How Long for a 'Fine Print'?

[Michael A.Smith]

Mr. Lindsay,

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

However, again, I must ask that you read more carefully. Nowhere have I ever said, or implied, that Adams's or Sexton's or anyone else's approach was dishonest. I did say that I found Weston's approach more respectful than Adams's.

Perhaps I overdo my comments about Zone System users, although I have heard that there are even whole workshops devoted to it. Last year, one fellow took our workshop after spending a full year(!) doing Zone System tests under the guidance (workshop?--not sure) of a photographer/teacher. And until very recently, when there have been a few threads on this forum that have dealt with non-technical things (sparked perhaps by Aaron's questions), most threads have dealt with technical matters, although, I'll admit, not the zone system. And I've been told by the owner of the largest photography book store that the only really big sellers he has are technical books. I guess I think of the Zone System as a metaphor for the overly technical concerns that people have.

I look at it this way: There are times when one's technique needs to keep up with one's vision. At those times a concern for technical matters is warranted. There are other times, however, when the reverse is true: one's vision needs to keep up with one's technical facility. At those times one should just use the technique one has and learn to make better pictures (visually).

Unfortunately, few people know how to do that (make better pictures visually). Let's face it, most photographs made with a view camera (or other cameras, too) are uninteresting and repetitive (note I have not said imitative). They are repetitive of ones own work. And generally people haven't the foggiest idea, despite being serious, diligent, and well-intentioned, of how to get out of their own ruts. And not knowing which way to turn, they look for something technical--"better" developer, paper, film, method of exposure, etc. Of course they never find their way clear to what they really want--better pictures.

Regarding printing: you have it wrong here in your inference as to how I print. I also agree with Adams that the negative is the score and the print is the performance. No one could print my negatives like I do (which is why they will all be destroyed some day). I don't necessarily make a literal print from my negatives. Rarely do I make straight prints without dodging or burning or both. (Wish there were more of the straight one.) Of course it?s a two-part process. I guess it comes down to the fact that I am able to make prints fairly easily, as was Weston, and some others are not. I'm into doing it easily--leaves more energy to concentrate on the most important thing--photographic seeing-- vision. Certainly the creative part of the work process does not stop at making the negative. I'm puzzled that you, after having read what I have written (here and perhaps elsewhere), could think I was so stupid as to think making prints was a merely mechanical process and that the creative process didn't include that. Ya gotta read more carefully, Mark.

I am posting this to you directly as well as posting a response to the forum, but I am not posting this paragraph to the forum. It is for you only. I have been called by curators (not all certainly, but by many more than one), collectors, and by other photographers, "the best printer of my generation." Another comment made to Paula and me last year (twice, by a curator and by a very knowledgeable collector) was, "you two make the most beautiful prints I have ever seen." Quite frankly, I would disagree with them. My comment to Paula was that cannot possibly have seen great prints by the previous generation. But in any case, trust me, Paula and I do make very fine prints. Each one very carefully, obsessively, considered. (That's each one from each negative. If five prints are made from one negative they each get the same excessive, obsessive, consideration.

As far as the business about the light. Damn it, Mark, read more carefully. I was referring to very specific instances. Adams often scoped out his photographs ahead of time. Weston never did.

In closing, I happen to believe that Adams's influence on view camera photographers has had negative consequences as well as positive ones. I am trying to counter that. The "St. Ansel" appellation, whether said tongue-in-cheek or not, is an indication of the reverence with which every utterance and photograph of his (and often of his most visible followers) is held. For me, there's a problem with that, I don't believe Adams was of the stature of Weston or of a number of other photographers. That too many view camera photographers have, to one degree or another, have emulated him, or tried to, has been, I believe, a hindrance to the development of our medium.

[Hernán Villar]

Keith chek this:http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-5js.shtml maybe you get yuor answer happy holiday.

[mark lindsey]

Mr. Smith,

First let me apologize, I did say "dishonest" and actually meant "respectful".

I didn?t intend to insult you with the quote about creativity as it referred to negative dev./exposure or printing. I certainly don?t think of you as "stupid". I personally think it would be great if I could do everything on the negative without requiring any additional manipulation when printing, it certainly would make things easier. But film just can?t handle that amount of manipulation. I read you perfectly well, but took my interpretation of it to an extreme in trying to get my point across.

Everybody sees the subject differently, and therefore each person will require a different amount of manipulation (exposure, development or printing). You and I could print from the same negative and both of us would come up with a different interpretation, and not all interpretations take the same amount of time. Some are longer, some shorter, and neither is better than the other?.simply different. So to sum it up, I think it is each persons own vision that dictates why they need more or less time in the darkroom. I personally have some negatives that I feel meet my expectations with minimal darkroom manipulation, still others need much more?.not because the negative was incorrectly exposed or developed, only because my idea of what the image should be is beyond what the film and minimal printing techniques can accomplish, again, not better or worse, just different.

What?s wrong with workshops devoted to the zone system? Is that any different than workshops devoted to specific printing or developing techniques? They are all tools for the photographer. Yes I agree, the guy who spent a whole year testing wasted at least 363 days that he could have been out shooting or at least seeing the light of day. That?s not me, it wasn?t Adams and I am sure that isn?t the case for many more people besides.

I agree that photographers tend to become obsessed with the technical aspects, hell as much as I admire Adams he was still a bit too technical for me, I just don?t have that kind of energy for that kind of organization. But on the other hand I think Weston?s obsessive avoidance of technology was much more of a detriment than an advantage. It goes both ways.

I agree totally with you on your next point, craft and vision must keep up with each other. If not, then what?s the point? And yes, most pictures made with ANY camera are uninteresting and repetitive. I agree wholeheartedly.

I don?t see anything wrong with planning ahead for a future image, and you didn?t mention specific instances, only that he knew when the light was optimal for a particular place, so this tells me nothing of a specific instance. Is this any worse than the shell shots on the beach that Weston set up to look natural, they certainly weren?t the found object. Neither bothers me, although the set up shell shots were greatly lacking I thought. I still cannot believe that Weston never scoped out shots. He was human you know!

Actually the "St Ansel" title has been used on this and other forums just as much or more as a denigration of Adams than as a title of dignity, in fact, I cannot recall a comment made with this connotation at any time in the forums that was positive. Certainly there are those who put him on an unobtainable pedestal, this happens with many famous people/photographers. There are many people who contribute to the forums who emulate Weston amongst many other photographers who have celebrity or "cult" status.

You yourself claim that Weston greatly influenced your work, technique and choice of materials, should I say that the influence Weston had on you is a hindrance to our medium? What is the actual count of how many photographers are influenced by Weston, is there some magical number between him and Adams that is ok and then not ok? Everyone has their preferences for which photographers they admire, emulate or simply agree with when it comes to their own belief systems.

I like many images made by both men, they also made images that I don?t care for. It just doesn?t have to be that black and white?.

its Lindsey by the way, not Lindsay...

[Michael A.Smith]

In my last post, the paragraph about how fine Paula's and my prints have been said to be was not supposed to be posted. But I forgot to delete it. I want to add that whether or not it is true, our fine prints are not due to our skills as printers being better than many other photographer's skills. We're all pretty much equal in that regard. I attribute the fineness of our prints to the materials we use: the Super XX film, but more importantly, the Azo paper. I feel a bit like Frederick Evans who stopped photographing when platinum paper stopped being manufactured. If Azo were no longer manufactured, I might have the same reaction he did.

[Michael A.Smith]

Mr. Lindsey,

Apologies for not getting your name right.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. This discussion is coming to a close, for me at least. I've enjoyed the excuse to write some things I have thought and spoken about, but never put down on paper. So your comments are very much appreciated. To get a reaction, I often do state things somewhat extremely and I truly hope I have not offended you or anyone else.

After your last comments I realize that the ease with which I am able to print may be due to nothing more than the materials I use--mainly Azo, the contact printing paper I print on. Why everyone cannot see, that all things being equal, Azo yields finer prints (that are easier to print than the same negatives printed on enlarging paper) is a mystery to me. But what if one wants bigger prints? Then you must use bigger negatives, a choice I made years ago. An extreme position? Sure it is. I believe in a life of balance--achieved through excess in all things--either do whatever you are doing fully and all the way--or don't do it at all. Seems to work for me, although I would be hesitant about recommending that way of living to others.

What's wrong with planning ahead for a future image? Nothing if you are a studio photographer. And nothing if you are doing an assignment. But if you are just going out to make pictures I think there is a lot wrong with it. The photographer's paradox is this: One can only recognize, or see, things one already knows. That's true by definition. If somewhere inside you don't know something, you won't see it. (That's an assumption that, for the sake of the point I am making you have to accept as true.) Most photographers go along until they see something that catches their eye, makes their heart beat a little faster, makes them say, "Wow." Then they photograph that which caught their eye, mind, or heart, and then they move on to the next thing. Now, because, by definition, one can only respond to what one already knows, by making photographs of what captured your attention, you are merely confirming what you already know. And the work becomes repetitive. So what to do? You have to photograph what you don't know. But how can you do that if by definition you can only respond to what you already know? I have an answer for that, and it is the core of our workshop. It is too difficult to describe in words and needs to be demonstrated. So, having only posed the problem, I'll leave you there. To get back to the beginning of this paragraph. By planning ahead for those photographs you make when"going out to make pictures" you are not even giving yourself the opportunity to say, "Wow," that having already been determined. For the maker it is never the thing made that is important, it is the making that is. For the maker, the photographer, consider the photograph to be a bonus--the point is to have a full, genuine experience, one in which something is learned, not just confirmed. And if something is learned there will be personal growth and as a consequence one's photographs will not be repetitive. As e.e. cummings said, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow."

The Zone System is simply one way of understanding exposure and development relationships. If a photographer doesn't understand those relationships so thoroughly that it is like counting to 10 or saying the ABCs, then they can't possibly figure out what to do if everything is not perfect. You would think that everyone would know this. But they don't, and sadly we see many people unable to instantly identify over or under exposed negatives and over and under developed negatives, even after they have taken Zone System workshops. There is nothing wrong with Zone System or other workshops. But if the basic understanding is not there, these workshops can be essentially a waste of time. A thorough understanding of exposure/development relationships should enable one to fine-tune one's negatives in a few pictures without any testing at all. Instead of testing, one could use that time to make new pictures. And if they don't come out? That's okay. (Remember that the photograph is only a bonus.) At least you would have had the pleasure of the experience of making the picture as opposed to photographing a gray card. My position here is extreme, I know. There is nothing wrong with testing. And, hey, some people might like making photographs of gray cards.

Re: Adams often knowing ahead of time what, and the conditions under which he wanted to photograph versus Weston's sense of discovery. You'll just have to read what they wrote to find that to be true. Adams best pictures occurred through a discovery process, but he did not always allow himself that. One example only: He knew what time the sun rose and what time of year the light was "best" at the Alabama Hills (Lone Pine with white horse). He got a good one there, however. An exception. Lucky that the horse was there, but then, luck favors those who are prepared, doesn't it?

That's it. Thanks again, Mark.

[james mickelson]

Hi Michael, I don't want to prolong this discussion but something you alluded to puzzles me. You find that too many photographers labor to calibrate their systems using zone system workshops but come away not knowing how to use the information they gained. If you take a zone system workshop from a qualified individual, pay attention and practice what was taught, then you should come away with enough information that you can spot the over/under exposed and over/under developed negative although if you practiced what was taught you won't have the problem in the first place. If you can't then you weren't paying attention. That is what the zone system and it's teaching is about. Using a system that allows you to fully capture what is in front of you using the knowlege of exposure/development relationships. This endless testing you talk about isn't inherent to zone system practitioners alone but to the technically obsessed. I tried DBI and gave it up as an unsatisfactory method of development. Without lots and lots of practice, wasting film and time, it is an unreliable method of processing. Not to say it can't be done but I found that the zone system of exposure/development was a much more reliable method. Meters don't lie if you listen to them and time/temp/developer/materials don't lie if you understand what to do with them. You said in a thread that you were puzzled as to why Sexton and others who supposedly had extensive knowlege of the zone system had to labor so much to get a print. The prints usually aren't literal representations of scenes as they existed. Adams print of "Clearing Winter Storm" is one example. The tonal relationships that existed were on the negative. That is not how he wanted the image to look as a print so he used other controls to make a print that represented the scene as he wanted it to look. Sexton's work on "Places of Power" is another example of prints that are not literal interpretations of a scene. They are prints that represent what he wanted the scene to look like. Hard to make a dirty dusty power station beautiful using the zone system alone. No amount of DBI alone would have produced this print the way it was presented. The method isn't designed to do that anyway. DBI and the zone system are two different methods used to come to the same result. And both are valid. But for my money the zone system as taught, if used properly, is the easier method yeilding the most consistent results. There is no judgement to be made with the zone system as far as how the materials will react. With the DBI it is a subjective method of coming to a conclusion. Every eye is different. DBI is a useful tool and is used by some to make beautiful prints. Anyone who has seen your prints would have to agree. They are superb. But look at your materials and format too. Hard to go wrong with an 8x10 and larger format. And contact printing is hard to beat. But the larger format is also fraught with problems. Versatility and portability. Just not a handy format for many photographers. You and Paula are masters at these formats. And these formats are limited as to the scenes photographed by their very nature. They are good formats for what they were intended to be used for. As to f8 and being there as you espouse was Westons photographic values, I disagree. He many times would be someplace at a certian time and certain time of the year to capture something that he had seen before. Pt. Lobos is a good example. That's why he lived there. He knew the tides and the time of year that would make an image he thought would be there. He shot his nudes at a certain time of day knowing the light would be at a certain value. He controlled closely when he would photograph knowing that the materials he used would give the best results under certain conditions. And he and Adams and other contemporaries shot different subjects. Most people identify Adams as a grand landscape photographer only. Having seen most of his images including his vast negative collection in Arizona I can say that he was much more than the master of the grand landscape. Trailer Park Children and his image of Orville Cox bantering with Georgia O'Keffe are two that come to mind. As are a lot of his FSA images. Each photographer has their own vision. I hear to much about how too many photographers are redundant or sterile. You yourself have alluded to this in this thread. I disaggree with this view. Too many photographers hold this view while seeing themselves as having a unique and valid view point in their photography. Street photographers are always dismissing landscape photographers as dead visions and landscapers are always lambasting street shooters as worthless waste of film. These may be exagerations but you know where this is conming from. I think we all have our unique perspectives and we should value each others points of view. There are few fresh perspectives. Robert Parke Harrioson is one of the few truly unique creative photographers today. Your landscapes are derivative of many whom have come before you. And Paula's farmstead images are too. That doesn't diminish their relavence one bit. They are as valid as Sexton's powerplants or Evans Appalacian work. When I started out in photography I took sides in this argument. I have come to the conclusion I was wrong. It is all valid. We are all individuals and our different perspectives are what make our work unique. See you in Santa Monica on Friday. James aka Lumberjack

[Michael A.Smith]

James,

Quickly. Regarding the Zone System: if it works for you, great. No one way is better than any other. Whatever works. I sure hope I am wrong with my perception that many who have "studied" the Zone System still cannot instantly recognize in what way bad negatives are bad. My experience leads me to another conclusion but, as I said somewhere else, perhaps I haven't met the right people.

I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding Weston's/Adams's way of working. In general terms, sure, Weston knew that Point Lobos would be good at certain seasons at certain times of day, but he never had a specific photograph in mind to make at say 5:45 P.M. on June 21, the way Adams not infrequently did. Adams could tell you the "best" time to photograph Half Dome and other landmarks in Yosemite. Not generally the best time, but exactly the best time of day, year, etc. And he would have his camera ready then, tripod legs planted. I went photographing years ago with one of his acolytes (a very well-known photographer, by the way). This fellow got to his location three hours ahead of time, set up his tripod, and waited for the light to be exactly as he knew it would be. He knew because he had been to that spot a dozen times previously just to learn when the light would be right. In the three hours that he was waiting, I was making photographs--one of them just at sunset when I made a mad dash of about 100 yards with camera on shoulder--set up and "got it" all in about two minutes (about 3 seconds before the light went). Needless to say, this fellow and I did not get along with each other. Among other things he said that he had never seen a photographer carry his camera around the landscape on his shoulder on the tripod. He wouldn't do that with his camera because he was afraid of getting dust on it. A camera is a tool for god's sake; it is not a piece of furniture. Our photographs derivative? Influenced by what has come before, certainly. But not derivative. And I can point out exactly how they are different--perhaps in Santa Monica if we have the time. In general people are incapable of making fine discriminations. The more you know about a field, the finer the discriminations you can make. The difference between each of the Baroque composers is immense if one really knows music. There is a negligible difference, if there is any at all, for those who are not musicians who are just beginning to listen to that music.

We're all unique. Although there is such a thing as personal vision (and not everyone has it even though they are unique) work that is derivative is work that never evinces a personal vision.

See you in Santa Monica.

[M.]

What a delightful education this thread has provided. I wonder how much of the technical differences expressed here is due to one group (Weston/Smith) making prints by contact, and the other (Adams/Sexton) by projection. By the way, Happy New Year Michael and Paula.

[mark lindsey]

Hello Again,

I know this has gone on and on, and I wouldn't feel hurt if you don't have time to reply, but I did have a few things to bring up......

I am sure that Azo is the best paper for you and gives your prints the look that you desire, whether its best paper or not is not really the issue, its just a matter of taste. If a paper existed that loaded itself into stinky chemicals and developed itself I still wouldn't purchase it if I preferred something else! Like you said, what's on the wall is what counts, we all must go with the look that pleases us.

Fine-tuning with or without the Zone system is identical. I don't doubt for a minute that when working with a never before used developer and/or film, I can attain working times/temps much faster with zone style testing than without. The fine-tuning however is identical to what you describe. Adams himself said that regardless of what the tests show, you must go out and shoot to really see if what your getting is what's right for you.

I still feel that you are exaggerating a bit when discussing the Adams "pre-planning" of shots, I don't really think that he did it as often as you suggest. I think that the manual you were talking about was probably a guide for the amateur, whom I am sure you know would be written in an entirely different mindset altogether. The person you spoke of who sat for three hours...that would drive me crazy to do that too! again, that's this one person, not all zone users. and yes, I do put my camera over my shoulder on the tripod. I agree, the camera is just a tool. I also can't understand people who will not sacrifice a piece of equipment if it means getting the "ultimate" shot, the image is once in a lifetime, there are whole rows of lenses, etc. stacked up that I can replace mine with.

I have no problem with Adams knowledge of the Alabama hill lighting situation, how could you drive by such places and not notice. Yes the horse being there to give a size perspective was indeed lucky, even luckier was the fact that the horse turned sideways to the camera just in time to take the picture and not lose the light,(Adams said otherwise that the horse would have looked like a stump) A beautiful image I think.

I also find it hard to believe that Adams did too much waiting around due to the fact that 40,000 plus negative wouldn't allow for much waiting around!

I've had fun, hope to hear more from you in the forum in the future,

thanks,

Mark Lindsey

[Michael A.Smith]

Quickly, while the dry mount press heats up. Adams: "My Camera in Yosemite Valley" is not a how-to book for amateurs, but is a very elegant superbly reproduced book of Adams Yosemite photographs. Re: pre-planning. It wasn't a question of driving by the Alabama Hills and noticing or not. He wrote that he had a chart that told him that sunrise would be at 5:36 A. M., or whatever, and he knew what he would be getting. He did make a great photograph there. But other times that approach got in his way, I believe, and led him to repeat himself, as I discussed in general terms above.

40,000 negatives is not that many when you consider that for the last many years of his working life he mostly used a Hasselblad and that at times he used a 35mm. (I'm not being critical here, just pointing it out.). In proportion to the whole of his work, he used an 8x10 relatively little. Curious, isn't it, that his finest work for the most part was done during the period that he was closest to Weston, when they occasionally even went photographing together--late 30s to mid- 40s. I find that fact not insignificant.

We'll be away for a while, so there will be whole periods when I do not access this forum. A pity. Although Paula keeps telling me I don't have time for this now, that we have work to do. But I have enjoyed it and will contribute again when I can.

Happy New Year to all.