Magazine editors should not eat peote buttons

[sanking]

Don't mean to get back on topic, but I read the editorial and it seemed to say that most commercial photography has gone digital and analogue is dead for that sector of photography. It goes on to say that it is a kind of blessing for fine art photography because it makes analogue work more unique and "collectable". I think the editorial was trying to state that this could be considered a positive trend by making the analogue fine art photography more distinct, and raise more interest in the medium.

Sandy - I really enjoyed your article. I will be subscribing to get the rest of the series of carbon print articles.

Your reading of the editorial is very consistent with my own understanding of the goals of the editor. Thanks for your comments.

Glad you liked the article. Did you see the carbon article and images in the web journal MagnaChrom 1:3 and 1:4? If not, there is a lot of detail there on carbon printing that might be of interest to you. For the most part, though, my personal images in Silvershotz and MagnaChrom are different.

Sandy King

[Jim Rice]

Alas, Steve, the way I read your article on the Picker method it requires 12 sheets. Six for film speed and six for development times. Is that not correct?

[steve simmons]

Alas, Steve, the way I read your article on the Picker method it requires 12 sheets. Six for film speed and six for development times. Is that not correct?

If you are starting new with the method yes. But at this point I can do it with six if I start with a new film.

The BTZS system seems to be very difficult for new people to learn how to use. In fact, when we did the two part series we had trouble finding people who are using it in its pure form. Even many of it's staunch advocates are really using a hybred approach where they resort to a spot meter in difficult situations and then essentially blend the BTZS and zone system into their approach.

I try and not get involved in too many heated discussions about which is best. My encouragement of the Picker version of the zone system is because it is easy to understand and use and does not require calculators, densitometers, step wedges, etc. which are intimidating to many people

Either way, BTZS or some version of the zone system, your vision will require certain densities to get the tones you want on your prints. You can and will find these densities regardless of which way you get there. Just pck the method that seems comfortable for you.

steve

[sanking]

I fully agree that a person should chose the film testing system that they are most comfortable with, and anyone who feels uncomfortable with the more technical approach of BTZS should clearly not go that way. In fact, many people feel that Zone system is itself too technical and I know many photographers making great images who don’t understand either Zone or BTZS. However, don’t let anyone distort facts, and the fact is that while any system may eventually get you where you need to go the BTZS system of film testing is much more efficient and provides a lot more data in less time than Zone type testing. This can be important for people who uses several films, or for people who have to change films for one reason or another.

There is some confusion, however, about BTZS. It is a system that involves various parts. One part is a film testing procedure that gives data that can be used in the field with both incident readings using the SBR method, or with spot metering using the Zone system and N values. The choice of reflected versus incident metering is fully integrated into Davis’ system and is both described in his book and supported in WinPlotter. I think it is a credit to Davis in that he fully understood that either system of metering might be preferable in a given lighting condition. I personally use both incident and reflected readings in field work, depending on the subject and the lighting conditions. There are definitely many conditions when one system of metering is better, faster, more accurate or more creative than the other.

These discussions are complicated by the fact that virtually every BTZS user is a photographer who started with the Zone system and later switched to BTZS, at least for the method of film testing. Thus, they fully understand the advantages and disadvantages of each system. And for me the essence and most important component of BTZS is the efficiency of its film testing method. Comparing BTZS to Zone based on incident versus relfected metering is a false argument because BTZS film testing fully supports working with either incident or spot meters.

Sandy King