What Would Edward Weston Use Today?

[Gregory Gomez]

Michael Smith,

I only have my experience to go on.

The Brett Weston image was that of the Holland Canal, which was an enlargement. The Ansel Adams photo was a contact print of an ocean scene with water pouring over a large, flat rock. I can't remember the name of the image, but I would be happy to look it up for you.

In 1982, I attended Ansel Adams 80th birthday celebration exhibition in San Francisco. I spent an entire day examining his prints, most of which were enlargements made using Galerie and Oriental Seagull. The prints were great, of course, but they did not have the same degree of space and that indescribable, life-like quality that I saw in the Edward/Cole prints mentioned above.

When, I visited Morley Baer about 20 years ago, I also had an opportunity to see several Edward Weston vintage prints that were made during the 1940s. The prints were excellent, of course, but they did not move me in the same way as the prints I saw this week.

As you know, Morley used Azo, double weight paper extensively for his contact prints, especially grades 2 and 3, and occasionally grade 4. Double-wight Azo is no longer available as you also know. But Azo was not Morley's favorite paper. He liked another brand, long discontinued. I will search my notes to see if I can find the name of that paper, which I feel gave greater luminosity and a sense of space to most images than Azo.

[Bill_1856]

I saw the superb EW show in Naples this spring, and his prints done around 1930 were almost sensual in themselves (peppers, shells, etc), while his earlier prints looked like holdovers or transitional from his pictorial days, and the later ones (post Charis) mostly from the trips were pretty ordinary as printing quality goes. At the same time, the major Ansel Adams show in Sarasota had a large number of his work from throughout his career (including the infamous Parmelian Prints), and every single print was a superb work of a master printer's art. Weston was noted for only doing a single print or two from a negative, while Adams would work until he got it right (as far as he was concerned).

[Brian Ellis]

"I'm a little surpised at the sophomoric quality of most of the answers posted so far. . . . But I guess this site isn't into photographic art appreciation or history?"

Actually there are quite a few people here who are into photographic art appreciation and history. You got some sophomoric responses because some of us think the question is sophomoric. I gave my particular sophomoric response because I've seen many of these "would Ansel Adams be using a digital camera," "what would Edward Weston use today" discussions and they seem totally pointless to me. How could anyone possibly answer a question like that? You can dream up answers as well as anyone else all by yourself and with just as much accuracy (which is to say none at all). So why ask a question that can't possibly be answered?

If you want to discuss Edward Weston's work that's fine, there are plenty of knowledgeable people here who would be happy to accomodate you, but surely you could find a better way to do that than by asking the question you asked.

I admire Edward Weston greatly. I attend any exhibition of his work that I can and I think I've read almost everything still accessible that's been written about and by him and by Charis. Most recently I've bought and enjoyed the superb Weston book from Lodima Press. But what would he be using today? The only answer that can be given with any accuracy is that nobody knows so how could you possibly expect to ask such a question and not get some silly answers?

[David A. Goldfarb]

Edward Weston seemed pretty fixed in his methods. I suspect he'd be using the closest thing he could get to what he always used once he settled on contact printing, silver chloride paper and amidol.

[Jim Rhoades]

"Weston was noted for only doing a single print or two..." He was also noted for doing negative after negative until he got it right. As I recall he spent over a week cramped up on the floor of his bathroom in Mexico, until he got it right. Pepper # 30 was well, pepper # 30. If anyone spent every night in a darkroom printing with the same single light bulb and contact frame, I would think they would learn how to do it right.

[Bill_1856]

Jim, my observations on the EW print quality was not intended as a slur, but just that -- an observation. But I really think that after about 1935 the quality of his prints went down. It could be my imagination, or just that particular collection, or his Parkinson's Disease, or that he could not longer get (or perhaps couldn't afford) the paper he used previously. (Paul Strand complained throughout his life that every time he got used to a particular paper, it was discontinued; maybe that happened to Weston.) I've always throught that although Edward was the better photographer, that Brett was the better printer.

[Michael A.Smith]

Surprising, Bill. In my opinion Edward Weston's prints from the late 1930s and early 1940s are among his very finest.

As Jim said, he only used a few sheets of paper because he had exposure and negative development down cold. There was no need for him to use more paper. It is surprising that Adams, who developed the Zone System, supposedly to make it easier to get exposure and development exactly where one wanted them, needed to do more dodging and burning than any photographer except for Gene Smith, and that with all the "precision" of the Zone System needed to use many sheets of paper to get the "right" print.

[Brian C. Miller]

It is surprising that Adams, who developed the Zone System, supposedly to make it easier to get exposure and development exactly where one wanted them, needed to do more dodging and burning...

From reading Adam's books, Adams was a junkie for making dramatic photographs. He said that the tonal values in his prints were not realistic, but were dramatized. From reading some of the work he went through to make some of his prints, I am in awe of the effort and technique.

My take on the Zone System is that it is a method for getting the range of values in the scene to fit on the paper. After that comes dramatization.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

As Jim said, he only used a few sheets of paper because he had exposure and negative development down cold. There was no need for him to use more paper. It is surprising that Adams, who developed the Zone System, supposedly to make it easier to get exposure and development exactly where one wanted them, needed to do more dodging and burning than any photographer except for Gene Smith, and that with all the "precision" of the Zone System needed to use many sheets of paper to get the "right" print.

Geezzz Michael, yes the Westons were good but by no means were they the only good photographers. Are you implying that EW had negative development "down cold" and Adams did not? given that Adams used a more controlled methodology I would say he did not have to be guessing where to stop under a dim green bulb. no? One relied on control and testing, one relied on experience.

You are mistaken about your "it is surprising..." comment, AA with Archer created the ZS so that you could get all the information you wanted on the negative. You are of course allowed to depart from the initial idea of the negative exposure to fit your vision of the print. But at least you are assured a negative with all the info. The added advantage is that you dont need 20 years experience to get a printable negative.

I am not defending the ZS I dont use it, and yes I have seen some disappointing prints by Adams, but then I have also seen some disappointing prints by EW.

[Brian Ellis]

"My take on the Zone System is that it is a method for getting the range of values in the scene to fit on the paper."

That's a purpose but not the only purpose and IMHO not the principal purpose. The purpose of the zone system is to obtain a negative that will allow you to make the print you want to make as easily as possible. You can use the zone system to make a print that accurately reflects the tonal values and relationships in the scene (i.e. a "realistic" print) if that's what you want to do but it isn't limited to that. The zone system also will allow you to alter those values and their relationships if needed to make the print you want to make. It can be used solely for mechanics (i.e. fitting the scene onto the paper) but it's real value is the flexibility it give s you to make a print that looks like you want it to look, not just a print that records what's there.