Duane,
I used to think that way too until I found out that method was a good way to produce a totally useless negative for my needs. I print with platinum and palladium.
Duane,
I used to think that way too until I found out that method was a good way to produce a totally useless negative for my needs. I print with platinum and palladium.
And I thought it was just me! After checking it out of the library three times I went to the eye doctor. "Doc I can seem to read with out falling asleep." Now i have damn progressive bifocals and cant see, and I gave up on Phil Davis's book.I have been trying to read his book for several years and it puts me right to sleep.
The BTZS is currently the in thing with some people. In the mid 1970s Picker's first book was the in thing. Minor White's approach was the in thing for awhile. Ansel has always been the driving force. He set the standard and there have been several attempts to reinvent his wheel. Adam's first book was very difficult for most people to use. His second one was much more approachable. Picker helped a lot of people. Sometime in the late 70s there was the Yob System. This was a series of articles written by Parry Yob that appeared in Petersen's and then came out in a book. IMHO this was a convoluted mess and I don’t think it ever developed very many followers. Now, BTZS is helping some people.
It has not been my intent to attack any one system. But I have been around long enough to see these cycles and to see them come and go. Whatever system works is fine. Dogma about one over the other is the problem (IMHO). Perhaps my reaction to the Yob System was based on my allegiance to the Zone System. I do think it is important to learn to use your equipment and materials. But this knowledge can be obtained with a few simple tests that only rely on some film, chemicals, paper and an enlarger. If you want to go beyond that and study sensitometry that is fine. But it is questionable whether or not you will make more evocative, engaging images.
If you are attracted to large format photography because of the technical issues you can dive into terrific. If you want to do large format and keep many of these formulae and charts and curves at bay that will work as well.
I guess this is my dogma
Steve Simmons
All of these systems are based on matching negative range to paper range. If you are doing hybrid work - film to digital - the game changes some and probably gets a little simpler because you are less worried about the range of the paper. I am pretty sure that any negative that makes a good silver print will scan well, but it is clear that there negatives that scan well that will not make good silver prints.
Ed Richards
http://www.epr-art.com
The BTZS is currently the in thing with some people.
LOL......My second edition of the BTZS is dated 1988, the first edition I beleive appeared in 1983.....The BTZS has been around for a long time. This methodology is not a fad based in the wrong assumptions like the Picker method.
"How do you pronounce it, Butt-Ziss?" --jj
It's pronounced "but-zis." Contrary to popular misinformation, it was originally created by French photographers, who, having trouble with Ansel Adams' instructions, would say, "I use zee zone system, *but zis* negative, it sucks!"
Any other questions you have on photo-history, just ask...
Ansels second book is, without doubt, much easier than the first. However I have never quite understood the difficulty with the whole business. Shades of gray (grey?) in a print corespond to densities/opacities in a negative. Giving them numbers doesn't seem all that complex. Nor does the fact that the longer one keeps a piece of film in developer the more opaque/dense it becomes.
Take the Zone System
Like all seminal ideas/concepts this one is elegantly simple. To my way of thinking the BTZS business serves only to make it more complicated. I must admit I am completely illiterate when it comes to computers so the parts about setting up programs or whatever is completely beyond me. There are so many vagaries in the photographic process, i.e. which zone do you choose for which particular area and whether your exposure meter is dead on, nearly so or otherwise, is your shutter speed accurate and consistent etc. etc. that there seems a limit to the precision obtainable outside a loboratory. Along with processing variations, inconsistencies in paper etc. it's a wonder one can produce a print at all. Certainly trying to limit the variables as much as possible is necessary - but the time and energy spent in endless testing and refining of the process, while fun and interesting, especially when it becomes an end in itself, seems somewhat counterproductive. Enough already.
Case in point. Since I purchased a laser alignment tool I have spent many hours (happy/unhappy) playing with the alignment of a rather poorly designed, sloppily manufactured enlarger. Do I make better prints because of this? Of course not. Is it a certain kind of masochistic entertainment? Yes. Is it harmless? I hope so.
And so it goes. I trust someone is offended or insulted by the above. If not, please let me know and I will try to supply a personal slight tailored as best I can to the recipient.
"I use zee zone system, *but zis* negative, it sucks!"
have you been reading the European Union common language policy?
The European Commission have just announced an agreement whereby English will be the official language of the EU, rather than German, which was the other possibility.
The Germans were initially reluctant to accept this but conceded after negotiations with Her Majesty's government.
The agreement was that the English spelling had some room for improvement and it was accepted that a five year programme of change would be done to implement these spelling changes in a new "EuroEnglish".
In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c". Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump for joy. The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of the "k". This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan have 1 less letter.
There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year, when the troublesome "ph" will be replaced with "f". This will make words like "fotograf" 20% shorter.
In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkorage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent "e" in the language is disgraseful, and they should go away.
By the 4th year, peopl wil be reseptiv to steps such as replasing "th" with "z" and "w" with "v".
During ze fifz year, ze unesesary "o" kan be dropd from vords kontaining "ou" and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. After zis fifz year, ve vil hav a realy sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi tou nderstand each ozer.
Finali ve hav von!
"It's pronounced "but-zis." Contrary to popular misinformation, it was originally created by French photographers, who, having trouble with Ansel Adams' instructions, would say, "I use zee zone system, *but zis* negative, it sucks!"
This is hilarious. I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
" do think it is important to learn to use your equipment and materials. But this knowledge can be obtained with a few simple tests that only rely on some film, chemicals, paper and an enlarger. If you want to go beyond that and study sensitometry that is fine. But it is questionable whether or not you will make more evocative, engaging images. " --steve simmons
Photography being, at least for me, a recreational and expressive activity, leads me to agree with Steve. Whatever system, or lack thereof, that yields the print you desire with consistency you accept and a process you enjoy is fine. BZTS sounds quite practical, and I've ordered Davis' book on it. Whether I'll become a convert is an open question, as I like my negatives as they are, but more knowledge, even useless knowledge, is infinitely better than ignorance.
My problem is likely that I prefer the "know your materials and use them by feel" approach, more akin to cooking than chemistry. I didn't learn to make chicken soup by opening five cans, putting one pinch of salt in one, two in the next, three in the next... then splitting them up and cooking for twenty minutes, thirty minutes, forty minutes... No, not a fair analogy, but it's how I am. Just a personality thing, and we pick the process, in part, to match our personality, which is likely why it sparks such a debate.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks