BTZS is EASY! Here's why...

[Witold Grabiec]

Mark is indeed dead on. This does not however, negate Ansel's greatest contribution to convincing photographers about getting it right. I'm awaiting my own copy of the "Butz" stuff and cannot comment on where its content will land in my little world just yet. If better, all the happier. I must say however, that after Picker's orientation nothing in Ansel's books has since been difficult to understand. Since some have already commented on Davis' boring style, it just seems that what works for some, does not for others.

[Jay DeFehr]

Mark,

your quip assumes that all of the methodologies referrenced will deliver the same exposure/development recommendation. If that were true, any method would be as reliable as any other. Unfortunately it's not true, and everyone who exposes or processes film must determine for themselves what approach to take. What is important, and bears repeating, is that any approach is rooted in sensitometry, wether or not the practitioner is aware of the fact, and some are more direct than others. If the touchy-feely approach to sensitometry suits you, so be it, but ending posts with "end of argument" is just wishful thinking.

Jay

[Richard Schlesinger]

I hope those of you unfamiliar with Phil Davis'book and planning to obtain one will report back at some future date in the not too distant regarding your success or failure with it.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Kirk, does your wife use an Ohaus scale and measure ingredients to 1/1000 of a gram?

[Michael Kadillak]

Hopefully, a real life experience will have some material bearing on this discussion.

I was very fortunate to have photographed with Sandy King last summer in several of my favorite places in Montana (my home state) and Wyoming. He was considerably gracious in sharing his experiences when we found several locations worthly of setting up our ULF cameras. After having viewed many of his prints I was elated at the unique opportunity of being graced in person with his vast experience and knowledge base in the photographic process as it directly translates to the Carbon. Palladium and Azo photographic print.

Being a Zone system devotee I was taken away with the prospect of anyone using an incident meter in the exposure process. For several minutes Sandy humored me while I conveyed to him my Zone system exposure process for a particular photograph and he explained to me the premise of the BTZS methodology and the importance of ascertaining the subject brightness range and how it specifically related to a particular film and developer combination.

For a particular photograph in the Wind River Canyon that had very even lighting with little descernable lighting variability that I could isolate properly with my Pentax Digital Spot meter I was having a hell of a time arriving at a proper conclusive assigned Zone designation. With the BTZS Sandy had this exposure and developer combination dialed in as quick as the dickens. He showed me how he emulated the quality of the shaded areas with shading over his incident meter to arrive at a proper exposure and then compared this reading to the incident reading unshaded incident reading to compute the SBR. Talk about efficient. Needless to say, I was impressed with the simplicity and the speed at which usable data was directed into action. With my spot meter I have a propensity to spend far to much time being analytical and that has changed for the better. Now I use my spot meter as a quick check not as the base exposure instrument.

At the conclusion of our very productive trip I poured through the BTZS book I purchased years before and understood where Sandy was coming from. A light went off in my head and I found the system was actually far easier than any Zone iterations I have used up to this point. No, I have not completely divorced myself from the Zone system because it has been with me for a long time but I greatly appreciate the BTZS techniques because it has made things considerably simpler and quicker.

Particularly in very even lighting situations when you want to arrive at a SBR, where flare may be impacting your spot meter measurement causing over exposure (if it can affect lenses then it can also affect a spot meter), for keeping things simple if you are not photographing daily and for testing film and developer combinations to ascertain a data set of operating conditions quickly and easily, I honestly feel that the system is invaluable.

Yes, through process iterations (expose, develop, print and evaluate) you could very likely arrive at a pretty similar set of field conclusions, but considering how valuable the time is I have to devote to LF photography I am always interested in being as efficient and consistent as possible.

Lastly, when you are exposing and developing to a predetermined density range for contact printing on Azo my only normalizing variable is a water bath as I have only grade 2 and 3 to work with. Because of the imposed conditions I am driven to be as consistent with my process as I possibly can. BTZS is simply workable information that simply works.

Whatever makes your clock tick ....

[Kirk Gittings]

Grump,

I don't follow her that closely to know. My job is to clean up after her and reap the rewards. However she seems to work quantities more by taste and texture and compatibility than anything else, Except for baking which apparently is very precise.

[sanking]

First, I want to thank Mike for his kind comments, but more for his great generosity in spending the time and sharing with so many parts of his west. I spent most of my life traveling in other parts of the world when I was younger and only found the west some six or seven years ago so I am still pretty much in awe of the landscape.

And Mike added, “Lastly, when you are exposing and developing to a predetermined density range for contact printing on Azo my only normalizing variable is a water bath as I have only grade 2 and 3 to work with. Because of the imposed conditions I am driven to be as consistent with my process as I possibly can. BTZS is simply workable information that simply works.”

This is an important point. When we work with graded papers such as AZO, or any of the alternative processes, it makes sense to be as efficient as possible. Although most of these processes have some contrast controls it is always best to start with an optimum negative, and that means one that is both well exposed and developed to exactly the right density range needed for the exposure scale of the paper.

Most of my work is printed with the carbon process, which is one of the more time consuming of the alternative processes. To obtain even a modest degree of productivity (which I would describe as being able to make 5-10 keeper prints a month when working for 6-10 hours every day of the month) requires that my negatives be as close to perfect as possible in terms of shadow density and density range. If I begin with a negative of unknowing printing quality it will take at least a good day of work to zero in on the basic exposure and contrast controls needed, even with the use of a densitometer.

How other people choose to work is not my concern. I like to do different things so if I were the only people out there in the world using BTZS I would be perfectly happy. In fact, the desire to not follow the crowd and do my own thing is what makes printing with alternative processes so attractive. So understand, I don’t expect people to agree with me, in fact I prefer the opposite. I would really much prefer to be off on the side of the mountain than having a bunch of folks follow me down the valley.

[Struan Gray]

I don't do much, if any, testing in a rigorous sense, but I like to read about it in the same way that I like to read about lens design or semiconductor manufacturing: it's a symptom of innate curiosity. If I were to start doing tests, the BTZS methodology makes most sense to me.

I liked Jorge's point in the unmentionable thread about how he knew just how sloppy he could be and still get away with it. Non scientists often don't understand that mapping the bounds of validity is just as much real science as undermining the foundations of theory. Real science has error bars.

I also like the idea that BTZS tests seem to be transferable and general. It is good if I can get Sandy and Micheal to do half my testing for me. It is good if I don't have to repeat film tests when I use a new paper.

Precision was long ago taken out of the hands of most photographers and sealed in a dark coating hall where the initiate elves made film and paper for them. I don't think it is surprising that those who really value the effectiveness and efficiency of BTZS are those who are printing with alt processes who need precisely-tailored negs and who can't afford to waste time and paper on too many test prints.

Finally, I suspect that in the shrinking world of film-based photography it will become more and more important to be able to characterise materials for yourself. Partly because the churn of manufacturers and own-label supply chains will force users to change materials more often, and partly because with small manufacturers the batch to batch consistency is likely to get worse.

[Richard Schlesinger]

Kirk, I think your answer is a copout! As a small child I observed my mother in the kitchen as closely as possible (got stepped on a lot). Later, when I became for a time addicted to the Food Network, I taped and re-played Jaques Pepin many many times, watching for nuances in his technique. Finally, being an avid eater with many years experience I find it impossible to believe a man of your obvious taste and talent would not have availed yourself of the opportunity to observe closely and in detail the performance of someone the caliber of your wife.

When Ansel came to town and to my home for dinner (I drop names whenever possible) I performed in the kitchen (under my wifes supervision of course) to her exacting standards. (I was limited to pouring the vodka but we can't all be stars.) Later, I followed Ansel closely, observing his every move as he photographed UCI, noting with which hand he operated various Hasselblad parts, which eye to the light meter etc etc.

And you expect me to believe you don't know what your wife is doing in the kitchen? I wasn't born yesterday!

[Kirk Gittings]

Reverend Grump,

This may sound ridiculous, but its true. I haven't had a full day off in 2 years and 8 months. For better or for worse my mind is almost always on work.