What Would Edward Weston Use Today?

[Michael A.Smith]

Exactly, Brian. But does it work? If it did, wouldn't Adams have gotten negatives closer to what he wanted--so that while he would have had to do some dodging and burning, he wouldn't have had to do quite so much to get what he wanted. Or didn't he know what he wanted? Seems to me all that he did was just made sure all the information was on the negative. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does seem to go against what the Zone System is supposed to be all about.

Developing by inspection takes a couple of times doing it to know what you are looking for, Jorge, it doesn't take 20 years, unless you are really slow. Have you tried it? More than once? If not, how can you make any judgement about how long it takes to learn how to do it.?

[Brian C. Miller]

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.

Right, but its without the dramatics. The notes for Clearing Winter Storm in The Print, p.108, shows nine operations for burning/dodging.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Yes Michael, I tried it more than once, both with 8x10 and 12x20 with brush development and found it very unreliable. My experience was that if you were using a developer that allowed you full ISO speed such as Pyrocat HD and you were developing a negative shot under normal contrast DBI is adecuate. Deviations from that required that I had experience, and a vast experience at that for me to be able to make exposure judgments. For example, if I wanted to restrain development because of a high contrast scene, I had no idea how much more exposure to give the negative. Of course I am sure your response will be "Just give it one stop more exposure and see how the highlights develop," Well, this is not good enough for me Michael, there are situation where I photograph were the film requires at least 2 stops more exposure, sometimes even more. Then we have reciprocity, how the heck can you judge reciprocity exposure with DBI? Sure, you might be able to judge the contrast with DBI, but I am sure you will require to have many years of experience doing DBI to judge the appropriate exposure. In the method I use not only do I make tests for exposure/ development for exposures under 1 sec, but I also do test for exposure/development for exposures over 1 sec that give the appropriate exposure/development factors for situations where I need to make very long exposures.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is one which required 36 min exposure with the appropriate adjustment for exposure and development. This picture would have been impossible with DBI without having done this kind of photography at least for a few years.

[Paul Butzi]

But does it work? If it did, wouldn't Adams have gotten negatives closer to what he wanted--so that while he would have had to do some dodging and burning, he wouldn't have had to do quite so much to get what he wanted.

Well, maybe he wouldn't have, but perhaps the zone system actually DID work, and if he'd done something other than the exposure/development the zone system indicated, he would have ended up doing MORE dodging and burning to get what he envisioned at exposure time.

Fortunately, Adams left us a wonderful legacy. In his books are several examples of photographs, along with his notes on how he printed those images. Picking a book with a fair chance of being in everyone's libary, let's look at "Clearing Winter Storm", which appears on page 108 & 109 of my edition of "The Print".

Michael, perhaps you could explain how developing by inspection could have reduced the number of burning/dodging operations shown in Adams printing notes (on page 108)?

[Dan Jolicoeur]

..................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?................

Brian you hit it right on the head, Who cares? It is totally pointless!

[Bill_1856]

I thought that such references to a master photographer of the past was simply a metaphor for discussing his philosophy, extrapolated to the present.

[Richard Schlesinger]

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. First, some (many years ago) I purchased a couple of Weston prints for $25 each. I kept them awhile, and then traded them for a lens. Not that I don't think EW was as wonderful as his reputation. These just happened to be not-so-wonderful photographs. OK, but not in a class with the peppers etc

I also attended seveal of AA's workshops at Yosemite and became friendly with Ansel (he came to dinner one time - another story) and watched him go through a lot of Polaroid getting the exposure right. I think he pretty well understood the zone system, but it turned out he was also mortal, and for whatever reason had problems just like the rest of us.

I also knew Gene Smith; he stayed with me for about a week and we talked about a lot of stuff, some photographic even. From all he said (I never visited him in NY) he worked his ass off making beautiful prints from atrocious (often) negatives.

The point to this (beside my name dropping) is that all these people were mortal (I can prove that) and they worked hard to produce photographs that were/are remarkable. They were originals. They had a unique vision they pursued relentlessly. I think there are people now who print as well or perhaps better than they. The problem is where they point their cameras. A gorgeous print from a banal negative doesn't do it.

So - what materials would any of them use? I would guess whatever it would take to produce what they want. Whatever works!

[Wayne]

Bill is right, its obvious that what Gregory wanted to know was what EW would have used to get the same results using today's materials, not where his vision would have taken him 50 years later. I think its a valid question, even if it starts yet more people on a pointless chase trying to be as good ad EW by using the same materials (me among them, but I think EW would create better images than us regardless of what he used). While we can never know the precise answer, we can rule out many current materials and methods that would simply not get him close to the same results, leaving a fairly narrow selection of one or two films and 2 or 3 papers, steeped in amidol and pyro.

[Brian Ellis]

"But does it work? If it did wouldn't Adams have gotten negatives closer to what he wanted so that while he would have had to do some dodging and burning he wouldn't have had to do quite so much to get what he wanted."

The zone system "works" as long as it's understood that nobody using it claims that it will always eliminate or even greatly reduce any manipulation of the print. Some scenes or subjects simply have luminance values in different parts of the scene that don't lend themselves to making the print we'd like to make even with the zone system. In those situations a lot of dodging and burning may be required.

That isn't a failure of the zone system, it's just an unfortunate fact that no system including the zone system provides total control over the density of everything in the negative. It is, after all, the "zone" system. It functions in broad brushes, not fine points.

As to whether Adams should have been able to do less dodging and burning than he did if the zone system "worked," I have no idea how one could quantify something like that. I don't think anyone could possibly say "well he had to make 10 burns and 4 dodges to print White House Ruin but if the zone system worked he would only have needed 4 burns and 2 dodges so the zone system must not work." Maybe without the zone system the negative wouldn't have been printable at all. Or maybe it would have been printable but not the way Adams wanted to print it. Or maybe it could have been printed the way Adams wanted to print it but only with a lot more effort than was actually needed. Who knows.

Development by inspection is fine for those who feel comfortable using it. But not everyone does. The zone system is fine for those who feel comfortable using it. Not everyone does. And even those who do feel comfortable with it know that, as Phil Davis and others have pointed out, it isn't perfect. But within its acknowledged limitations and recognizing that nature doesn't always cooperate with us or with the zone system, it works pretty well most of the time.

[Henry Amboy]

"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."

See Moonrise, Hernandez & then come back & explain just how the Zone System assures all this.