What Would Edward Weston Use Today? [Archive] - Large Format Photography Forum

Gregory Gomez

8-Jul-2005, 17:41

My question was a serious one, and I must admit that I'm a little surprised at the sophomoric quality of most of the responses posted so far.

I had an opportunity this past week to view two prints made by Cole Weston from his father's negatives. The prints were Nude, 1936 and Eel River Ranch, 1937. These images are among the finest I have ever seen. They were not only sharp and grain free, but each had beautiful luminosity, volume, space, and a very lovely tonality. I also looked at vintage prints made by Brett Weston, Morley Bear, Don Worth, Paul Caponigro, and Ansel Adams. The Edward/Cole Weston effort was without peer, which led me to wonder what materials would Edward Weston use today, a seemingly valid question given the wonderful quality of these prints.

But I guess this site is not into photographic art appreciation or history?

Too bad.

David Luttmann

8-Jul-2005, 17:43

While the responses may be sophmoric (and funny)....you have to admit, the question itself is rather naive.....

Michael Chmilar

8-Jul-2005, 17:43

To steal an old joke from Letterman:

"He'd be clawing desparately at the lid of his coffin."

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2005, 17:53

QT gave you the serious answer. There is no way to know. The world is different today. Even if you assume that Weston's own tastes remained the same - a questionable assumption - it's impossible to know which of today's materials he would perceive as representing the closest analogs to those he used then to achieve the effects he wanted.

Whether one could mimic that "look" today - not the esthetic vision, which was his own, but the optical and tonal characteristics of his prints - would be a more reasonable question. My guess is that you probably could come very close with modern films and papers if you used the same lenses he did. But that, at least, is a proposition which could be tested.

Gregory Gomez

8-Jul-2005, 18:06

Oren,

Thanks for your response.

Putting aside the contributions made by the lens, perhaps a film like Illford FP-4 might be something Edward would use today. It would not surprise me in the least that he would continue using ABC pyro or maybe the PMK formula. However, Edward would face a somewhat limited range of photographic paper. He might try Azo or maybe the Bergger Fine Art Supreme. He might even return to platinum printing.

It's worth noting that since the image was printed by Cole during the last 10 years or so, modern paper was used in the creation of these two prints.

Thanks again for your response.

Greg

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2005, 18:25

Greg -

If you're really curious about this, why don't you try emailing Kim Weston and asking him what materials Cole used?

Wayne

8-Jul-2005, 18:35

Gregory-I was planning on returning with a serious answer before your recent reply, as I realized that you werent getting too many. Sorry for my contribution to that.

I see two realistic possibilities based on what I know of the man.

1) Edward's tastes and style stay relatively the same--it'd be FP4+ in pyro soup
2) He learns to appreciate faster films of today--HP5+ in pyro soup

I cant tell you what he would print on (though I think some of his prints would look great on Forte), but he would still use amidol. As far as I know Brett rarely strayed form the pyro-amidol formula for long, and I seriously doubt EW would have either. All good clean fun conjecture of course.

Now Ansel is another story entirely, and EW would be very disappointed in him, if they were still speaking at all... :-)

Brian C. Miller

8-Jul-2005, 18:38

Oren, I was going to be the first responder with the following, and now I see I should have posted it.

I think that Ed Weston would be using Azo or something similar. Since he eschewed using an enlarger, "new-fangled gizmo" or some such, I don't think that the choice of film would have that much of an impact. Adams claimed that Polaroid Type 55 had a fine grain, and I think its grain is like a typical ISO 400 film. So the fineness of the grain would be irrelevant for what Weston would do.

The paper is another matter, though. I would guess Azo or he'd print platinum. He would be using a slow paper, because I can't imagine him adding a timer to his darkroom setup.

I can't imaging that a guy who veered away from enlargers would ever be open to Photoshop.

I'm sure that he'd still be working with his 60-watt lightbulb.

Oren Grad

8-Jul-2005, 18:49

On second thought, finding out what Cole used - or Kim uses today - to print Edward's negatives won't tell us much. If the negatives were developed for Azo or a similar paper in the first place, you'd be pretty constrained in what you could use today to print those specific negatives. What to use if choosing from scratch among today's films and papers to mimic the character of his prints is a different question.

Wayne

8-Jul-2005, 18:56

I dont think EW would have used Azo because he could have if he wanted to.

here is what Cole says in the late 70's from "Darkroom 2". "dad loved Haloid....it had a wonderful warm tonality. Dad used to say it had a 3-dimensional quality". Thats why I mention Forte, because thats how I feel about it developed in Ansco 130. But I am not EW, and those are my feelings about my prints from my negatives. I've only had the good fortune to see a few of EW's prints in person, so I dont have a lot to compare to. .

At the time of this publication, Cole was using amidol and Ilfobrom, so the question may be, what current paper is closest to Ilfobrom? It cant be Azo.

John Hoenstine

8-Jul-2005, 19:19

If you read the day books.
I think the only answere you can get is that the image is all that matters
and that sometimes we all get lost in the process instead of the image.

Gene Crumpler

8-Jul-2005, 19:22

I had a chance to visit Wild Cat Hill last fall with John Sexton Workshop. Kim(EW's grand son) and his wife now live there. We got a chance to see the old darkroom and Kim's newer Darkroom. We got to handle a lot of Edward's, Bret's, Coles and Kims work. Really remarkable.

What would Weston likely be using? Kim is using an 8x10 Arca Swiss, B&W film and both contact and enlarging paper. Kim is using amidol for a lot of his work and regular old dektol.

I have a photo of Kim and John with Kim's new Acra Swiss. The Weston's have a guest home that they rent out. Next time I'm out there, my wife and I plan to stay there for a couple of days and photograph Point Lobos yet again.

Look at www.kimweston.com. You will see your's truely picture under recent visitors.

Gene Crumpler

8-Jul-2005, 19:34

<http://www.kimweston.com/guest04/jsexton04.htm>

I'm the guy with the sunglasses.

Jorge Gasteazoro

8-Jul-2005, 19:35

There are 3 guys with sunglasses and one with a camera....which one are you???... :-)

Gene Crumpler

8-Jul-2005, 19:37

Second from the right standing!

MIke Sherck

8-Jul-2005, 19:51

Since there seem to be a few EW admirers and perhaps scholars here, and also since I *just* read this passage about an hour ago, please don't be offended if my question seems a little off-topic.

I'm reading "The Daybooks of Edward Weston, Two volumns in one", published by Aperture (2nd ed.) On page 42 of the second daybook (at the beginning of chapter 6, dated January 6, 1928,) he's talking about drymounting with his new (second hand) dry mount press and a little later on, about printing. Then he says, "I use both Gavaert and Illingworth bromide, for contact and enlarging, and an Amidol developer."

Enlarging? On bromide paper? Can you do that? Did he do that?

He's clearly talking about paper and printing here; while I know that he did enlarge negatives to 8x10 for contact printing, this is the only reference I've seen to enlarging prints. Did EW print enlargements in the conventional "enlarging" sense, or does he mean something different which I've completely missed?

Michael A.Smith

8-Jul-2005, 20:03

Edward Weston printed on silver chloride paper. The only silver chloride paper in existence now is Azo. Edward did print on Azo, as well as on many other silver chloride papers. He certainly did print on Haloid, which he preferred when it was available.

Brett printed on Azo, as well as on other silver chloride papers, until he started making enlargements.

The Bergger paper is not a silver chloride paper and hence is not technically a contact printing paper. Of course, one can make a contact print on any paper.

Gregory, try to look at one of Edward's prints next to one of Cole's prints from teh same negative. There is a world of difference. There is a depth and a glow to Edward's contact prints on silver chloride paper that Cole's prints simply do not have. I have made dozens of such comparisons.

You mention having seen the prints of: Brett Weston, Morley Bear, Don Worth, Paul Caponigro, and Ansel Adams but that they don't compare to the EW/CW combo. What prints were you looking at? If you see early prints by Brett Weston and 1930s and 40s prints by Ansel Adams you will see that they are absolutely smashingly exquisite. Their photographs from that time were printed on silver chloride paper. Their later prints on enlarging paper do not have the same quality and I can understand your reaction if it is those you saw.

The issue here is really the type of paper, not the skills of the photographer. Because Azo is the last silver chloride paper, if Edward Weston had the same aesthetic interests regarding his own work (a big if, since he had started using color and seemed to have a sincere interest in it), he would be printing on Azo.

Gregory Gomez

8-Jul-2005, 20:23

Wayne,

Thanks for posting. I think you have helped me a lot.

I believe you're right about the Illford FP-4 film. I spent about 40 minutes examining the two prints I mentioned earlier -- Nude, 1936 and Eel River Ranch, 1937. The grain in both images is very fine, but not quite on the same level as T-Max 100 or Panatomic-X. I have four Morley Baer prints, all made from 8 x 10 contacts, that show more grain than the two Weston images. These contacts were made from Super-XX. If my memory serves me correctly, Edward ended up using Isopan film during the 1940s, which was a fine grain emulsion of that time, and, of course, is no longer available. Illford FP-4 would be the closest thing to it.

I also like your Forte recommendation. Azo has a slightly warm cast compared to something like Oriental Seagull, or maybe even Galerie, but my understanding is that Forte should be warmer than Azo. Do you use Forte Fortezo fiber-based paper, glossy surface? I don't think Edward would have gone for variable contrast paper, or anything resin coated. I understand that Ansco 130 gives a look very similar to Amidol for a lot less money. Is that ture?

"At the time of this publication, Cole was using Amidol and Ilfobrom, so the question may be, what current paper is closest to Ilfobrom? It can't be Azo."

Ilfobrom hasn't been available for sometime. I would say that Galerie might be similar, but Galerie has a colder tone, especially when toned with selenium.

Thanks again for your suggestions.

Best regards,

Greg

robert_4927

8-Jul-2005, 20:33

As much as I admire Weston's work ( I never get tired of looking at pepper#30) I think if I could ask him a few questions it would be more along the line of..." So Ed, tell me more about Tina. Is she as wild as I imagine her to be?".....His work on haloid and even his earlier work in platinum is well documented. So instead let's talk about Tina ......lol

Wayne

8-Jul-2005, 20:55

Greg,

I have used both Fortezo and (ahh, reluctant luddite!!) even the PolyWarmtone fiber, both glossy, and I liked both very much. I said Ansco 130, but I actually used 2 similar formulations. One, PF -130 from Photographer's Formulary, a premix that they claim gives results very similar to amidol without the amidol. It lasts about as long as amidol too, once its mixed (It comes in 2 liquid parts). I havent tried amidol so I cant say about the comparison in results but it looks REALLY nice to me on that paper and I tried a number of developers. The other one I liked was one I brewed up in an attempt to match the PF-130. It was basically a phenidone version of Ansco 130 (no metol), and it lasted a lot longer than the PF-130. It gave similar results as the PF-130, which probably is some sort of phenidone A-130 also. Both neutralize the very warm tone of the papers to a considerable degree, but they remain pleasantly warm, more of a brown warm, rather than green. I found regular A-130 too warm/green for the paper. Thats one of the other things I like about the paper is its response to different developers, and I think EW would have too. I dont know if he would have liked the ivory base though!

paulr

8-Jul-2005, 21:13

i think he'd be using a camera phone. one that plays mp3s.

Gregory Gomez

8-Jul-2005, 21:14

Michael Smith,

I only have my experience to go on.

The Brett Weston image was that of the Holland Canal, which was an enlargement. The Ansel Adams photo was a contact print of an ocean scene with water pouring over a large, flat rock. I can't remember the name of the image, but I would be happy to look it up for you.

In 1982, I attended Ansel Adams 80th birthday celebration exhibition in San Francisco. I spent an entire day examining his prints, most of which were enlargements made using Galerie and Oriental Seagull. The prints were great, of course, but they did not have the same degree of space and that indescribable, life-like quality that I saw in the Edward/Cole prints mentioned above.

When, I visited Morley Baer about 20 years ago, I also had an opportunity to see several Edward Weston vintage prints that were made during the 1940s. The prints were excellent, of course, but they did not move me in the same way as the prints I saw this week.

As you know, Morley used Azo, double weight paper extensively for his contact prints, especially grades 2 and 3, and occasionally grade 4. Double-wight Azo is no longer available as you also know. But Azo was not Morley's favorite paper. He liked another brand, long discontinued. I will search my notes to see if I can find the name of that paper, which I feel gave greater luminosity and a sense of space to most images than Azo.

Bill_1856

8-Jul-2005, 22:01

I saw the superb EW show in Naples this spring, and his prints done around 1930 were almost sensual in themselves (peppers, shells, etc), while his earlier prints looked like holdovers or transitional from his pictorial days, and the later ones (post Charis) mostly from the trips were pretty ordinary as printing quality goes. At the same time, the major Ansel Adams show in Sarasota had a large number of his work from throughout his career (including the infamous Parmelian Prints), and every single print was a superb work of a master printer's art. Weston was noted for only doing a single print or two from a negative, while Adams would work until he got it right (as far as he was concerned).

Brian Ellis

9-Jul-2005, 06:05

"I'm a little surpised at the sophomoric quality of most of the answers posted so far. . . . But I guess this site isn't into photographic art appreciation or history?"

Actually there are quite a few people here who are into photographic art appreciation and history. You got some sophomoric responses because some of us think the question is sophomoric. I gave my particular sophomoric response because I've seen many of these "would Ansel Adams be using a digital camera," "what would Edward Weston use today" discussions and they seem totally pointless to me. How could anyone possibly answer a question like that? You can dream up answers as well as anyone else all by yourself and with just as much accuracy (which is to say none at all). So why ask a question that can't possibly be answered?

If you want to discuss Edward Weston's work that's fine, there are plenty of knowledgeable people here who would be happy to accomodate you, but surely you could find a better way to do that than by asking the question you asked.

I admire Edward Weston greatly. I attend any exhibition of his work that I can and I think I've read almost everything still accessible that's been written about and by him and by Charis. Most recently I've bought and enjoyed the superb Weston book from Lodima Press. But what would he be using today? The only answer that can be given with any accuracy is that nobody knows so how could you possibly expect to ask such a question and not get some silly answers?

David A. Goldfarb

9-Jul-2005, 06:32

Edward Weston seemed pretty fixed in his methods. I suspect he'd be using the closest thing he could get to what he always used once he settled on contact printing, silver chloride paper and amidol.

Jim Rhoades

9-Jul-2005, 06:35

"Weston was noted for only doing a single print or two..." He was also noted for doing negative after negative until he got it right. As I recall he spent over a week cramped up on the floor of his bathroom in Mexico, until he got it right. Pepper # 30 was well, pepper # 30. If anyone spent every night in a darkroom printing with the same single light bulb and contact frame, I would think they would learn how to do it right.

Bill_1856

9-Jul-2005, 07:49

Jim, my observations on the EW print quality was not intended as a slur, but just that -- an observation. But I really think that after about 1935 the quality of his prints went down. It could be my imagination, or just that particular collection, or his Parkinson's Disease, or that he could not longer get (or perhaps couldn't afford) the paper he used previously. (Paul Strand complained throughout his life that every time he got used to a particular paper, it was discontinued; maybe that happened to Weston.) I've always throught that although Edward was the better photographer, that Brett was the better printer.

Michael A.Smith

9-Jul-2005, 08:03

Surprising, Bill. In my opinion Edward Weston's prints from the late 1930s and early 1940s are among his very finest.

As Jim said, he only used a few sheets of paper because he had exposure and negative development down cold. There was no need for him to use more paper. It is surprising that Adams, who developed the Zone System, supposedly to make it easier to get exposure and development exactly where one wanted them, needed to do more dodging and burning than any photographer except for Gene Smith, and that with all the "precision" of the Zone System needed to use many sheets of paper to get the "right" print.

Brian C. Miller

9-Jul-2005, 08:55

It is surprising that Adams, who developed the Zone System, supposedly to make it easier to get exposure and development exactly where one wanted them, needed to do more dodging and burning...

From reading Adam's books, Adams was a junkie for making dramatic photographs. He said that the tonal values in his prints were not realistic, but were dramatized. From reading some of the work he went through to make some of his prints, I am in awe of the effort and technique.

My take on the Zone System is that it is a method for getting the range of values in the scene to fit on the paper. After that comes dramatization.

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Jul-2005, 09:58

As Jim said, he only used a few sheets of paper because he had exposure and negative development down cold. There was no need for him to use more paper. It is surprising that Adams, who developed the Zone System, supposedly to make it easier to get exposure and development exactly where one wanted them, needed to do more dodging and burning than any photographer except for Gene Smith, and that with all the "precision" of the Zone System needed to use many sheets of paper to get the "right" print.

Geezzz Michael, yes the Westons were good but by no means were they the only good photographers. Are you implying that EW had negative development "down cold" and Adams did not? given that Adams used a more controlled methodology I would say he did not have to be guessing where to stop under a dim green bulb. no? One relied on control and testing, one relied on experience.

You are mistaken about your "it is surprising..." comment, AA with Archer created the ZS so that you could get all the information you wanted on the negative. You are of course allowed to depart from the initial idea of the negative exposure to fit your vision of the print. But at least you are assured a negative with all the info. The added advantage is that you dont need 20 years experience to get a printable negative.

I am not defending the ZS I dont use it, and yes I have seen some disappointing prints by Adams, but then I have also seen some disappointing prints by EW.

Brian Ellis

9-Jul-2005, 10:04

"My take on the Zone System is that it is a method for getting the range of values in the scene to fit on the paper."

That's a purpose but not the only purpose and IMHO not the principal purpose. The purpose of the zone system is to obtain a negative that will allow you to make the print you want to make as easily as possible. You can use the zone system to make a print that accurately reflects the tonal values and relationships in the scene (i.e. a "realistic" print) if that's what you want to do but it isn't limited to that. The zone system also will allow you to alter those values and their relationships if needed to make the print you want to make. It can be used solely for mechanics (i.e. fitting the scene onto the paper) but it's real value is the flexibility it give s you to make a print that looks like you want it to look, not just a print that records what's there.

Michael A.Smith

9-Jul-2005, 10:59

Exactly, Brian. But does it work? If it did, wouldn't Adams have gotten negatives closer to what he wanted--so that while he would have had to do some dodging and burning, he wouldn't have had to do quite so much to get what he wanted. Or didn't he know what he wanted? Seems to me all that he did was just made sure all the information was on the negative. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but it does seem to go against what the Zone System is supposed to be all about.

Developing by inspection takes a couple of times doing it to know what you are looking for, Jorge, it doesn't take 20 years, unless you are really slow. Have you tried it? More than once? If not, how can you make any judgement about how long it takes to learn how to do it.?

Brian C. Miller

9-Jul-2005, 11:13

The purpose of the zone system is to obtain a negative that will allow you to make the print you want to make as easily as possible.

Right, but its without the dramatics. The notes for Clearing Winter Storm in The Print, p.108, shows nine operations for burning/dodging.

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Jul-2005, 11:31

Yes Michael, I tried it more than once, both with 8x10 and 12x20 with brush development and found it very unreliable. My experience was that if you were using a developer that allowed you full ISO speed such as Pyrocat HD and you were developing a negative shot under normal contrast DBI is adecuate. Deviations from that required that I had experience, and a vast experience at that for me to be able to make exposure judgments. For example, if I wanted to restrain development because of a high contrast scene, I had no idea how much more exposure to give the negative. Of course I am sure your response will be "Just give it one stop more exposure and see how the highlights develop," Well, this is not good enough for me Michael, there are situation where I photograph were the film requires at least 2 stops more exposure, sometimes even more. Then we have reciprocity, how the heck can you judge reciprocity exposure with DBI? Sure, you might be able to judge the contrast with DBI, but I am sure you will require to have many years of experience doing DBI to judge the appropriate exposure. In the method I use not only do I make tests for exposure/ development for exposures under 1 sec, but I also do test for exposure/development for exposures over 1 sec that give the appropriate exposure/development factors for situations where I need to make very long exposures.

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is one which required 36 min exposure with the appropriate adjustment for exposure and development. This picture would have been impossible with DBI without having done this kind of photography at least for a few years.

http://www.yesalbum.com/v001/jorge0658/Ebay/cschallway.jpg

Paul Butzi

9-Jul-2005, 11:32

But does it work? If it did, wouldn't Adams have gotten negatives closer to what he wanted--so that while he would have had to do some dodging and burning, he wouldn't have had to do quite so much to get what he wanted.

Well, maybe he wouldn't have, but perhaps the zone system actually DID work, and if he'd done something other than the exposure/development the zone system indicated, he would have ended up doing MORE dodging and burning to get what he envisioned at exposure time.

Fortunately, Adams left us a wonderful legacy. In his books are several examples of photographs, along with his notes on how he printed those images. Picking a book with a fair chance of being in everyone's libary, let's look at "Clearing Winter Storm", which appears on page 108 & 109 of my edition of "The Print".

Michael, perhaps you could explain how developing by inspection could have reduced the number of burning/dodging operations shown in Adams printing notes (on page 108)?

Dan Jolicoeur

9-Jul-2005, 11:42

..................I've seen many of these "would Ansel Adams be using a digital camera," "what would Edward Weston use today" discussions and they seem totally pointless to me. How could anyone possibly answer a question like that? You can dream up answers as well as anyone else all by yourself and with just as much accuracy (which is to say none at all). So why ask a question that can't possibly be answered?................

Brian you hit it right on the head, Who cares? It is totally pointless!

Bill_1856

9-Jul-2005, 11:58

I thought that such references to a master photographer of the past was simply a metaphor for discussing his philosophy, extrapolated to the present.

Richard Schlesinger

9-Jul-2005, 12:24

I'll throw in my 2 cents worth. First, some (many years ago) I purchased a couple of Weston prints for $25 each. I kept them awhile, and then traded them for a lens. Not that I don't think EW was as wonderful as his reputation. These just happened to be not-so-wonderful photographs. OK, but not in a class with the peppers etc

I also attended seveal of AA's workshops at Yosemite and became friendly with Ansel (he came to dinner one time - another story) and watched him go through a lot of Polaroid getting the exposure right. I think he pretty well understood the zone system, but it turned out he was also mortal, and for whatever reason had problems just like the rest of us.

I also knew Gene Smith; he stayed with me for about a week and we talked about a lot of stuff, some photographic even. From all he said (I never visited him in NY) he worked his ass off making beautiful prints from atrocious (often) negatives.

The point to this (beside my name dropping) is that all these people were mortal (I can prove that) and they worked hard to produce photographs that were/are remarkable. They were originals. They had a unique vision they pursued relentlessly. I think there are people now who print as well or perhaps better than they. The problem is where they point their cameras. A gorgeous print from a banal negative doesn't do it.

So - what materials would any of them use? I would guess whatever it would take to produce what they want. Whatever works!

Wayne

9-Jul-2005, 12:47

Bill is right, its obvious that what Gregory wanted to know was what EW would have used to get the same results using today's materials, not where his vision would have taken him 50 years later. I think its a valid question, even if it starts yet more people on a pointless chase trying to be as good ad EW by using the same materials (me among them, but I think EW would create better images than us regardless of what he used). While we can never know the precise answer, we can rule out many current materials and methods that would simply not get him close to the same results, leaving a fairly narrow selection of one or two films and 2 or 3 papers, steeped in amidol and pyro.

Brian Ellis

9-Jul-2005, 14:59

"But does it work? If it did wouldn't Adams have gotten negatives closer to what he wanted so that while he would have had to do some dodging and burning he wouldn't have had to do quite so much to get what he wanted."

The zone system "works" as long as it's understood that nobody using it claims that it will always eliminate or even greatly reduce any manipulation of the print. Some scenes or subjects simply have luminance values in different parts of the scene that don't lend themselves to making the print we'd like to make even with the zone system. In those situations a lot of dodging and burning may be required.

That isn't a failure of the zone system, it's just an unfortunate fact that no system including the zone system provides total control over the density of everything in the negative. It is, after all, the "zone" system. It functions in broad brushes, not fine points.

As to whether Adams should have been able to do less dodging and burning than he did if the zone system "worked," I have no idea how one could quantify something like that. I don't think anyone could possibly say "well he had to make 10 burns and 4 dodges to print White House Ruin but if the zone system worked he would only have needed 4 burns and 2 dodges so the zone system must not work." Maybe without the zone system the negative wouldn't have been printable at all. Or maybe it would have been printable but not the way Adams wanted to print it. Or maybe it could have been printed the way Adams wanted to print it but only with a lot more effort than was actually needed. Who knows.

Development by inspection is fine for those who feel comfortable using it. But not everyone does. The zone system is fine for those who feel comfortable using it. Not everyone does. And even those who do feel comfortable with it know that, as Phil Davis and others have pointed out, it isn't perfect. But within its acknowledged limitations and recognizing that nature doesn't always cooperate with us or with the zone system, it works pretty well most of the time.

Henry Amboy

9-Jul-2005, 16:14

"at least you are assured a negative with all the info. The added advantage is that you dont need 20 years experience to get a printable negative."

See Moonrise, Hernandez & then come back & explain just how the Zone System assures all this.

Jorge Gasteazoro

9-Jul-2005, 16:21

See Moonrise, Hernandez & then come back & explain just how the Zone System assures all this.

Read Adams' explanation on this picture and then come back and explain just how little you understood.

Since he was pressed for time and did not have a meter in hand Adams based his exposure on the moon's known reflection. He basically took an educated guess and he did not use the ZS for this picture. To his misfortune the guess was wrong.

OTOH why dont you pick some of the hundreds of pictures he took using the ZS and which are great and come back an explain to us how the ZS does not work......

Richard Schlesinger

9-Jul-2005, 17:17

Oh good grief!

Brian C. Miller

9-Jul-2005, 18:28

Jorge is right.

Yes, Adams knew the exposure for the moon, and made the exposure for it. He saw the scene as he was driving home with his friends, and jammed on the brakes. He didn't find the meter as he was slapping his 8x10 camera in place, but he knew what to set to get the proper detail in the full moon. By the time he had flipped the film holder over for a second shot, the light was gone from the crosses.

By and large though, he didn't have that much grief with the negative. He did complain that it was difficult to print, and finally he used some intensifier on the negative's foreground.

Mark Davidson

9-Jul-2005, 22:11

I believe that the prime motivation with Weston, Adams, Strand and the other saints of photography was to create exactly the image they envisioned with the equipment and materials available to them in the day.

Weston's heirs use the processes and equipment to strive to produce images that evoke the work, look and feel of Edwards work.

Edward and the others would not be tied to the past. After all they did not use Daugerrotypes did they? And the few who started with wet plates abandoned them promptly with the introduction of mass produced dry plates and later, sheet film.

I think EW would be online chatting with the enormous online community about the latest Epson printer and techniques for getting better highlight detail out of his Canon 1DsmkII.

And he would be working in color.

Mark Sawyer

10-Jul-2005, 00:09

Actually, Weston did work in color for a little while (8x10 Kodachrome), but wasn't terribly excited by it. The images seemed to me to be weaker versions of his b/w work. I doubt he'd do much color today, darkroom or digital. Just idle speculation...

Michael A.Smith

10-Jul-2005, 05:09

Paul: "Michael, perhaps you could explain how developing by inspection could have reduced the number of burning/dodging operations shown in Adams printing notes (on page 108)?"

Well, if he had developed the negative less he wouldn't have had to burn in so much. He could have seen howdevelopment was coming along if he had developed by inspection. There is certainly nothing wrong with dodging and burning. I do it myself on almost every print. But I believe one has more control, not less, over the negative when one observes it as it is developing. Photography is a visual medium--I like to keep everything visual and not mechanical.

Paul Butzi

10-Jul-2005, 11:51

Michael:

If he'd developed less, then it seems to me the overall contrast would have been wrong, and either he'd have had to adjust the overall contrast of the print to compensate (and thus end up with the same burning and dodging) or else he'd have to do even more burning and dodging to get the effective contrast back in the trees.

That is, except for the two brief dodges and the two edge burns, the entirety of the manipulation is burning down the sky. Adams did it in 5 separate burns, presumably to make it easier to manage.

In particular, the sky along the upper edge of the print in the center receives two stops more exposure than the foreground forest. To eliminate the need to burn down the sky, you'd need to reduce the density in that part of the negative by 0.6 logD. That's a huge change, (if we assume the clouds fell way up the tonal scale, on Zone 9 or so, it's equivalent to N-3 or N-4) and if you reduce development that much without adjusting exposure, you'll lose shadow detail and the contrast in the rest of the print will be very low.

You could reduce development and keep the density down in that area, sure. But when you do, you reduce the contrast in the foreground forest substantially, and unless you're printing on VC paper, there's no realistic way to get that contrast back unless you print on higher contrast paper/devleper. And when you do that, you're back in the same place in terms of burning down the sky.

In other words, the fundamental problem is that the sky was much brighter than the foreground, and the foreground contrast is very important to the image. I just don't see how adjusting development (either by planning reduced development via the ZS or through development by inspection) can compensate for this problem.

Michael A.Smith

10-Jul-2005, 12:00

Well, Adams clearly got exactly what he wanted. A little more exposure would have solved the foreground detail problem. I've had to do that much dodging and burning myself. DBI is no panacea, but in general, in my experience it is more consistent than developing film any other way. When the vagaries of shutters and light meters are taken into consideration (those things do change over time), the only way to compensate is to look at the negtive as it is developing. Doing it this way may not be for everyone, but I have always found it to be the most sure way.

Gregory Gomez

10-Jul-2005, 12:48

Brian Ellis,

If my original question was pointless, why did you even bother to respond in the first place?

My previous observation about the earlier sophomoric responses still stands, including your original post and your follow-up rebuttal, which, in itself, is less than pointless.

Have a good day sir.

David Vickery

10-Jul-2005, 13:56

To answer your question Gregory:

Like it or not; the final image is a product of the particular process and/or materials used.

So if you assume that he wanted to continue to produce the type of images that he is famous for, then he would have to use the products that most closely allow that.

And yes, today that would be wonderful Azo.

The film choice would be less critical in 8x10, but he would have to use the film that is closest to what he was using. My uneducated guess about that would be either Efke 100 or TriX. But then again, maybe he would like the reciprocity characteristics of TMY400 and go with that?

Gregory Gomez

10-Jul-2005, 14:43

Over the weekend I did some research to collect additional information regarding my questions about Edward Weston’s use of materials. So far I think Wayne has come the closest to answering my original inquiry.

In an article entitled “Of the West: A Guggenheim Portrait” (from T.J. Maloney, ed. U.S. Camera Annual 1940; New York: Random House, Inc., 1939, p 37.), Edward Weston talked briefly of his two-year photographic trek that had been made possible by his Guggenheim Fellowship. During that time, he traveled thirty-five thousand miles and made about fifteen hundred negatives, most of those in California. In only a few cases, did he make duplicate photographs; most of those were of subjects in motion, such as clouds, breaking waves, animals, and so forth.

What follows is an excerpt from the article in which Edward describes the equipment he used during this two-year period:

“All negatives were made with the following equipment: camera, 8 x 10 Century Universal; tripod with tilting top, Paul Ries; lens, Turner-Reich triple convertible 12”, 21”, 28”, or 19” element of Zeiss Protar; lens shade, Wörshing Counter Light Cap; Weston Meter. I started out with a K2 filter (the only kind I had ever owned); a G was added the first year and an A the second year. I used Agfa Isopan film, tray developed by inspection in ABC Pyro Soda with carbonate cut to less than half. Negatives are printed on Convira No. 2, developed in amidol.”

It’s my guess that Ilford FP-4+ is about the closet film to Isopan that one could use today. As for printing paper, that’s a tougher one. Convira was an Agfa product. Does anyone know whether Convira was a chlorobromide or a pure chloride paper? From what I have learned, Edward used both types.

Bill_1856

10-Jul-2005, 14:46

If he had given any more exposure, he would have lost all the details of the moon face -- it would have been just a white blob. Better to have done so, and then asked Morteson(sp?) how to overprint a second moon shot.

Ken Lee

10-Jul-2005, 15:07

I don't see any reason why we can't use Development By Inspection and a more strictly numerical method, such as the Zone System or BTZS.

Take the photo, and make your notes. When developing, watch the process. Make adjustments as needed. We do it in the printing phase, and in the taking phase, so why not during the developing phase as well ?

"I thought it would need N+1, but now that I see it, I will leave it in the soup just a little longer"... or whatever. I have been trying this with my InfraRed viewing device, and I find it a delightful and productive approach.

Michael A.Smith

10-Jul-2005, 15:33

Greg: Convira was a silver chloride paper, not chloro-bromide.

Ken: That is exactly what I do.

Bill: It was a different photograph under discussion. No moon in the one we were discussing.

Wayne

10-Jul-2005, 15:58

Convira was a contact printing paper, probably somewhat similar to Azo. It was also one of the papers that Cole tried when printing EW's work and he decided that Ilfobrom gave results closer to EW's, according to the Darkroom chapter. I have usedAnsco Contactone a little bit myself, its probably also similar (and also one Cole tried) and found it to be more cold tone. I didnt try it in amidol. Convira was only one of a number of papers E used though, was he using it because it was his preferred paper or was he using it because his favored paper(s) were no longer available?

Jorge Gasteazoro

10-Jul-2005, 17:35

Bill: It was a different photograph under discussion. No moon in the one we were discussing.

Michael, everybody here is dicussing Moonrise over Hernandez.....the Moon is a very important element of this photograph.

Paul Butzi

10-Jul-2005, 17:41

Michael, everybody here is dicussing Moonrise over Hernandez.....the Moon is a very important element of this photograph.

Actually, there are two images being discussed: Moonrise and Clearing Winter Storm.

Mark Sawyer

10-Jul-2005, 23:40

".....the Moon is a very important element of this photograph."

I thought he was talking about one of Weston's 1936 nudes of Charis on the dunes. A beautiful, luminescent "full moon," it seems like you could almost reach out and touch it...

robert_4927

11-Jul-2005, 05:24

Ken, not trying to get off topic here but what type of infraRed goggles are you using and are they expensive?

John Z.

11-Jul-2005, 12:17

One point I would wish to make about the original discussion: the original question, if rephrased, does take on great importance; the question is how did some of the previous photographers, including Paul Strand, have such great tonality in prints, which cannot be duplicated today by modern methods? I just returned from the Strand exhibit at the Getty, and marveled in particularly at how he maintained such rich detail in the low tones. The only other photographer to do this was EW, and perhaps Curtis in his early Platinum works.
It is something far beyond Zone placement, but the nature of the local contrast in the materials. Some of the prints are platinum, and you might expect this quality in the low tones, but just as many were silver chloride prints, and had that same rich character in the deep tones.

I am fundamentally convinced that the materials themselves were vastly different, and in some ways superior to what we have today. As michael Smith can testify, we even saw a huge change in the nature of the AZO paper when Kodak made a new run at a newer plant, compared to the older classic AZO.
Some may argue that if we just develop our negatives properly, and print them accordingly, then we can do the same type of work, but I don't think this is true. Except perhaps by some platinum experts, nothing comes close. The richest print I have ever seen, with the most depth and 3-dimensional quality was a platinum print by Curtis.
The point ultimately is that I hope Michael can succed in his quest to make a new silver-chloride contact print that captures some of those rich qualities that we see in prints by EW or Paul Strand.

Ken Lee

11-Jul-2005, 16:53

Robert -

I ended up getting a rather low-end unit, after reading the thread entitled DBI- A Viable Improvement on the AZO Forum at this location: http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/AzoForum/one.asp?ID=6011&PgNo=&GID=6011&CID=2 (http://www.michaelandpaula.com/mp/AzoForum/one.asp?ID=6011&PgNo=&GID=6011&CID=2" target="_blank)

In the thread, there is mention of a person who sells the ATN Viper monocular viewer at a good price - and that's what I bought. It took a little while to figure out how to strap it on appropriately, for what amounts to mostly heads-down orientation while working - but that aside, it makes all the difference in the world.

As one who prefers tray development for sheet film, I can tell you that when you see what you are doing, it's much harder to scratch a sheet of film. A while back I developed 12 sheets of 8x10 at the same time, in a set of 8x10 trays. No problem... because I could see everything I was doing. I left a few sheets in the soup a little longer, because they looked like they needed a touch more development. It was no big deal at all.

I have appreciated the good hard work done by our BTZS friends, and I use their recommended developing times as a guide. I don't think we always have to end up with a print containing all the shades in a step-wedge, but when the situation calls for expansion or contraction, I develop more or less - but being able to see it all, I have te best of both worlds.

Why not give it a simple acronym, like IRVDDBIZS (Infra Red Viewing Device+Development By Inspection+Zone System) for the simpletons among us ...or, for those of a more rigorous and methodical nature, IRVDDBIBTZS.

robert_4927

11-Jul-2005, 21:52

Thanks Ken, And just so we stay on topic let me just add that I think Weston would be using an IRVDDBIZS if he were around today..... There we're back on topic......lol

Wayne

17-Jul-2005, 15:06

The PF formula I have used and referred to above is actually the Formulary's BW-65, not PF-130. Thats what I get for going on memory. Nice stuff, but too short-lived-like my memory.

Mark Sampson

19-Jul-2005, 05:50

Well, back to the original question. I went to see the Weston retrospective show at the George Eastman House on Sunday (for the third time). It has prints from 1917-1946, and a remarkable thing to me is how his approach to printing changed over time... as his vision and subject matter changed too.

Had EW been able to remain active, I'm sure he would have continued to use an 8x10 camera and pyro developer. But the only thing we can be sure of is that he would have bent whatever materials he used to suit his vision.

There's nothing like seeing the real thing! If you're anywhere in the Northeast, come to Rochester and see this show. It's up until Labor Day.

Aaron van de Sande

2-Dec-2005, 13:13

Who knows? Maybe he would of quit photography and started painting.

John_4185

2-Dec-2005, 13:56

Aaron put his finger on the point - maybe Weston would have never become a photographer. What led him to the medium, and what did he try to evince? Place Weston and those motives in our contemporary domain and who knows? He might be a digital motion picture maker.

Jorge said: As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

That picture needs a thousand words to justify it, and one word to summarize it: "yawn".

Kirk Gittings

3-Dec-2005, 14:05

In general, I think the kind of speculation found in the original question is interesting, but fruitless. We can know what someone did but the vagaries of life and the arts makes it impossible and presumptuous to speculate on what someone as monumental as EW would have done today.

What would Weston do?

reminds me a bit of the bumper stickers:

What would Jesus do.

and carries some of the falacies of intellectual slavery to past dogma that literal interpretation of the bible and history entails. The only real question is what are we going to do with contemporary materials to try and make prints that rival the expressive qualities of past masters. Didn't Weston say something about printing on bathmats?

William Mortensen

3-Dec-2005, 20:38

"Didn't Weston say something about printing on bathmats?" --Kirk Gittings

Gee, Kirk, I thought everybody knew that Weston is considered one of the masters of "Large Floormat Photography..."

John_4185

3-Dec-2005, 21:13

Okay, now that we've degerated to humor...

About forty years ago a new town was established in Wisconsin. You know, the state of Cheeze. The town folk wanted to call it Nazareth... but the idea went to hell when someone chimed in with "Oh Great!" "Cheezes of Nazareth!"

Gregory Gomez

5-Dec-2005, 15:18

I am a little surprised at some of the responses I have received to my original inquiry regarding Edward Weston and the negative tone carried by a few of these responses. I sincerely believe that my inquiry was not only valid but reasonable and meaningful.

To answer my own question about Edward's working methods in the 21st Century, I believe he would continue to use the 8x10 view camera and shoot with either Ilford FP-4 Plus or Efke 100. He would not enlarge nor would he shoot color or use digital materials. Edward would tray develop his negatives by inspection using ABC Pyro and print his negatives using Azo developed in Amidol. Now that Azo is gone, Edward would most likely use whatever Michael Smith is likely to come up with, or Edward would use a glossy graded printing paper, like Ilford Galerie, to achieve a slightly warm image tone.

For those who asserted the pointlessness of my original question or felt a need to deride it, please don't let my conclusion end your aimless bantering.

Best regards,

Greg

John Kasaian

5-Dec-2005, 16:02

So this was like one of those trick questions where people read into it too deeply? Interesting! Edward Weston was known for his 8x10 work and contact prints---why would anyone entertain the notion that He'd have switched to anything else? Plenty of artists use mediums that are anything but the latest technology. Why would Edward Weston be any different? Except for his rather hi-tech coffee pot, what indication is there that He was a "techy?" He certainly could have gone the Leica route(but didn't) or color(but he dosen't appear to have done any 'serious' color work either) Consider how financially strapped he often was---a 35mm or MF would be a lot cheaper but theres the story of him cut down war surplus aerial film in order to contunue photography.

I think---I don't know for a fact---that Weston wasn't interested in fashion or quickly changing trends or whims. Thats why Weston's work, IMHO has a timeless quality and traditional materials and processes were what he worked with and was interested in.