Chuck,Originally Posted by Chuck P.
Don't presume to criticize those who use other methods, insinuating that your work is somehow superior to theirs.
That's simply not true.
- Leigh
Chuck,
Don't presume to criticize those who use other methods, insinuating that your work is somehow superior to theirs.
That's simply not true.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
This is getting interesting...
Jay,
You are likely right about your assessment of my understanding of BTZS. I have only skimmed the website and the book and may be laboring under an illusion-
So, correct me if I am wrong: My impression is that one does not place specific values anywhere in BTZS, but rather fits a desired SBR onto the negative and paper by choosing an appropriate development based on the testing. Especially when using the incident metering technique (I'm aware that a spotmeter can also be used), one is not reading a particular value in the subject and deciding where it should go. I'm also aware that you cannot change the order of tones in a subject (without filters, anyway), but I can purposely dump shadow detail to a very precise extent with the ZS by placing, say, a particular area in Zone II, which possiblilty seems less precise in BTZS... And, yes, I was under the impression that a handheld device was needed in the field for BTZS, but now that I think about it, tables would serve equally well. So, apologies for my misconceptions.
What I like about working with the spot meter and the visual memory of tonalities that I have acquired from the Zone System is that I can meter key values in a scene, close my eyes, and run them mentally through the different placement/development schemes. Maybe I want luminous shadows, so those need to go in Zone IV. Then, that thing that falls in Zone VIII I really don't like there... so I move it, in my mind's eye, to where I like it better. This suggests a minus development scheme. But then those things in the middle, that "fell" in Zone VI might get bumped down to Zone V+, where I don't like them, Too bad I can't use a filter to move one of those areas up or down in this case (but often there is a possibility, so I meter through the filter and compare readings) So, I now go through how I might dodge or burn to get things where I want them: is it easier to develop more and burn down the highlight area, or maybe dodging the mid-tone area would be better. Or, wait! I can overexpose by a couple of stops to get the high value up onto the shoulder where it won't be separated so much, but there will still be lots of separation in the mids, and then use PMK to shoulder the curve off a bit more... Yes, that'll work, or at least be a much better option than just "retaining shadow and highlight detail." I open my eyes, set the exposure, add any adjustments based on the development I've chosen and shoot and then make a quick note in my notebook as to the development.
The actual metering for setting the exposure in a case like this (and most of my shots are like this) is really the least time-consuming part of all of this. If I just want to preserve shadow detail in one place and make sure the high value has detail, that takes two readings and a quick decision on development - 10 seconds tops... But this is a very basic and un-creative use of the Zone System and, unfortunately, what most people think the Zone System is. That result you can get easily with an incident meter.
And, although one cannot change the order of tonalities, there are a lot of ways to manipulate the relationships: more separation here, less there, etc. using not only development, but filters and printing manipulations including paper choice, bleaching and toning. All of these I can take into consideration in the field. I routinely decide to develop less than a scene may "require" in a "straight" application of the ZS and then print it on higher-contrast paper just because I feel that that gives me more local contrast in the mid-tones than N development and grade 2 paper would. I notate this in the field as well. I imagine a lot of this type of visualization can be done with BTZS as well, but, for the life of me, I just don't see how it would be easier. I tend to think there would be fewer direct visualization tools in BTZS.
I mentioned Zone Rulers in my previous post. These were great tools to learn with; I found out that Zone V is not middle gray, that there was a lot more separation between Zones IV, V, and up (to the shoulder at least) than in lower Zones, I learned about "black," and that Tri-X has a very different toe than T-Max, etc. I don't see this kind of training of a tonal memory in BTZS. Again, maybe I'm mistaken.
I think some misconceptions about the Zone System are: It is all about precision. It is all about retaining shadow and highlight detail. It makes no adjustment for film speed changes for different development times. It uses an "idealized" scale of tones that don't really correspond to the real print values for those Zones. And, it is overly-complicated. I believe all of these are false. For me, the advantage of the Zone System in conjunction with a spot meter is that it is a superb tool for visualization. One just needs to know how to use it. A piano is a great tool for making music too, but you do have to know how to play...I think a lot of people really never learn to play the Zone System very well.
Best,
Doremus
Don't read into it more than what is there (but that is the curse of forum communication
Like I said, the curse of form communication
Here's someone who, IMHO, understands how to visualize for the ZS and use various tools to accomplish an individual visual goal.
<snip>What I like about working with the spot meter and the visual memory of tonalities that I have acquired from the Zone System is that I can meter key values in a scene, close my eyes, and run them mentally through the different placement/development schemes. Maybe I want luminous shadows, so those need to go in Zone IV. Then, that thing that falls in Zone VIII I really don't like there... so I move it, in my mind's eye, to where I like it better. This suggests a minus development scheme. But then those things in the middle, that "fell" in Zone VI might get bumped down to Zone V+, where I don't like them, Too bad I can't use a filter to move one of those areas up or down in this case (but often there is a possibility, so I meter through the filter and compare readings) So, I now go through how I might dodge or burn to get things where I want them: is it easier to develop more and burn down the highlight area, or maybe dodging the mid-tone area would be better. Or, wait! I can overexpose by a couple of stops to get the high value up onto the shoulder where it won't be separated so much, but there will still be lots of separation in the mids, and then use PMK to shoulder the curve off a bit more... Yes, that'll work, or at least be a much better option than just "retaining shadow and highlight detail." I open my eyes, set the exposure, add any adjustments based on the development I've chosen and shoot and then make a quick note in my notebook as to the development.
The actual metering for setting the exposure in a case like this (and most of my shots are like this) is really the least time-consuming part of all of this. If I just want to preserve shadow detail in one place and make sure the high value has detail, that takes two readings and a quick decision on development - 10 seconds tops... But this is a very basic and un-creative use of the Zone System and, unfortunately, what most people think the Zone System is. That result you can get easily with an incident meter.
And, although one cannot change the order of tonalities, there are a lot of ways to manipulate the relationships: more separation here, less there, etc. using not only development, but filters and printing manipulations including paper choice, bleaching and toning. All of these I can take into consideration in the field. I routinely decide to develop less than a scene may "require" in a "straight" application of the ZS and then print it on higher-contrast paper just because I feel that that gives me more local contrast in the mid-tones than N development and grade 2 paper would. I notate this in the field as well. I imagine a lot of this type of visualization can be done with BTZS as well, but, for the life of me, I just don't see how it would be easier. I tend to think there would be fewer direct visualization tools in BTZS.
I mentioned Zone Rulers in my previous post. These were great tools to learn with; I found out that Zone V is not middle gray, that there was a lot more separation between Zones IV, V, and up (to the shoulder at least) than in lower Zones, I learned about "black," and that Tri-X has a very different toe than T-Max, etc. I don't see this kind of training of a tonal memory in BTZS. Again, maybe I'm mistaken.
I think some misconceptions about the Zone System are: It is all about precision. It is all about retaining shadow and highlight detail. It makes no adjustment for film speed changes for different development times. It uses an "idealized" scale of tones that don't really correspond to the real print values for those Zones. And, it is overly-complicated. I believe all of these are false. For me, the advantage of the Zone System in conjunction with a spot meter is that it is a superb tool for visualization. One just needs to know how to use it. A piano is a great tool for making music too, but you do have to know how to play...
I'd like to hear more of how BTZS techniques can be used to make non-literal interpretations of a scene, because this is where I think ZS has the advantage over BTZS - and it's the decision point for me between the two systems. Not including the testing techniques, because I use and recommend full sensitometry as performed for BTZS. But for exposure and development determination at the previsualization stage.
How to use spot metering with BTZS to depart from the literal is not clear to me. If I have merely misunderstood, then perhaps I have not made a fully-informed decision.
OK, there is an interface in Expo-Dev to enter Lo EV and Lo Zone, Hi EV and Hi Zone.
That will work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3W-P...hannel&list=UL
7. BTZS Expo-Dev Demonstration - Part 2
Doremus,
I think you're conflating what you do with how you do it.
How much of what you've written above depends on the use of a spot meter? How much does it matter if one assigns a "zone" to a tonal region while contemplating treatments? Given the finite number and degree of controls available, visualization is simply a matter of anticipating their effects, and choosing from a limited number of options. If we can look at a scene and imagine the effects of various exposure and development combinations, and how they translate to the print, we're "visualizing", even if we don't use that particular terminology, or meter various areas within the scene with a spot meter. Neither is a "visual memory of tonalities" dependent on a ZS methodology.So a BTZS, or any other system, including my squint and guess system, might be extracted from your example as:What I like about working with the spot meter and the visual memory of tonalities that I have acquired from the Zone System is that I can meter key values in a scene, close my eyes, and run them mentally through the different placement/development schemes. Maybe I want luminous shadows, so those need to go in Zone IV. Then, that thing that falls in Zone VIII I really don't like there... so I move it, in my mind's eye, to where I like it better. This suggests a minus development scheme. But then those things in the middle, that "fell" in Zone VI might get bumped down to Zone V+, where I don't like them, Too bad I can't use a filter to move one of those areas up or down in this case (but often there is a possibility, so I meter through the filter and compare readings) So, I now go through how I might dodge or burn to get things where I want them: is it easier to develop more and burn down the highlight area, or maybe dodging the mid-tone area would be better. Or, wait! I can overexpose by a couple of stops to get the high value up onto the shoulder where it won't be separated so much, but there will still be lots of separation in the mids, and then use PMK to shoulder the curve off a bit more... Yes, that'll work, or at least be a much better option than just "retaining shadow and highlight detail." I open my eyes, set the exposure, add any adjustments based on the development I've chosen and shoot and then make a quick note in my notebook as to the development.
....I can meter (or, in my case, estimate) key values in a scene .....set the exposure, add any adjustments based on the development I've chosen and shoot and then make a quick note in my notebook as to the development.
Nothing you do between the time you close your eyes and open them again requires any degree of precision, but an intimate understanding of the exposure/development relationship, gained by experience. But it doesn't have to be your experience. My process is essentially similar, but based on my experience. Instead of metering, I estimate the general level of illumination in the scene. Then, while your eyes are closed, mine are squinted. I highly recommend squinting, by the way, it does all kinds of good things for composition -- it increases contrast, and suppresses color and detail, emphasizing the relationships of forms and values and allows one to see more like printing paper than a human visual system with all its in-built compensations. In any case, while I'm squinting, I'm assessing all kinds of things at once, quickly and intuitively, getting a feel for where the important values are, and the relationships between them. If I'm able to, I might adjust the scene, based on my quick assessment. Chances are good that I determined if the scene would require contraction, normal or expansion development almost unconsciously, and immediately upon looking at it, and that would inform my exposure estimate. Within a very few seconds, I've adjusted my camera and made the exposure. This is how I normally work when doing available light portraiture, and I've done enough of it to predict fairly accurately the consequences in the print of various treatments to the film.
Is my methodology less precise than yours? Maybe. But any increase in precision would come at the expense of time, fluidity, and concentration, and would not necessarily improve my results, but may in fact degrade my results. As for BTZS compared to ZS, the visualization portion of the exercise is essentially identical, minus the spot metering and ZS terminology. The advantage, in my mind, to the BTZS system is in the testing procedure and data obtained from it. I'm a firm believer in testing materials and equipment separately, and relating the results in a logical way. There are several advantages to this methodology I won't go into here. I have not argued for the superiority of one system over any other, but that there is an appropriate level of precision for a given objective, and exceeding that level is not productive, and may be detrimental. I think that you, and to a much greater degree, Chuck, are under the influence of a strong familiarity bias. It's worth noting that those photographers intimately familiar with both ZS and BTZS are far less likely to pronounce one system superior to the other.
No.
To not understand the way you work is to not understand your interpretation of the ZS.
You did not invent the system, and you're certainly no authority on its implementation.
- Leigh
If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.
Come now...............relax...............I did not imply that I invented it-----I don't need to interpret the ZS either, I just need (and desire) to implement it; it's a tool, there is no interpretation required IMO. I use it to achieve the final print tonality that I desire, and this, hopefully, translates to something that I can be proud of in the end.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks