PDA

View Full Version : Zone System Negative Design needs an Update



Steve Sherman
16-Dec-2018, 08:46
Traditional Zone System negative design needs an update, learn how Multi-Contrast papers have enabled a more powerful and flexible negative design: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/PPSS/ppss.html

Paul Ron
16-Dec-2018, 17:50
very interesting.

David Schaller
17-Dec-2018, 08:19
That site seems infected with pop ups

neil poulsen
17-Dec-2018, 08:46
He appears to be exploring an area I've often wondered about: What should one use as "normal" paper grade?

During testing, I pick a "normal" paper grade, determine my maximum black exposure, and then find the "N" development that gives me a Zone VIII that I like. I use a Beseler 45s color head, so my "normal" paper grade is no color filtration. ('Bout a 2 contrast grade.) With this testing, and during printing, I typically have to add some contrast to my enlarger settings (above normal) to get the print that I like. Hmm.

In the distant past, I used Galerie grade 3 paper for my film development testing, which has a somewhat elevated paper contrast above a typical grade 2. Then, I did my printing with Ilford MC Fiber Warmtone. (This would be in the direction of the what the article is proposing.) But predictably, I got push-back from some respected members of the Forum. ("Predictably", because I was testing with a different paper, versus what I was using for prints. So, back to paragraph 2 above.)

If I were to dive into this discussion with further testing, I would use a higher contrast paper grade (adding magenta filtration), redo all my film development testing, and then put those new film development times into practice by seeing how they affect my prints. (And then after a time period, again increase the contrast of my "normal" paper grade, and redo film testing. Etc.)

It's possible that, with more testing, I might improve my print quality. (The article is indeed interesting.) But, I like the print quality that I'm getting with my current film development times. Alas, I'm retired, and the older I become, the more I value my time. I don't think that there's currently sufficient evidence for me to pursue the line of investigation suggested by the article.

Michael R
17-Dec-2018, 10:54
Generally speaking The Zone System is fairly superfluous, but the article is quite flawed.

jnantz
17-Dec-2018, 10:57
thank goodness i'm zone-illiterate and i just wing it
i hate updating .

cowanw
17-Dec-2018, 13:36
Generally speaking The Zone System is fairly superfluous, but the article is quite flawed.

Would it be too much trouble to be more specific? I think such a discussion would be valuable.

Bill Burk
17-Dec-2018, 21:38
Steve Sherman,

You sure put a lot of work into this.

It’s refreshing and I think it might become “the shot heard round the world”.

Cheers,

Bill

Drew Wiley
17-Dec-2018, 22:04
I'm not sure everyone needs a textbook to learn how to slice a pie. But if it does help some people, the effort is worth it. The traditional Zone System was a helpful teaching tool; but it was already in my rear view mirror decades ago. Today's excellent VC papers open up a whole new range of possibilities for fine-tuning images.

EdoNork
18-Dec-2018, 02:33
Those papers can't show what's not in the negative. That's a sustancial part of the Zone System.

Enviado desde mi SM-G935F mediante Tapatalk

Steve Sherman
18-Dec-2018, 12:10
Generally speaking The Zone System is fairly superfluous, but the article is quite flawed.

Here in lies the double-edged sword of the internet, information can now reach round the globe at the click of a button in a free and open venue. Sadly, that information can be cast in doubt with a simple, unsubstantiated claim that a 4000+ word article backed up with comparative illustrations and 35+ years of wisdom is "quite flawed". And while I have never met the disparaging party, he has challenged my work and writings in the past, to what end gain I simply have no clue. When invited to share his own photography to offer some type of validation to his claims nothing comes, except of course written, yet unsubstantiated words to cast doubt where there is clear evidence to the contrary.
When good people with valuable information lose interest in sharing their knowledge look no further than "Forum Photographers" who choose to make absolute claims but cannot provide any visual reference or comparisons to validate their claims.

Drew Wiley
18-Dec-2018, 12:21
There are just so many variables, especially with "variable" paper, which graphs and such cannot realistically address. For example, I'm quite concerned with final images tone, which not only differs from paper to paper, along with developer choices, but by how the degree of exposure and development affects each respective emulsion of that particular paper/developer combination in relation to specific time and temperature, and then in relation to potentially several different toners in sequence. I'd almost have to plot a different set of graphs and densitometer plots for every different image I make in the darkrooom! Previsulization - hah! That was always more propaganda then practical truth. It's applicable to the extent you want a reasonably flexible negative to begin with, with all the necessary information as usable density. But after that, a negative can be interpreted in various ways. And nowadays, I have the opportunity to reinterpret some old negatives in a very different manner than originally, because the paper choices themselves are quite different, plus I've learned a lot of new tricks along the way. If I had to mathematically compute all this in advance, I'd die of old age before ever printing a single image! A simple test strip tells me what I need to know in just a few minutes, and I proceed upon that. And if everything were completely predictable, life would be pretty boring. Some of my very best prints were "accidents".

climbabout
18-Dec-2018, 17:15
Articles like this are hard to digest initially and it's easy to get lost in the technical details that lead to Steve's conclusions. The lessons here though are really quite simple:

1 - Todays MC papers allow tremendous flexibility in printing that wasn't available years ago.
2 - Build a negative with adequate shadow detail first and foremost.
3 - Reduced highlight density through compressed film development allows you to use a higher proportion of hard contrast filtration which accentuates mid tone contrast/separation while at the same time expanding the highlights in the final print that were compressed during film development.

Tim

Drew Wiley
18-Dec-2018, 17:40
Sorta. I like your summary, but by taking advantage of certain specific benefits of a particular VC paper, we might be compromising something else. I don't like compression development in general. Some of the premium VC papers almost allow you to have your cake and eat it too. For everything else, supplementary unsharp masking is an excellent option. But this applies primarily to high contrast scenes, where we're trying to get an awful lot onto the negative. Some films handle high contrast a lot better than others. Then there's modest contrast scenes which allow some development expansion with little penalty afterwards. It's all fun to learn, and nobody needs to argue about the correct alleged silver bullet. Try as many as you wish.

Peter Lewin
18-Dec-2018, 20:28
The one thing I haven’t seen mentioned in any of these posts is mention of Steve’s photographs. While I have only seen them on my computer screens rather than in person, I find them quite wonderful. That isn’t to say I love every image, but given their high technical level, I wouldn’t criticize his approach. We may decide to stick with whatever processes we are comfortable with, but given the quality of the end product, one can’t write off the technique either.

jnantz
18-Dec-2018, 21:32
Those papers can't show what's not in the negative. That's a sustancial part of the Zone System.

and papers can't show a lot of what is ON the negative that is what photograph IS .. a series of consequential and inconsequental compromises

Bill Burk
18-Dec-2018, 21:49
Is it fair to say you found traditional Zone System was fine for graded paper (target grade 2) but MG papers have mid-tone bumpiness which is unpleasant when you print negatives aimed for lower grades? So you flatten your negatives to target grade 4 or 5?

Eric Biggerstaff
19-Dec-2018, 08:15
Nice article and perhaps we need to take a look at how the Zone System is used with multi-contrast papers. I think what this article shows is just how flexible film based photography can be, it allows us to find a process that is a good fit for us, one that helps us realize our vision as an artist. I do not think it really matters what system or process is used as long as a photographer sticks with it long enough to get really good at it, meaning they are able to consistently produce prints they are satisfied with. Be it the traditional "Zone System", "Beyond the Zone System", "Steve Sherman System" or one that you come up with is really, in the end, not very important. The only thing that matters is if you, as a photographer, are able to create a print that tells the story you want it to. I believe Ted Orland has stated with the new VC/MC papers all he would do is cut the film speed in half and reduce development by 20% from the recommend time to produce negatives that were easy to print. Alan Ross wrote a great article several years ago where he suggested moving the shadow values up to Zone IV (which is what I did and found for me it worked). So, some of this is really not new and the goal is the same, capture as much detail in a negative as possible which then translates into more options while printing in the darkroom.

I know many really technical photographers who produce beautiful negs and boring prints! I also know many who produce not so great negs and wonderful prints! Lord knows, museums are full of breathtaking images made from all different qualities of negative and paper but in the end, all that matters is if the photographer was able to use the piece of film to create a print that told the story they wanted it to. Hell, just look at the neg for "Moonrise, Hernandez" - what a lousy neg! Anyone who knows me knows that I am NOT an engineer type of person! So, over the years I settled on a process that works for me and produces negs that I find enjoyable to print. I have two enlargers, one is subtractive while the other is additive. Both are capable of producing beautiful prints as long as I know what I am doing. Is my method based on science? No, but I tested and played with it until I could consistently produce a neg that I enjoyed printing.

Steve's process is great and is just another tool in the tool box. Would I change what I am currently doing? Sure, if my current process no longer produced negatives with the quality I need to create the print I want. I simply do not believe in a magic bullet, there are no magic papers, magic developers, magic enlargers or magic processes. Nothing takes the place of hard work, testing, failure and success. That said, it is important to read and try to understand new methods and processes as they then become tools to be used when needed. What Steve describes is a process that works for him, for his type of photography and printing. If we are smart, we will learn from his experience and perhaps try a few of his techniques. Have you ever tried additive printing? If not, give it a go and see for yourself, you may not find it so great but then again it may be something you find interesting enough to explore more deeply.

Pere Casals
19-Dec-2018, 08:46
In theory if we flatten the negative with a compensating development but later we expand by printing with a higher grade paper then we should get something similar, (beyond the particular shoulder/toe in the paper)...

But... the compensation may have a benefical side effect...

I we use low agitation combined with high dilution then we may enhance the relative "microcontrast", because the spots building a higher density are eating the chem from neighbour areas, and less exposed areas source fresher chem to denser neighbour areas.

Then that (relatively higher) microcontrast is pushed by the higher paper grade required to print the flat negative.

Just an speculation... that may explain the effect described by Steve (if I'm not wrong, of course...)

By "relatively higher" I mean compared to the final microcontrast that ends in the print when using the suitable grade for same general contrast for each case.

Steve Sherman
19-Dec-2018, 09:15
Nice article and perhaps we need to take a look at how the Zone System is used with multi-contrast papers. I think what this article shows is just how flexible film based photography can be, it allows us to find a process that is a good fit for us, one that helps us realize our vision as an artist.

If everyone had the approach in Eric's opening 2 sentences, photography, politics or anything else we encounter in life we'd all be richer for it. Nowhere did I suggest that my way is the only way, clearly there are scores of approaches to creating world-class prints, the article details my way. In essence what my article suggests is that Multi-Contrast papers have allowed a different negative design which can produce a varied number of interpretations of a negative design to exploit what MC papers offer in 2018.

A big part of the negativity here is rooted in Guys are Guys, we've got egos, we need to be right, we're competitive to a fault, hell I'm in a sports hall of fame because I'm so competitive ! But to tear down an idea, or worst yet for someone to hide behind reasoning without some type of validation tells me that person can never grow, they are stuck in the past and can't OR won't transition to the present as a means to be better in the future. For me personally I believe the methods and techniques I use produce the finest prints I've seen for my aesthetic, that's not everyone's personal preference, simply mine. The day I see prints that I respond to more than mine I'll be all over changing my approach and technique and will have no issue with passing on praise to a peer.

No one in this thread, or for that matter on this forum is a big enough name who could drop in, make an arbitrary statement and have it taken as universal gospel. If I had that type cache I would simply say, give more, even generous shadow exposure, compress development to less than traditional Zone 8 density and use Multi-Contrast papers to affect the final contrast in the print. That simple mantra is what took me 4400+ words say and several comparative illustrations to validate.

We all started in the exact same place, where you end up is limited only by yourself !

Happy Holidays and a Creative 2019 !

Bill Burk
19-Dec-2018, 10:09
Two good things happen when you give generous exposure and reduce development: You gain detail in the shadows that are yours to print down or bring up as you please. And you prevent the highlights from becoming so dense that they are difficult to hold.

A couple points remind me of the journey I'm on. I am finding it difficult to obtain my favorite single grade paper so am just picking up some Ilford MGIV to experiment with. And I also use green and blue filters (but I use Wratten Gelatin filters under the lens).

So far I haven't detected any anomoly in the grade 2 response of the paper. That's why I asked what you saw. I'd heard there were some papers that had that issue but I don't see it. I hesitate to aim for grade 4 because I don't like the big difference in print appearance for minor deviations in print exposure. But I know aiming for a higher grade creates technically superior negatives... so there's no fault in your logic.

Drew Wiley
19-Dec-2018, 10:45
Compression is just like making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and then stomping on it to get it to squeeze easier through a mailbox slot. Sure, you might be able to steam it afterwards in a microwave, but the flavor and texture won't be the same. That's what I hate about these "silver bullet" method mantras. They might indeed offer tools which are useful in certain situations, but which can be a straightjacket in others. Let me repeat, these are just tools, but not the only tools available ! And not all pan films are the same by any means in how they handle scale and microtonality. One shoe does not fit all, nor do the same "silver bullet" tricks necessarily apply. And here we are again talking about papers "grades" in VC context long after our favorite graded papers have disappeared. Let's face it, VC papers are a different category of animal and need a different kind of leash. I'm glad I learned strict process control using graded papers. But nowadays, one could utterly ignore the existence of the kind of contrast classification without any qualitative penalty. What you've got is a contrast continuum. But if you still want to talk that way, it's your perfect right. I still communicate certain things using Zone System lingo, even though I no longer even think about that variety of methodology when shooting or developing. ... But Bill, MGIV is a sort of a Ford/Chevy chug-chug paper that really doesn't perform like the newer premium VC papers. I have successfully printed on it recently, but I don't consider it highly versatile. There are quite a few negs which I have printed with ease of the premium types, but which went comparatively blaah on MGIV. It's a decent learning paper, I guess. But if you want a print that moves like a Ferrari, you are going to have to pay more. MGIV is discontinued in FB anyway. RC still seems abundant,
with its own look. I'm glad that even when I started out, I used a selection of the best papers around (graded in that era). Some of those early prints (certainly not all) were keepers, to say the least.

Bill Burk
19-Dec-2018, 12:06
MGIV FB seems to be still available. If there's a better paper, I'm open to suggestions. (I've compared it with Galerie and sense a difference that doesn't completely make me happy, but that I'm willing to live with). Drew you know I can't help but think of it in terms of graded paper, since I still live in the stone age. My personal "every negative aim unless I am horsing around" is LER 0.95 but I had to go look it up. It just doesn't sound as good as saying "between 2 and 3".

But Steve's plan makes sense. It sounds similar to the idea of using a POTA developer to increase film speed, maintain high resolution and hold fine grain.

I know those aren't his three goals, but the result's about the same... a flat negative that may require a paper grade 4 to print (LER 0.73).

Steve Sherman
19-Dec-2018, 12:50
Two good things happen when you give generous exposure and reduce development: You gain detail in the shadows that are yours to print down or bring up as you please. And you prevent the highlights from becoming so dense that they are difficult to hold.

I've come in contact with scores of photographers, some quite accomplished who simply cannot break down my methods as you've done here is these two simple sentences. And to be honest, there are likely just as many, again probably quite accomplished single graded paper era photographers who simply hide behind made up metaphors and double talk reasons to simply run in place forever limited by their own paralysis by analysis.

Drew Wiley
19-Dec-2018, 12:53
Oh heck, I've deliberately printed rich images onto VC paper under a deep blue 47B filter, where not visible image was on the negative at all ! - not unless you looked at the pyro stain itself under oblique reflected light in front of a black background. That's right, no visible silver image at all, just subtle yellowish pyro stain. I do all kinds of strange things in the darkroom. Lately I've even gone to a relatively high dilution of Perceptol (1:3) to successfully gain enhanced edge effect on TMax 100, it's weak point in my opinion for landscape work. Some people might call that a form of compensating development, because for some reason it makes highlights easier to control analogously to pyro, but unlike what we ordinarily think of as compensating, involves longer development time for sake of crystal growth (versus the finer grain of minus development or "silver solvents" characteristic of some comp. developers - TMX is already very fine-grained, and has tremendous scale, but with disappointing edge effect). So sometimes even common terminology can be misleading. ... But as per MGIV, they no longer make it in fiber-based, period, which doesn't preclude some stores still having token inventory. It doesn't have anywhere near the contrast range, DMax, and toning flexibility of certain newer papers. Ilford has a trio - MGWT (warm tone), MGCT (cooltone), and MG Classic ("neutral" tone). The latter two have to be quickly immersed and agitated into the respective trays, or they risk mottling. Odd, but other than that particular idiosyncrasy, they're wonderful papers. But for a wow factor analogous to old Seagull G graded, I'm also using Bergger Neutral Tone in either amidol or 130 developer to obtain very rich neutral black images. Ilford MGCT gives a gentler silverly look in these same developers, when that kind of look is preferable; yet it still has a distinctly bolder DMax than MGIV, plus conspicuously better highlight tonality. Not everyone carries the Cooltone version, and even the ones that do are frequently out of it. Best to place orders in advance. MGWT is a fabulous if pricey paper - one of the best ever - but not capable of true cold-tone images. It will split tone by certain methods to produce very deep cold lower values, leaving the high values warm.

bob carnie
19-Dec-2018, 14:43
Steve's prints are great and his methods quite sound. He has tailored his methods to his Camera Systems and ways of exposing and processing, I do not have this luxury as I print for others and source images come from all over and are quite un predicable.


I use somewhat a similar approach but probably different to printing as Steve, I am not and never will be a Zone System adherent, but I think my method of printing would make sense to those that are.
I will name drop as we all know this photographer and two years ago I got the privilege of producing a 50 print show for Stephen Bulger Gallery a series of original neg's Vivian Maier. The familiarity of this woman's work will help me explain how I approached the negatives.

We all know that she used 2.25 film and natural light, from early morning to late evening , in all lighting conditions from overcast rainy, snowy days to bright light beach scenes. I have no control over what I received and I used Ilford Warmtone using what I call modified split printing. Vivian's neg's were very good and each frame a different image, which means no bracketing of exposure in the negatives I have seen. But with this show I was doing a kind of retrospective look so each image was different, year and location.

I never use the 00 or 0 filter with this particular paper as I find in my darkroom the Lowest Key areas of a scene will solarize, not apparent to the casual viewer but to some. I like Steve do not use complicated equipment but rather rely on 40 plus years of printing.
First thing is to look at the negative or contact sheet for that matter.. I then group the images into CONTRAST codes and work on similar images on a large show like this one. (very important is the original scene contrast)

So if it looks like a duck it probably is a duck it becomes pretty straightforward .... bright strongly light scenes with lots of contrast need to start Low and bring in a hit of 5 ..low flat flat as piss scenes I start with a higher filter and still bring in a hit of 5.

I set aperture and time to about 10 seconds and then only change the amounts of hits of 5 to build contrast, In some special cases a full hit of 5 is not needed and that is done by counting down 5 seconds with my hand over the lens while hitting the timer and letting only half the exposure come in. I count every exposure and I like 10 seconds to 15 second exposures as then its easy to figure out a 50% change .

After time I can look at a negative/contact and imagine by looking at the lighting in the original scene come up with a balance that is surprisingly accurate . This allowed me to print her work in sequence by final SCENE contrast .
When I print its a matter of timer hits for the low contrast and high contrast , and un like Steve(I think he only uses the two filters) if the negative has a low range I immediately step up the filter to a 3 with a secondary hit of 5 .
Important with this type of printing is flash initially to tame the more complicated scenes. There is one image in this show that the next printer of her work will never be able to match unless they use this type of printing. In this particular image a whole building comes into view, where as a straight filter or even split the building does not emerge .

One thing that I am sure Steve has found out with his method of printing, the need for exaggerated burning is not required, just careful selective burns which makes the printers life easier.. No hot water rubbing on the print, no complicated contrast masks , just a deliberate approach to Contrast Printing.

Alan Klein
19-Dec-2018, 14:49
Bob, Is there a place to see some of the Meier's prints on the web?

bob carnie
19-Dec-2018, 15:01
Bob, Is there a place to see some of the Meier's prints on the web?

Hi Alan

The collection was sent to Germany and a group there has it, the images I worked on were pretty much all sold out and SBG does not represent her work at this point, It was from the Jeffrey Goldstein collection and not the John Maloff (which is with Howard Greenburg Gallery).

so the answer is no but two of Goldsteins {Vivian)books have all the images I worked on .

regards
Bob

Drew Wiley
19-Dec-2018, 17:13
Bob, you seem to be implying that contrast masking is primarily remedial due to some shortcoming in exposure and development. It can be employed that way, but it's not the primary reason. It gives you options just not otherwise available. As you very well know, it's not a single tool but an entire toolbox, just like one of those big mechanic's wheeled chests with every sort of wrench and socket and screwdriver in it. Perhaps you got burnt out comping with sheet film in the old days; but today, you're still doing essentially the same thing, except via scanning and digital alteration, at least for color work. I admire anyone who can take other people's negatives and make good sense out of them. I've had to reprint negs and copy old prints that barely survived fires, but sure wouldn't want to do that for a living. What I am doing at the moment is taking some of my early 4x5 b&w negs, when I was still very much on the learning curve myself (some of which are seriously overdeveloped), which were too intimidating to print back then when only graded papers were available, but are now quite easy for me. I haven't actually masked any of them. What I have masked (other than color work) are mostly 8x10 images where I wanted a whole different level of magic, which might or might not have warranted breaking conventional rules of exposure in the first place. People talk about silver printing as if they were going to a dry cleaner, with some kind of standard protocol in place. By you are now yourself specializing in alt prints, where the only golden rule is sheer whimsy. Might as well have fun while we can. But even silver-gelatin printing often benefits from throwing the rules out, though I do recommend learning some disciplinary protocol first! - saves quite a bit of time and money in the long run.

Steve Sherman
19-Dec-2018, 19:01
This is a circular discussion, one that will never end until someone stops fueling it, so I'll check out with this. There's an old saying in coaching, "Don't listen to the words, hear the Message" My message is simple, more shadow exposure and less highlight density will allow an almost infinite interpretation from a single negative. That's not to say I've abandoned individual exposure and unique development of each sheet of film, in that sense I'll always be a Zone System disciple. As far as compression and degrading microtonality claim, that can only stem from not fully understanding the characteristics of a Pyro based developer, in particular, the PyroCat family of developers.

I've said this before in a public forum, I consider Bob Carnie to be one of the 5 best printers in the world, I'm sure in part due to client negatives all over the map, I've seen negs and resulting prints he's made from those clients !! Not many in his league. Me on the other hand, I'm not that printer, so I had to become a great negative maker to produce those same high-level prints. I'm merely passing on my roadmap to the promise land.

Happy Holidays and to all a Good Night !!

Drew Wiley
19-Dec-2018, 19:45
The proof is in the pudding, not the manifesto, or according to, "so and so does it this way, therefore it must be the right way". That's Byzantine. Just develop and print the way you prefer, and indeed share it for sake of like-minded people or eager learners; but don't make straightjacket claims, or insinuations you've personally worked out all the potential paths and have found the silver bullet. You might deserve credit for going into depth in a certain direction. But there are a lot of roads out there, and insinuating that others of us have not done at least as much homework, or somehow not arrived at prints at least as impressive by methods contrary to yours, is unrealistic and narrow-minded. I, for one, am hardly ignorant of what pyro can do. I've been using all kinds of pyro tweaks for decades. Do you even own a masking system? Sorry to sound a tad ornery - don't take it personally. It's what forums are for,
thrashing around ideas, even if they get frayed in the process. Enjoy your holidays.

jnantz
20-Dec-2018, 06:43
its too bad people in these photography forums just argue incessently
about whose process or gear is better or worse and the stuff that doesn't really matter.
in the end its not the process or gear that matters ...
there is no such thing as perfection, there is no such thing as the perfect camera
and there is no such thing as the perfect process ... its the print that matters
not much else.

bob carnie
20-Dec-2018, 07:39
John- I have never made a perfect print, but I can sense the next one I make is going to be that one.
Steve - thank you for those kind words, I am blushing now, I mentored under a pretty strict European Print master, what I learned from him was it is all a matter of laying down tone on paper. thats it nothing more.
Drew- I do agree with you contrast masking is an important tool, but as Steve points out by using various split configurations he is pretty much doing what you are talking about without the mask.

I owned a Ciba Lab and contrast masking was critical when we used enlargers , in fact I think this is where Drew is coming from and its a very valid way of printing. Without complex masks one was limited to the results, in the 70's,80's and 90's there were a lot of people (myself included) prospering from the ability to make complex masks to produce superior images on paper and film. We also used these complex masks for C print applications .

I was making some silver prints the other day for a gallery show and using PS to inkjet neg,'s on silver and I was amazed at what I was able to produce, If I can only make the dmax on the pictorico film more dense to block a bit more I think we will all find this is the wave of the future for silver printing. What I noticed on the white borders was bleed through, and on the internet there are many that say this method is better than silver negs or as good, I do not believe it yet but open to see how the blocking power can be increased.... Many talk about process, few master, and most bullshit about the prowess of this method, I feel its not there yet for silver but really , really damm close and a big opportunity for Ilford to find a whole new generation of young clients that do not want to learn how to operate a enlarger, or even have the space to set a decent one up..

Taking this thread away from the OP here a bit and I apologize..

paulbarden
20-Dec-2018, 09:19
its too bad people in these photography forums just argue incessently
about whose process or gear is better or worse and the stuff that doesn't really matter.
in the end its not the process or gear that matters ...
there is no such thing as perfection, there is no such thing as the perfect camera
and there is no such thing as the perfect process ... its the print that matters
not much else.

Exactly. Show me your finished work: that is the only thing I will evaluate. Your tools are irrelevant - only the output matters.

Pere Casals
20-Dec-2018, 11:25
only the output matters.

Not only the output matters, also context may matter.

And "context" is a very wide concept in art.

A true artist may be a master of his tools, or he can only have a great inspiration. But, of course, it's a personal choice if we consider the crafting or not, beyond how the output is.

Drew Wiley
20-Dec-2018, 13:14
Output depends on tools - not just possessing them, or knowing about them - but intelligently using them. How many orchestras go around stating, "any ole instrument will do, it's only the music that counts, hand me a kazoo"? That mentality is sheer baloney. If some people are comfortable working on the premise of a single model of exposure and processing, which they happen to find comfortable, more power to them. Others of us might like to experiment, press the boundaries, and challenge conventional wisdom. Now that I'm taking up roll film photography more often than in earlier years, and well before this particular thread came up, I was musing over a particular comment AA made in one of his technique books, stating that the best way to deal with roll film, in which frames cannot be individually processed, is to expose all at N-1; essentially the same advice which has come up in this thread. And I thought to myself, I am sure glad I never heeded that advice. It might indeed be the safe approach, but it's no necessarily going to deliver the best prints. As I already stated, I'd far rather precisely place the shadows way down on a steep curve and take advantage of that particular characteristic, than way up the curve of a long-toe film and compensate develop in order to keep the highlights manageable. Why waste all that valuable real estate at the bottom of the curve? Today it's foggy, so deeper shadows might very well equate to Zone III. But standardizing on that particular Zone, as some workshop teachers mechanically insist, would be wholly counterproductive, because when the sun is out, the shadows are conspicuously deeper. A film like Pan F can't handle much below Zone III, but good ole sheet films like Super-XX or Bergger 200 could crisply segregate even Zone 0 if necessary. (I mention these as sheets films because they were too grainy for certain roll film applications). Today TMax films provide almost as much range (about a stop less). Again, such film choices are merely optional tools themselves. For other applications, we might justly prefer a film with a longer toe, with a different rendition of contrast. Thus tools are extremely relevant. Before I retired, I ran a substantial professional tool distribution operation. Here there are a lot of wealthy people with high expectations. Contractors would customarily demand their carpenters to own their own tools. Shortly before I retired, a particular contractor I frequently dealt with looked at the cordless tool a new hire showed up with on the jobsite, a cheap thing he had purchased at a local big box store. "How are you going to get any work done with that thing", stating this just before firing him on the spot. Intelligent tools and inspiration are not opponents; you need to marry them together.

Drew Wiley
20-Dec-2018, 13:28
Bob, split printing is among my many tools as well. My typical methodology in the darkroom is to try the simplest approach first, at least on a test strip, or even make a full nice print, allow it to fully dry, evaluate it with fresh eyes, and then, if necessary, strategize the way forward. Sometimes I get prints I love right on the first round. But often I'll slightly undertone them, because they can always be additionally toned, if not spotted and mounted; but toners cannot be removed if overdone. I also keep available a complex suite or rather specialized skills, including all kinds of maksing options, which can be wholly supplementary to split printing etc, adding additional visual dimensions. So in my mind it's NEVER one technique versus another, or one ideology versus another - that kind of mentality, which people seem to be squabbling over, doesn't even exist in my own approach - it's always about, what is the best strategy for this particular scene; what is the best printing strategy for this particular negative or chrome. Or I might print the same image in several different ways, and like them all, yet for different reasons. If necessary, I'll jump
through all kinds of hoops to get a precise kind of look, or gestalt, or subtle metaphysical message in a print - the kind of highly nuanced qualities utterly impossible to convey over the web.

aaronnate
20-Dec-2018, 14:32
Thanks Steve. I found it interesting and informative. If I were a new comer looking to print on VC paper this would be quite useful indeed. As someone who has been messing with LF cameras for about 20 years I am somewhat set within my ways. That does not mean I have not bookmarked the page for later review and study. Someday I may get back into a darkroom.

sanking
20-Dec-2018, 16:28
I've said this before in a public forum, I consider Bob Carnie to be one of the 5 best printers in the world, I'm sure in part due to client negatives all over the map, I've seen negs and resulting prints he's made from those clients !! Not many in his league. Me on the other hand, I'm not that printer, so I had to become a great negative maker to produce those same high-level prints. I'm merely passing on my roadmap to the promise land.

Happy Holidays and to all a Good Night !!

That is a very accurate post. Bob Carnie is an outstanding silver gelatin printer, and is also doing some very interesting work with alternative printing.

And Steve is a great negative maker. His procedure is very creative, as can be easily demonstrated with good sensitometry. But I think he would be better served with explaining what he does with basic photographic sensitometry, rather than through the limited focus of Zone parlance. Fortunately, Steve is also a great printer as well.

My best wishes to both of these gentlemen in their work. They are both a great credit to artistic photography.

Sandy

Greg
20-Dec-2018, 17:35
its too bad people in these photography forums just argue incessently
about whose process or gear is better or worse and the stuff that doesn't really matter.
in the end its not the process or gear that matters ...
there is no such thing as perfection, there is no such thing as the perfect camera
and there is no such thing as the perfect process ... its the print that matters
not much else.

Harry Casimir de Rham once wrote me:

"Remember the ironic fact that the perfection which can be drawn from within the depths of a human being can never be found in a machine."

Drew Wiley
20-Dec-2018, 17:49
A camera is a machine. It is technology. At one point, discovering the colorant value of red oxide clay or carbon black, and smearing it on cave walls, was a technological breakthrough in the evolution of art. Without that, we'd never have some greatest masterpieces of the last 40,000 years. But this thread is not about gear at all. It's mostly about applied sensitometry at heart. But even there, there are far more ways than one to skin a cat, and quite a few superb printmakers over the years who strongly differed in personal methodology. At least none of us have engaged in drunken sword duels yet over artistic quibbles, like some of the great early Impressionists did (luckily, too drunken to inflict mortal damage on one another).

Pere Casals
21-Dec-2018, 06:21
It's mostly about applied sensitometry at heart.

Yes... some film calibrations would show the impact from the compensation.

But here we have (I guess) an additional effect from the pyro process:

I'd say that there is an effect from the pyro stain in the paper behaviour. The (yellowish) stain selectively blocks more the blue than the green, the higher the density the higher the stain, so less blue. This ends in highlights being printed with a practical higher contrast grade because the dense areas are blocking more blue and green is more dominant. So the costrast grade shifts from the shadows, throught the mids and into the highlights.

So if we want paper calibrations perhaps we may need to make a contact copy of the Stouffer wedge on pyro developed film, and using those densities to plot the paper calibration curves.

jnantz
21-Dec-2018, 07:12
Harry Casimir de Rham once wrote me:

"Remember the ironic fact that the perfection which can be drawn from within the depths of a human being can never be found in a machine."

it is ironic that is for sure, especially since perfection doesn't exist in human beings :)
==
please don't get me wrong ... i've no problem with seeking perfection or being a technical master/wizard, a magic process or using exquisite cameras or lenses &c
but i think sometimes there is too much of the how and often times not enough of the what... and to this hack, the what is more important
than the rest. not to say it isn't fun to brag about or have conversations about the how, its the magic thread that sometimes
links people together but i get bored quick and my eyes roll back into my head when i get together with people
and photos are exchanged and passed around and looked at and the photographs are all puppies and unicorns and rainbows
and the only thing discussed is the long arduous path taken, the shaman met in the dessert ( and it was usually flan )
and the magic formula used to separate the unicorn's horn from the background... to be honest, i'd rather look at another
nude at slot canyon or better yet the phantom at slot canyon... LOL
=
bob when you reach the perfect print i look foward to seeing it ! i'm guessing both you and it will be levitating ! ;)

bob carnie
21-Dec-2018, 07:19
Hi John I think that is not possible to make perfection, Printed images like Migrant Mother are close, they are strong enough to change the world.

tgtaylor
21-Dec-2018, 09:31
Migrant Mother was staged:


I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it.I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it. Emphasis added.


Thomas

bob carnie
21-Dec-2018, 09:37
Staged please elaborate in your own words how you see this as a staged image. I do not agree with you but open to hear what you have to say about this.

jnantz
21-Dec-2018, 09:49
Hi John I think that is not possible to make perfection, Printed images like Migrant Mother are close, they are strong enough to change the world.

i know exactly what you mean !

tgtaylor
21-Dec-2018, 09:51
I wasn't there. I'm just quoting what the photographer herself wrote about it. Staging is a common practice among photojournalists.

Thomas

faberryman
21-Dec-2018, 09:54
I wasn't there. I'm just quoting what the photographer herself wrote about it. Staging is a common practice among photojournalists.
"Staged" was your choice of words. I don't think what Dorothea Lange described way staging.

Tin Can
21-Dec-2018, 09:54
It doesn't matter if Migrant Mother was staged.

IDC

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/roadshow/stories/articles/2014/4/14/migrant-mother-dorothea-lange/

bob carnie
21-Dec-2018, 09:57
I wasn't there. I'm just quoting what the photographer herself wrote about it. Staging is a common practice among photojournalists.

Thomas

Lame

Pere Casals
21-Dec-2018, 10:23
What is clear is that 82 years later any modern photojournalist would be very hard pressed if wanting that quality for his work with his ultimate gear + Ps.

Image depth is atonishing, the shadings are perfect and OOF work is simply awesome, before starting to consider the image content itself.

Drew Wiley
21-Dec-2018, 11:40
Dorothea lived up the hill here. I was there once, though she was no longer alive; and I think it was her second husband I met. I know one member of the family quite well. One merely has to look at her extensive body of work to understand she had a remarkable quality of visualization, semi-posed or not. The woman in question is still alive, and no longer poor, and has been interviewed. The substantial photography collection of the local Oakland Musuem considers the work of Dorothea to be their crown jewels, though they also have substantial amounts of Carleton Watkins, Muybridge, AA, and various well known early color photographers operating in Calif at one time or another. I'm not a journalistic photographer by any means, but that doesn't stop me from admiring the genre, or appreciating why their methodology is so different from mine. The tools appropriate to them are not appropriate to me, and visa versa. Just two nights ago there was a PBS news segment featuring a couple who had previously been very successful, as single individuals, as journalistic news and magazine photographers based in NYC, but burnt out and moved to rural West Texas and embedded themselves for several decades in multiple segments of the local population, which was quite segregated at that time, earned the trust of each demographic compartment, and produced a substantial body of handheld wide-angle lens black-and-white work, still ongoing. The husband is around 94 and the wife, 82. I was quite impressed, but don't recall their specific names.

jnantz
21-Dec-2018, 13:33
>shruggs<<
EVERY portrait is staged and manipulated just like every other kind of photograph.
Still it doesn't really change the fact that it is a great photograph and really says "1000" words ... maybe even "10,000" ...

aaronnate
21-Dec-2018, 14:01
Migrant Mother was staged:

Thomas

So? Is that supposed to cheapen the image or the print or in some way negate what Bob said?

Tin Can
21-Dec-2018, 14:14
All the world’s a stage,


And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages. At first the infant,
Mewling and puking in the nurse’s arms;
And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school. And then the lover,
Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad
Made to his mistress’ eyebrow. Then a soldier,
Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard,
Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel,
Seeking the bubble reputation
Even in the cannon’s mouth. And then the justice,
In fair round belly with good capon lin’d,
With eyes severe and beard of formal cut,
Full of wise saws and modern instances;
And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts
Into the lean and slipper’d pantaloon,
With spectacles on nose and pouch on side;
His youthful hose, well sav’d, a world too wide
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice,
Turning again toward childish treble, pipes
And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion;
Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.

Drew Wiley
21-Dec-2018, 18:00
Dorothea printed her own work early on, but might have later used skilled assistance from the late Rondal Partridge, who was also once AA's darkroom assistant, and was still making platinum prints until around age 92. "Posing" or not is really not the issue. These kinds of photographers first had to earn the trust of such subjects, and sometimes make them comfortable rather quickly as they traveled around. The people being photographed certainly weren't proud to be poor, even though it was due to circumstances beyond their control, or of looking poor, or having their loss of dignity broadcast. Dorothea earned a reputation for being a rude stalker when roving town around here, slamming her camera in someone's face; but she could be highly sensitive and empathic when the subject warranted it. But this involved frank obvious use of the camera - not like some paparazzi hiding in the woods with a long telephoto.

Bill Burk
21-Dec-2018, 22:27
She has a couple prints up on eBay right now. About $2,500 each. Must have fallen on hard times.

Drew Wiley
22-Dec-2018, 18:06
"She" doesn't have anything on eBay right now. She died long ago. Her main body of work is in museums; and the best known part of it was under Federal sponsorship to begin with, so they have certain claims. And now the clan is having a hard time figuring out what to do with Rondal's work (these families were interrelated through marriage, not just craft); the mostly likely local museum is already over-stuffed.

tgtaylor
23-Dec-2018, 10:25
Unlike Migrant Mother, White Angel Breadline wasn't staged and it is unlikely that the photographer realized its significance because it was discovered undeveloped in a film holder by another apparently honest photographer who developed it, realized its importance, and gave it to Lange. Like Ansel Adams, arguably the best photographer among that group, famously said: If you get one good one a month you're doing good.”

Thomas

Fred L
23-Dec-2018, 14:38
this is the couple Drew was referring to. found this on FB recently

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-these-photographers-used-a-camera-to-tell-stories-of-rural-america?fbclid=IwAR3KBPPH_bz1iCPE6pR9baoXFpZBG5hDMvP5xkk9qKB2AFE-JG18H2Ia6Cg

Drew Wiley
23-Dec-2018, 16:31
Yes, thank you for linking that.

Tin Can
23-Dec-2018, 17:02
Yes Fred, very interesting!

Rick Rycroft
23-Dec-2018, 20:07
I wasn't there. I'm just quoting what the photographer herself wrote about it. Staging is a common practice among photojournalists.

Thomas

Common practice? Prove it.
I'm a photojournalist and I rarely see the staging you say is common.

Rick

Drew Wiley
23-Dec-2018, 21:15
The auspices under which these kinds of photos were taken encouraged some kind of artistic input. It was documentary; but it was also expected to have a high degree of visual impact, and only already notable photographers or artists were chosen for the program. Dorothea L. was married at first to Maynard Dixon, a very successful local painter of Western genre, so was already connected to an inner circle, so to speak. The Fed didn't pay a lot, but it did keep select artists funded doing work of public interest, just like many young men were supported during the Great Depression building park facilities, trails, and roads. I had an aunt who was one the key muralists for the program; and nearly all that work is either protected now by the National Historic Register or in museums. Photographers at that time reached the public at large mainly through publication in magazines or later books. The prints involved were therefore primarily intended for reproduction, not necessarily as fine art object in themselves for museum walls etc. But some of them were indeed quite important as the kind of documentation crucial to brining public attention to the blight of the Dust Bowl or the harsh treatment these "Oakies" as exploited farm labor afterwards. The key photographers understood that to draw attention, they pictures themselves had to be both graphically and emotionally moving. Of course, any number of such images might have been subsequently reprinted to their personal visual expectations afterwards. Dorothea seems to have apparently thought of herself as an artist who became a documentarian rather than the other way around. And it might be that a degree of hardheaded competition with M.Dixon in that respect was one of the reasons for the friction between them that finally lead to their breakup. But you can form your own opinion. A couple of recent feature documentaries about Dorothea by PBS are superb, both in terms of describing her career and her significant emotional contradictions and complexities. But if I might be allowed an attempt to salvage the original topic of this thread in relation to this particular individual, some might think that as a documentary photographer she just went around snapshooting willy-nilly without much thought about technical control. I highly doubt it. She ran in the same circle as Weston, AA (even had the same assistant), and probably knew all about the Zone System before most of us were even born, even if it might not have been her personal sensitometric ideology.

jnantz
24-Dec-2018, 11:41
Common practice? Prove it.
I'm a photojournalist and I rarely see the staging you say is common.

Rick

hi rick

sorry to sound argumentative but i've done photojournalism too
and i guess it depends what you consider the word "staged" to mean ...
because as far as i have been able to figure out, every photograph is staged
and / or manipulated. and these days every one thinks they are on their own truman show !
that isn't to say this woman in the photograph was a "sympathy actor" brought in from broadway
but she was told where to sit and how to have her kids around her. just like taking a portrait of a
CEO of some corp.. " please stand here, put your hands on the chair, and we will take 2 shots one of you looking
at the camera straight on smiling, and the other also smiling and looking at me in the million dollar table's reflection"

best wishes for the new year !
john

Jim Fitzgerald
24-Dec-2018, 15:56
Steve, thanks for this contribution to the community. Fellow photographers can read it and learn something, agree or disagree. We all have our ways that work for us. I always keep an open mind and I am wiling to learn from others. I've seen Bob Carne's prints and he is a master printer and knows his craft as is Steve I'm sure. I look forward to seeing his prints in person. How we get to our end result with whatever method is up to us. If it satisfies us then I feel we have succeeded. We have a wealth of information here from some knowledgeable people. Enjoy that this info from all is out there to help us all learn. If we stop learning we are nothing.

Enjoy the holidays and by all means keep printing!!