interested in the shadows that Mr. Picker was, this would bother me. In fact, when I moved to scanning my film, I created the opposite approach for my work. I "expose for the shadows and let the highlights fall where they may" instead. But in my case I'm not sacrificing the highlights -- they record just fine on the film and my drum scanner reads them easily.

And that's my point here -- it all depends on what you value, and how you work. You have to find a workflow that does what you want. There is no magic bullet. Not mine, and not Mr. Picker's.

[Randy]

There is no magic bullet. Not mine, and not Mr. Picker's.

I guess you're right Bruce. I tried Pickers approach for a while, without a 1 degree spot, when I could get close enough to meter the highlight I wanted to retain detail in. I would place them at zone VIII and was satisfied with the results, but I eventually reverted back to incident readings. I will play with it now that I have a 1 degree spot.

[Peter De Smidt]

Fred was advising to give more exposure than follows from standard zone system practice, as with his suggestion the lowest detailed shadow values would often fall above Zone III.

For example, let's suppose the scene has 4 stops of detail. Traditional practice says to meter the shadows and place them on Zone III. The detailed highlights would then fall on Zone VII, and the traditionalist would give N+1 development.

Fred's suggestion is to place the detailed highlights on Zone VIII and give normal development, which means the detailed shadows would fall on Zone IV.

Thus, I doubt he'd agree that he valued shadow separation less than regular Zone System practitioners.

[Roger Cole]

Fred's point, I believe, was that most scenes contain 5 stops of areas in which we want detail, and often there is less of a range. Moreover this was for roll film, where there were frames taken of scenes of differing contrast on one roll. If you place the brightest area in scene that you want to retain detail on Zone VIII, then the shadows will fall on Zone III or higher. If you place the important shadows one Zone III, on the other hand, then on the lower than normal contrast frames, the brightest element where you want detail would fall lower than Zone VIII, and Fred felt that the first option lead to better tonality, since if the shadows fall higher than Zone III, they'll have more tonal separation than if they fall on III.

So basically Fred thought that giving the most exposure without risking blowing the highlights was the way to maximize image quality on rolls of film with frames of varying contrast.

Notice that he said to place the brightest part where we want detail on Zone VIII, and not that we should place the brightest areas of the scene on Zone VIII. Light sources and specular highlights would fall higher than Zone VIII.

I used this system for years with roll film, and it worked well.

This would make more sense with traditional style films that have a very definite S curve response. Modern T-grain films and even the "semi-modern" evolved older films like FP4+ and (from what I've seen though not systematically tested) modern Tri-X will record a lot higher than VIII without blowing out highlights. The detail will be there at higher exposures, if you can print it.

If this was written in 87, I wonder what he might have thought using modern TMY or TMX?

[Leigh]

If it ain't on the negative, you can't print it.

This argues for exposing based on shadow detail. The minimum usable density above base+fog is ensured by this method.

Highlights can be corrected after exposure in various ways, including compensating developers, development time adjustment, and use of graded papers.

But if the shadow detail ain't there, it ain't there, period.

I always spot-meter on a detailed shadow and close down two stops. Quick, easy, and nary a problem.

As an example... I recently did a series on a mansion in Baltimore, in bright mid-day sun.
Metered the porch, which was fully in shadow yet certainly had ample detail, and closed down two. Came out fine.

- Leigh

[Mark Sampson]

Well, Fred Picker believed in Kodak Tri-X Pan. He had little good to say about the new TMax 400 (like many of us then). He also didn't shoot long-scale subjects, and often advocated underexposing a duplicate sheet and developing it to 'plus 1-1/2', in order to have two negatives of differing contrast for more choices in printing. Idiosyncratic...
But I tried the 'Zone VIII' method and it works fine for scenes of 'normal' brightness range. Turns out that in my work there are a lot of those.... Since I don't believe in any single 'method', with a long-scale scene, I'll see where the shadows fall and make sure not to underexpose.

[Roger Cole]

Well, Fred Picker believed in Kodak Tri-X Pan. He had little good to say about the new TMax 400 (like many of us then). He also didn't shoot long-scale subjects, and often advocated underexposing a duplicate sheet and developing it to 'plus 1-1/2', in order to have two negatives of differing contrast for more choices in printing. Idiosyncratic...
But I tried the 'Zone VIII' method and it works fine for scenes of 'normal' brightness range. Turns out that in my work there are a lot of those.... Since I don't believe in any single 'method', with a long-scale scene, I'll see where the shadows fall and make sure not to underexpose.

Well yeah, and that would be TXP (320) Tri-X at that, no? It's a film I admit I have never shot in my life, since I started out in 4x5 in the T-grain days (though I did use APX 100 - wonderful film.) I believe TXP has more shoulder than even TXT, doesn't it?

It really sounds like a method invented by someone who, as you said, didn't shoot long range subjects AND was probably working with a film with a pronounced shoulder. For that combination it makes perfect sense and I imagine would work very well.

[Bill Burk]

...Fred's suggestion is to place the detailed highlights on Zone VIII and give normal development, which means the detailed shadows would fall on Zone IV...

My bargain collection goes from 50 to 52, so I can't say for sure.

I think that may be where he was going with it. I certainly don't think he intended to plunge important shadows into darkness. I think in one of his newsletters he said he hardly ever did N-1 development anymore. So maybe he was finding his scenes in the normal range.

He had a few hare-brained ideas like punching noisy kids on airplanes, but that makes his newsletters as fun to read as these forums. [Does anyone understand his "Key Stop" concept?]

[Leigh]

I think the "key stop" thing was based on the idea that there's one optimum aperture for any given lens, so you set that and adjust the shutter speed.

I generally do this, with most lenses at f/16 or f/22 when other considerations permit.

- Leigh

[D. Bryant]

Fred's point, I believe, was that most scenes contain 5 stops of areas in which we want detail, and often there is less of a range. Moreover this was for roll film, where there were frames taken of scenes of differing contrast on one roll. If you place the brightest area in scene that you want to retain detail on Zone VIII, then the shadows will fall on Zone III or higher. If you place the important shadows one Zone III, on the other hand, then on the lower than normal contrast frames, the brightest element where you want detail would fall lower than Zone VIII, and Fred felt that the first option lead to better tonality, since if the shadows fall higher than Zone III, they'll have more tonal separation than if they fall on III.

So basically Fred thought that giving the most exposure without risking blowing the highlights was the way to maximize image quality on rolls of film with frames of varying contrast.

Notice that he said to place the brightest part where we want detail on Zone VIII, and not that we should place the brightest areas of the scene on Zone VIII. Light sources and specular highlights would fall higher than Zone VIII.

I used this system for years with roll film, and it worked well.

Peter is exactly correct regarding Picker's advice. I've done it that way and it works for most daylight scenes once the proper normal development time is determined. Add filter factor and expose. Negatives are usually very easy to print.

Picker noted that a Zone VIII placement is all that was needed and the shadows and midtones fell into place. It sounds simple but it works very well.

[Bill Burk]

I think the "key stop" thing was based on the idea that there's one optimum aperture for any given lens

Hi Leigh,

I found it... "Key Shutter Speed," discussed in Newsletter #24.

The f/stop is: f/22.

Then you find the key shutter speed. Now never go over it and you will never use too fast a shutter speed (so the hare-brain logic goes).

Now I don't mean to sound critical of him, I enjoy reading his works and asking myself "is he right or is he wrong?" Can't do that with Donald Knuth or Ansel Adams.

[Leigh]

???

What shutter speed is "too fast"???

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

???

What shutter speed is "too fast"???

- Leigh

This is the magic of Picker's brain.

You test for the brightest possible day and use all your upper shutter speeds at f/22.

Then develop normally and print a proper proof.

The shot that comes out correct is your "Key" shutter speed. Set your camera at f/22 and that "Key" speed when you setup.

Never use a faster shutter speed than that because you just proved that that is the fastest shutter speed you could ever use.

[Brian Ellis]

Basing the exposure on highlights rather than shadows is, as Peter explains very well, a decent system for roll film and images made under different lighting conditions because it's based on an average five-stop scene. But with sheet film it seems to me an unnecessarily loose system. Why assume that each image was made in scenes with a five (or less) stop range, when we know that isn't always the case and when there is a system (expose for the shadows, process for the highlights) that will work well even when the range exceeds five stops?

[D. Bryant]

Basing the exposure on highlights rather than shadows is, as Peter explains very well, a decent system for roll film and images made under different lighting conditions because it's based on an average five-stop scene. But with sheet film it seems to me an unnecessarily loose system. Why assume that each image was made in scenes with a five (or less) stop range, when we know that isn't always the case and when there is a system (expose for the shadows, process for the highlights) that will work well even when the range exceeds five stops?

It works just as well for sheet film Brian.

[BetterSense]

I understand trying to get good printable negatives on roll film or standard-developed sheet film. What I'm still not understanding is, why it's better to base exposure off the highlights than the shadows.

There are two ends of the film--the toe and shoulder. If you meter the shadows and place them against the toe, you will have maximum latitude from there upward. You are making sure that you just barely catch the shadows, and you are hoping the highlights don't run off the film and block up (not likely for vast majority of scenes).

If you meter the highlights of the scene, and place them right against the shoulder, you will have maximum latitude from there downward. In that case you are ensuring that your highlights are just barely not blown out, and hoping that your shadows don't run off the bottom of the film. My question is how you determine what to call the "shoulder". In my estimation, modern films do not have a distinct shoulder anywhere near normal density ranges, so if you literally place the highlights up against the shoulder of the film you will have a ridiculously dense negative. It does not seem efficient. If you don't want such a dense negative and you artificially decide to place the highlights onto some 'zone', which zone you have arbitrarily decided to be a certain number of stops from the toe, well, I just don't see why you would do this or why it has any advantage over placing a shadow reading at the toe.

[Peter De Smidt]

Bruce Barnbaum advocates doing standard zone system film tests and then halving the discovered EI. Les Mclean advocates placing the lowest detailed shadow on Zone IV. Can you see how this is equivalent? Both are advising giving more exposure than standard ZS practice, as this moves the shadows up on off of the toe of the film, which gives them greater separation.

So, if you want good shadow separation, place them so they fall on a steeper part of the characteristic HD curve.

Picker is giving very similar advice. If you place the detailed highlights at VIII, you will often be giving more exposure than you would be by placing detailed shadows on zone III. He didn't want to "just barely catch the shadows."

Nor did he want to create a super dense negative. With roll film, he wanted a standard 5-stop scene to print well on grade III paper. He did tests to find out what negative densities would do this, and that is how he figured out how to place Zone VIII. In particular, he figured out a minimum time to get a visually maximum black on grade III paper through an unexposed but processed piece of film. That gave him his exposure time using the enlarger for the subsequent tests. He'd then put a piece of grade III paper in the easel, and a candidate Zone VIII negative in the enlarger, and he exposed the paper for the discovered time. If it made a very light tone just a bit darker than paper white, then he knew that he had discovered his proper development time. If it made a darker tone, then he knew he had to develop a bit more, and if it was paper white, then he knew that he had to develop less. After doing this, I'm sure he used his densitometer to read the resulting densities.

So, with a 5 stop scene his exposure recommendation exactly matched traditional zone practice, and so it's a little weird for people advocating that method to criticize him. In this case, placing the detailed shadows on III or the detailed highlights on VIII gives the equivalent exposure.

With a 4 stop scene, he was advocating giving more exposure than standard, ala Bruce Barnbaum and Les McLean. And so I think that people criticizing him for not valuing shadow detail are off base.

He wasn't a fan of minus development, and he generally avoided scene of a much higher subject brightness range than 5 stops.

[Leigh]

The f/stop is: f/22.
Then you find the key shutter speed.Now never go over it and you will never use too fast a shutter speed...
This is absolute nonsense.

Shutter speed and aperture are two of the basic creative options in photography.

To say you should always shoot at f/22 or never shoot faster than x is stupid.

Fred understood very well a fundamental aspect of marketing in the USofA:
You don't build a name (i.e. $$$) for yourself by supporting the status quo.
You make bucks by presenting different ideas, then nurturing a mindless following who will shout your name to the heavens and proclaim you their savior.

As P. T. Barnum observed: "There's a sucker born every minute."

- Leigh

[Peter De Smidt]

I never remember Fred saying to only shoot at F22. Perhaps it's not fair to accuse him of nonsense when it's unclear what he advocated?

[Brian Ellis]

It works just as well for sheet film Brian.

I know it can be used with sheet film and will work in the right circumstances. But as I said in my previous message, it seems unnecessarily loose or imprecise with sheet film and there are other, better IMHO, alternatives with sheet film that aren't available with roll film.

[D. Bryant]

I know it can be used with sheet film and will work in the right circumstances. But as I said in my previous message, it seems unnecessarily loose or imprecise with sheet film and there are other, better IMHO, alternatives with sheet film that aren't available with roll film.

Actually it works very well for outdoor daylight photography. Of course that doesn't mean every situation but it works for a large number subjects when used intelligently or should I say judiciously.

[Drew Wiley]

With roll film you have to more carefully match the kind of film to the anticipated subject matter, and expose and develop it more conservatively than sheet film, where
your have more true Zone System control per individual shot. Films differ considerably.
With Pan F roll film I don't like to place the high values above Zone VII unless they are
specular highlights, or shadows generally below Zone III if I want detail there. With a
film like R25 I can go down to Zone 0 clear up to 11 or 12 and print detail using pyro
development and VC paper. A film like Neopan ACROS is somewhere inbetween, with a
more "normal" range. The point is to stick with a particular film for awhile until you learn
its specific characteristics with one developer before you go galavanting in twenty
different directions. You also need to formulate a personal ASA for your chosen film,
mainly based upon the shadow values you want.

[Bill Burk]

This is absolute nonsense.

That's what I was trying to insinuate.


I never remember Fred saying to only shoot at F22. Perhaps it's not fair to accuse him of nonsense when it's unclear what he advocated?

I meant to insult Fred Picker's f/22 and Key shutter speed exposure method because I thought it was ludicrous. He dared the reader to follow the instructions exactly.

Fortunately, in Newsletter #24 he explained what it was leading to:

"I think that anything that brings the photographer closer to the raw processes, the feel of photographing, the feel of the light that's out there, is advantageous."

[D. Bryant]

With roll film you have to more carefully match the kind of film to the anticipated subject matter, and expose and develop it more conservatively than sheet film, where
your have more true Zone System control per individual shot. Films differ considerably.
With Pan F roll film I don't like to place the high values above Zone VII unless they are
specular highlights, or shadows generally below Zone III if I want detail there. With a
film like R25 I can go down to Zone 0 clear up to 11 or 12 and print detail using pyro
development and VC paper. A film like Neopan ACROS is somewhere inbetween, with a
more "normal" range. The point is to stick with a particular film for awhile until you learn
its specific characteristics with one developer before you go galavanting in twenty
different directions. You also need to formulate a personal ASA for your chosen film,
mainly based upon the shadow values you want.

BTZS is much easier to use than the Zone System, but you probably know that.

[Bill Burk]

Hi Leigh,

I just re-read your post about how you spot shadows and stop down two stops. That sounds good. I bet your mansion shots are easy to print.

[Leigh]

I just re-read your post about how you spot shadows and stop down two stops. That sounds good. I bet your mansion shots are easy to print.
Hi Bill,

Yes, they came out well. Unfortunately there was some construction in progress, and the camera angle I had to use to mask it didn't yield the viewpoint that I wanted, so I'll go back and reshoot it after they're done. I knew that would be a problem, but it's good to practice on a difficult subject like that anyway.

The real secret to photography for anyone is to develop a system that you're comfortable with and stick to it fanatically. As you become familiar with it, you can develop modifications to use for special situations, but those don't change the basic system at all.

Whatever works. :D

- Leigh

[Bob McCarthy]

I too was a Picker devotee, great printer, didn't relate to a lot of his photography but I'm from west of the Mississippi..

I recall the expose for highlights approach as being more to do with multiple scene dynamic ranges being developed on same rolls , with consideration to printing to a "target" contrast paper.

In other words to expose for shadows and have a fixed dev time would mean printing would be all over the place contrast wise.

Exposing for highlights and letting shadows fall where they may, stabilized the printing side at the expense of shadow detail on high contrast scenes, but then you were to shoot the whole roll exposing the regular way and adjust your development to suit.

I believe this also related to TriX and HC110 primarily and not modern tablet films.

B

[Leigh]

I found it... "Key Shutter Speed," discussed in Newsletter #24.
OK. I pulled that issue, from April 1980.

He makes the statement that there are only four exposure errors:
1) shutter speed too fast
2) shutter speed too slow
3) aperture too large
4) aperture too small

He then goes on to state that you can eliminate two of these by always shooting at f/22:
"First step: Adopt f/22 as your F stop. Don't think... adopt f/22."

This follows his lengthy assertion that if Weston had used a meter to determine the exposure for "Church Door, Hornitos", he would have underexposed by seven or eight stops. That assertion is based on a whole series of indefensible assumptions, which can be summarized in the phrase "Weston was an idiot who knew nothing about photography".

I'm forced to conclude that:
1) This was an April Fool issue, or
2) Fred was into some chemicals other than developer and fixer.


- Leigh

[Drew Wiley]

Don - as far as I'm concerned, the traditional AA Zone System is simply a form of common-denominator vocabulary most black and white photographers understand. I
don't really know what I do, because it is all so subconscious and automatic now.
I think I actually visualize the film curve somewhere in the back of my head and place
the meter values accordingly, and seem to be able to do this with all kinds of films and
developers. Sometimes I don't even use a meter and the exposures come out perfectly.

[bob carnie]

I thought everyone worked that way,, who needs a stinkin meter anyways.


Don - as far as I'm concerned, the traditional AA Zone System is simply a form of common-denominator vocabulary most black and white photographers understand. I
don't really know what I do, because it is all so subconscious and automatic now.
I think I actually visualize the film curve somewhere in the back of my head and place
the meter values accordingly, and seem to be able to do this with all kinds of films and
developers. Sometimes I don't even use a meter and the exposures come out perfectly.

[neil poulsen]

I have all the old Zone VI newsletters too. My reading of them is that Mr. Picker was enamoured with highlights. He thought that the highlights were what made a print "sing".

I agree with this. But, one also doesn't want the shadows wandering off on their own. They are also an important part of the photo.

[Leigh]

I think Fred only shot landscapes/scenery.

When you limit your subjects and environment, you can limit your shooting options. I try to avoid limitations.

The bottom line is whatever works for the individual, and produces satisfactory prints, is OK.

- Leigh

[Leigh]

I thought everyone worked that way,, who needs a stinkin meter anyways.
I usually take an ambient reading while I'm setting up, and if the light changes.

High clouds can attenuate the light by a full stop without it being obvious to the observer.

Clouds look really neat in photos, but they sure screw things up when they get between the sun and the subject. If I'm working with fast-moving clouds, I'll spot-meter some point in the subject when it's in bright sun, then check that point before I make the exposure(s) and adjust accordingly.

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

I guess I've had my fun with Fred. I know I took what he wrote out of context.

Two claims he made put me off: 1) you can't modify it, and 2) you can eliminate "too fast" a shutter speed.

1) was a dare, and so it just rubbed me wrong.
2) it sounds good but beyond the poetic rhythm, it's obvious when it gets dark the "key shutter speed" is going to be "too fast".

If you cut out the rhetoric... What I think Fred was trying to reveal in April 1980's Newsletter #24 was a sort of "calibrated Sunny-16" but using f/22.

I am certain he didn't mean f/22 was the best f/stop in the world. It was just part of this rule of thumb.

But since I can't do anything without modifying it, it's never going to work for me.

To our OP: He wrote that newsletter before he created the light meter you got.

[Merg Ross]

Since his name appeared earlier in this thread, I thought his thoughts on metering might be relevant. From Edward Weston, writing on Light vs. Lighting, 1939:

" A photo-electric cell will give you an exact reading of light in candlepowers which, by twirling a few dials, you can translate into correct exposure under given conditions for a given aperture. But what is the "correct" exposure? The only correct exposure is the one that will produce exactly the effect you want in your finished print, via the negative. And for this purpose you may not want an average negative at all.

The photo-electric cell is an invaluable instrument -- I am never without one -- but its reading should not become gospel. Rather it should be used to give him a quick and accurate point of departure from which to gauge exposure.

In the hands of the beginner the danger is that the meter may become a barrier. When it is but a moment's work to take a reading, the photographer is inclined to pay little attention to the all-important element of light itself."

The third sentence in the Weston quote pretty well sums it up. He and Ansel are in agreement, and each had a method for attaining the "correct" exposure. Picker, I'm not sure about his method, having never seen a print of his making. Perhaps it works.

[Bill Burk]

When it is but a moment's work to take a reading, the photographer is inclined to pay little attention to the all-important element of light itself.

Now that's worthwhile.

Thanks Merg!

[bob carnie]

I put my hand up and look at the lighting ratio to see if the light is changing.


I usually take an ambient reading while I'm setting up, and if the light changes.

High clouds can attenuate the light by a full stop without it being obvious to the observer.

Clouds look really neat in photos, but they sure screw things up when they get between the sun and the subject. If I'm working with fast-moving clouds, I'll spot-meter some point in the subject when it's in bright sun, then check that point before I make the exposure(s) and adjust accordingly.

- Leigh

[Maris Rusis]

The Fred Picker exposure strategy that really caught my attention years ago was to give "maximum usable exposure". That way the information holding capacity of a film negative is fully exploited and the number of options in rendering the subsequent positive is maximised too. The equivalent in digital picture-making is "expose to the right" (or ETTR, as an acronym) thus filling the histogram all the way up to 255. I explored the concept and sure enough discovered that theory and practice diverge, somewhat.

It's too glib to merely say the maximum usable film exposure, Expose To The Right, is the best exposure without being more explicit about what usable means.

Small format film, say 35mm, runs into problems at densities much below what large format film can accommodate. Grain in the positive image is a map of the spaces between the grains of the negative. 35mm film offers fewer and fewer "spaces" to the enlarger lens at optical densities much above 1.0 and increasing graininess tends to obliterate detail, acutance, and tonal smoothness. If low graininess is the key criterion for exposure "usability" then the minimum exposure that records desired picture elements is often the maximum as well. This implies exposure precision is critical with miniature film. But fast moving 35mm work rarely allows time to fuss over the subject matter with a spot meter. What to do? Put the high value on Zone VIII and shoot. It's a convenient fall-back and it's ETTR again!

Large format film is much more forgiving of heavy exposure. That's how the ancient photographers got by in the days before light meters - if in doubt give it more. I can confirm from experience that 8x10 black and white film continues to deliver tone, gradation, and sharpness with the high values placed on Zone XV; that's 7 stops "overexposure". Even more exciting, in theory at least, is the fact that the negative holds 15 stops worth of photometric information. High Dynamic Range indeed! But is it "usable"? Not really.

A seriously thick negative (looks like a solar eclipse filter) takes a long time to expose over photographic paper. Trust me, making 15 minute exposures in the darkroom just to get a picture is one of the least creative ways to waste an afternoon. And of course the sky will need a couple of stops worth of burning in. Good luck with all that. If productivity is "usability" then bullet proof negatives are not the way to go.

An important and sometimes overlooked limit on how far to "fill" the negative or go ETTR is subject matter itself. Pretty well all over the world bright sunny days are the same and reflective subjects offer a familiar line-up of tones. These range from things that look black in the shade to white things in sunlight. The conceptual and photometric distance from "looks black" to "looks white" is only about eight stops. Just about any negative film can easily swallow this with room to spare.

There is no point in having 15 stop film or exposing 7 stops to the right. Sure, there are artificial 15 stop subjects, windows into unlit rooms next to sun-discs for example, but by the time they are nicely laid down on photographic paper they resemble 8 stop subjects. In a photograph of a full range scene if the darkest thing looks black and the brightest thing looks white the mind will accept it and the eye will never recoil. Rendering subject brightnesses as photographic tones is a fiction but a plausible and beguiling one.

So, even with big film one can "maximise" exposure, fill the neg, go ETTR, but chasing values beyond about Zone IX or maybe Zone X brings only difficulty and no reward. Without Fred Pickers' slightly flawed assertion I'd still be wondering.

[Leigh]

But fast moving 35mm work rarely allows time to fuss over the subject matter with a spot meter.
Wow. Talk about flaming assumptions. :eek:

This has all the qualities of Picker's criticism of Weston. Base your entire argument on an indefensible statement.

- Leigh

[Bill Burk]

Leigh, I'll try your trick to spot a landmark and watch it as clouds come and go, sounds like a good plan (assuming cloud cover changed the subject light - I suppose if a grand landscape has light and dark from the same cloud I would leave the exposure alone)

But wait. Picker was praising Weston - he was in awe of him.

Again, I am sorry for bringing up that particularly poor newsletter. I was making a point that Picker was not always right.

But he had ideas worth exploring, and discussing critically.

Maris, I think I finally get it. Later in the newsletters, I recall Picker saying he rarely developed less than N-1 any longer. This practice may have been the reason for it!

Because I enjoy talking about different exposure methods, my preference may not be clear. I prefer to make sure my shadows have enough exposure and I try to develop to where my highlights need at worst 1/3 stop burning.

So I am likely to stick to placing shadows on Zone II or III, and sorting my film into boxes of N-1, N and N+1.

(I work for Kodak but the positions and opinions I express are my own and not necessarily those of Kodak).

[Leigh]

Again, I am sorry for bringing up that particularly poor newsletter. I was making a point that Picker was not always right.
But he had ideas worth exploring, and discussing critically.
Hi Bill,

I wasn't criticizing you. My apologies if it came across that way.

My problem with Picker in this instance (and others?) is the whole concept of "don't think, just do".

I find it both insulting and counter-productive. How could an artist create great paintings with a single paint?

- Leigh

[RichardRitter]

Thank for the the enjoyment of reading this thread.

Leigh has it right you find something that works and say with it.

I know of a photographer whose work hangs in the Museum of Fine Art. Their way of getting the right exposure is to first test the film to find the proper film speed and development time. The way they get the exposure they look at what being photographed held the Luna Pro over their head in the same type of lighting conditions take a reading and made the exposure.

Fred did not get along with that photographer and they were neighbors.

[Peter De Smidt]

It might be useful to remember that Fred was a teacher. I don't know the number of students that took Zone VI workshops, but it was quite a few. As a good teacher, you look for ways to help you students make the most progress. My sense is that Fred found that many students got obsessed with and derailed by the technical aspects of photography. Hence, he came up with simplifications that were meant to get the back on track on concentrating on finding and taking good photographs. That doesn't mean that he meant these simplifications as categorical imperatives, especially for people who do have a very sound technical understanding of photography.

This reminds me of my first day of European Civilization with Robert Lerner. Professor Lerner cared deeply about getting students interested in history, and this was especially important to him as he was the co-author of a widely used EC textbook. In our first class, he said something along the lines of:

"One difficulty with an introductory survey class or textbook is all of the simplifications that are made and controversies that are overlooked. While there is wide agreement among historians on a few things, there is vast disagreement about many others. We are, for the most part, going to pretend that this isn't the case, as we have to start somewhere. The goal of this class is to get you a foothold on European history, and hopefully you'll enjoy it enough to be encouraged to take higher level classes where you can dive into the tempestuous seas of historical scholarship."

I view a number of Mr. Picker's recommendations in this light.

[Renato Tonelli]

I really enjoyed reading this thread.

I credit Fred Picker for my interest in LF - he made it seem accessible and de-mistefiyed (sp?) the zone system. But... I have had to make some changes to make it work for me; Landscapes are just a part of the subject matter I like to photograph. After reading the newsletter in question I immediately placed my highlights on Zone VIII; it didn't take long for me to get into trouble as soon as I moved on to other subjects other than landscapes bathed in beautiful light...

As I see it, the moral of the story seems to be: there's more than one way to skin a cat and you have to do your own homework and what works for you.

[cyrus]

Thank for the the enjoyment of reading this thread.

Leigh has it right you find something that works and say with it.

I know of a photographer whose work hangs in the Museum of Fine Art. Their way of getting the right exposure is to first test the film to find the proper film speed and development time. The way they get the exposure they look at what being photographed held the Luna Pro over their head in the same type of lighting conditions take a reading and made the exposure.

Fred did not get along with that photographer and they were neighbors.

I get the feeling then that Fred would not have liked me. Not only is this how I take readings most of the time, but I also prefer a condenser head to a cold light head.

[Renato Tonelli]

I get the feeling then that Fred would not have liked me. Not only is this how I take readings most of the time, but I also prefer a condenser head to a cold light head.

He could be obstinate about his opinion. I once called the Zone VI studios to see if they had a cold head for a Durst M601; the lady put me on with "Mr. Picker" who told me that they didn't have one anymore (neither did Aristo - what a coincidence!). I causally mentioned that I might purchase a color head (which I ended up doing). He scoffed at the suggestion - the cold head was the only way to go. Oh well, I still miss the guy.

[bob carnie]

I too miss Fred Picker, I can only imagine how he would love the internet and these forums.

I have all his books , and will go over them someday to have a look back in time.


He could be obstinate about his opinion. I once called the Zone VI studios to see if they had a cold head for a Durst M601; the lady put me on with "Mr. Picker" who told me that they didn't have one anymore (neither did Aristo - what a coincidence!). I causally mentioned that I might purchase a color head (which I ended up doing). He scoffed at the suggestion - the cold head was the only way to go. Oh well, I still miss the guy.

[D. Bryant]

It might be useful to remember that Fred was a teacher. I don't know the number of students that took Zone VI workshops, but it was quite a few. As a good teacher, you look for ways to help you students make the most progress. My sense is that Fred found that many students got obsessed with and derailed by the technical aspects of photography. Hence, he came up with simplifications that were meant to get the back on track on concentrating on finding and taking good photographs. That doesn't mean that he meant these simplifications as categorical imperatives, especially for people who do have a very sound technical understanding of photography.

This reminds me of my first day of European Civilization with Robert Lerner. Professor Lerner cared deeply about getting students interested in history, and this was especially important to him as he was the co-author of a widely used EC textbook. In our first class, he said something along the lines of:

"One difficulty with an introductory survey class or textbook is all of the simplifications that are made and controversies that are overlooked. While there is wide agreement among historians on a few things, there is vast disagreement about many others. We are, for the most part, going to pretend that this isn't the case, as we have to start somewhere. The goal of this class is to get you a foothold on European history, and hopefully you'll enjoy it enough to be encouraged to take higher level classes where you can dive into the tempestuous seas of historical scholarship."

I view a number of Mr. Picker's recommendations in this light.

Well at the very least let's not forget his contributions to the timber industry!

Don

[Bill Burk]

...We are, for the most part, going to pretend that this isn't the case, as we have to start somewhere...

I enjoyed that thought.

On an unrelated note, a thread about photographer's biographies led me to a book that led me to seven books, my library had only one ....

"When one reads these strange pages of one long gone one feels that one is at one with one who once... " James Joyce - Ulysses

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

lets not forget. Its not the film that causes problems. Its the paper.

[John Jarosz]

The term "expose to the right" referring to the histogram is a new term for me as I'm not someone who has spent any time thinking about digital exposure techniques.

But my 1975 copy of "Photographic Sensitometry" by Zakia and Todd does. They spend a lot of time illustrating the concept - even though they don't call it ETTR. They have a scene showing a properly exposed negative printed to give the "best" print. They also show "best" prints made from negatives that are 2, 4, and 6 stops under & over exposed. Their premise supported by the prints is that a negative 6 stops overexposed is still capable of making an "excellent" (their descriptive terms, not mine), while a negative underexposed by two stops is incapable of an "excellent" print. While the prints in the book certainly support their thesis, I've always felt it was an odd photograph to use - but the scene was chosen in the thought process of scientists/engineers rather than artists.

The Zakia & Todd book is wonderful in explaining exposure and resulting negatives from an engineering point of view. It certainly is not weighed down by any subjective artistic mumbo jumbo.

SEI exposure meters were set up to provide exposure information on values placed on Zone II to insure that there always was enough exposure to get the low values.

So to sum up. My approach has always been that underexposure is death, and overexposure is the preferable MISTAKE. And I believe Picker's message was basically the same, but he wanted to make exposures that were the bare minimum for the scene.

[RichardRitter]

Fred would tell students at the workshops its better to over expose film then under.

Yes I read the "Photographic Sensitometry" and did some of the test to prove to may self they were right and what better to do on a rainy day. Do the test once and know for sure what works and what does not.

Under exposed negatives get filed from the fixer into the round file I never try to make a print from then.

[bob carnie]

One little point about under exposed or under developed negs.
Most here would throw out those negatives as not being worthy.

But in my world there is a group of photographers who love very thin negatives and then having them printed on Grade 4 or 5.
Dead Black Blacks and smokin Highlight detail to die for.

This is a classic approach that many photographerss achieve for, very dramatic printmaking to say the least.

I never believed in the perfect negative, and I still don't.




Fred would tell students at the workshops its better to over expose film then under.

Yes I read the "Photographic Sensitometry" and did some of the test to prove to may self they were right and what better to do on a rainy day. Do the test once and know for sure what works and what does not.

Under exposed negatives get filed from the fixer into the round file I never try to make a print from then.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't know if anyone noted it yet, but Picker liked to print on his own Brilliant Bromide paper, which dropped the low values like a brick, more in fact than any other paper I have personally used. This would explain why he espoused pushing shadow detail clear up to Zone III, especially with films having a significant toe
like Tri-X.