View Full Version : Zone system is...?
What do you think about philosophy of the zone system?
How do you use zone system or similar approaches?
Do you honestly only use zone system for ensuring that your pre-visualized print will be easy to print?
Or do you fell to the pool of groving masses which uses zone system only as an tool for handling different contrasts?
How often you found yourself measuring a scenery/subject with a spotmeter and thinking if the readings suits for your previsualization?
When you see a majastetic valley from the hill, is your first thought that I wan't to capture this! Or is it that "wow! This is beautiful. What if I could get print where those shadows are so dark that I don't see any texture in them and still that beatifully lighted area is very bright with full textures?"
How do I use zone system?
To me it is heavily a tool that I use with pre-visualization.
I learned that approach first from Adams's books, then in the times when I had to survive without a densitometer, I learned empirical approach.
In that approach the developing times were calibrated by examining final print tones and when I got developing and printing time that gave good tones from 0 to X, that was my N development. The 0 was pure black, X was paper white, the V matched a Kodak gray card when compared each other.
Ofcourse this was really precise only with one paper, enlarger and paper developer, but it teached me to approach negative from the pre-visualization. As this kind of system allowed printing of my exact pre-visualization with using always same paper, grade and printing time, it was like a photographing with a slide film; What you exposured was what you got (in the limits of precision so the actually calibrated value gave good proof print).
Later, when I got familiar with BTZS and sensitometry, I was wondering where all the pre-visualization has lost? I learned to use a spotmeter as an densitometer, begun to draw graphs... But I was too much with my original approach so I could not adapt the 0-IX scale instead of 0-X so the knowledge I got from practicing BTZS turned to the basics of my current zone system usage.
After I had slowly abandoned pure BTZS approach, I begun to learn Adams's original zone system with a sensitometry. Since then, I have used densitometer (now I have real one) for measuring charasteristic curves, calibrating my developing times.. But not more precise than usual guidelines for densities (1.25 - 1.35 for VIII with diffuser).
What I do is to put effort to the pre-visualization. I always think carefully what I see and how. How would I draw this scene if I would be using charcoal? Would I interrept this shadow as black or dark with texture?
How with the highlights?
I always write exposure notes about scenery, my thoughts and feelings. And my ideas how I visualize the final print and if the exposure is difficult, then I wrote it also down so that I know to give special developing or I know immediately when begun to printing that this negative has shadows that need to be dodged, ...
Not forgetting that notebooks also works a kind of diary :)
percepts
1-Jul-2009, 03:59
I think you miss the point completely. It is just a simple methodology for getting really good exposure of negative by removing risk of over or under exposure and at the same time ensuring everything is in printable range. You are deluding yourself if you think that means you automatically get a fantastic print as a result. It just gives a good base point from where the real work of printing begins.
I think you miss the point completely. It is just a simple methodology for getting really good exposure of negative by removing risk of over or under exposure and at the same time ensuring everything is in printable range. You are deluding yourself if you think that means you automatically get a fantastic print as a result. It just gives a good base point from where the real work of printing begins.
No, I am not expecting spectacular or fantastic prints. It's just a tool which helps a lot for getting print that I have planned (visualized) before exposing the negative.
As far as I have learned zone system, the point has been the visualization, not getting everything in to the printable range.
I let highlights blow up if I see them that way, shadows pure black if I see them that way at the moment of taking photograph.
How many stops latitude I need for particular photograph, that's something I never think about. I just measure whether all necessary tones fell to decited places after I have put initial zone value to somewhere on scale. If they don't fell where I wan't them to be, then comes expansions and contractions.. And other tools.
For example, usually photographers goes for less contrasty film/developer combo at clear winter days. When I look at my notes, I see that in many cases I have used N+2 at clear winter days to get really bright snows and deep shadows. The scenery like I saw it when took a photograph.
Ofcourse there's a caveat. If I later change my opinion, the negative probably doesn't have enough information for printing a totally different version. But so far it has worked for me, almost twenty years already and still no problems.
Eric Biggerstaff
1-Jul-2009, 07:21
you should of added a selection of "All the above", I use it for everything you list.
neil poulsen
1-Jul-2009, 08:34
In my view, trying to manipulate contrast by only using VC paper grades just doesn't cut it. No amount of paper contrast manipulation can fill the gap, if one doesn't have a properly exposed AND DEVELOPED negative.
Depending on the print, people will sometimes exclaim, "What great printing!" But, that misses the point. Printing is important; but the foundation is in the negative.
I love these religious polls where every answer pertains to one and the same denomination...
[x] I am a zonal atheist and prefer to rot in incident hell.
Jerry Bodine
1-Jul-2009, 09:05
What Neil said.
Perhaps adding a poll was a bad idea.
I would like to get some food for thoughts and discussion about usage of zone system and similar methods in your work.
It should be not be religious. I am not a zone system religious. It's a good tool to my use in the way I currently use it. But that is only my most LF work and about half of my MF work.
As I take a lot of photograph that doesn't need frame work like a zone system, I use also build in exposure automatic, sunny-sixteen, ...
Whatever method one uses, the density on the negative must make it possible to achieve the tonal values we visualize for the print. Adams and Picker developed the Zone System because Adams was asked to teach and realized that he had no methodology to describe how he did things. This violated his experience of learning music, for which he had been exposed to a well-defined teaching methodology. So, first and foremost, it's a teaching tool used to show new photographers how to achieve their visualization of a final print.
As most here know, what Adams mostly wanted to pass along was the notion that a photographer should be able to see the final print, and then manipulate their craft to achieve it. His example was the 1927 image of the Half Dome, where he described his realization that the sky needed to be nearly black to convey its stark contrast to the white snow and convey the true grandeur of the massif. He switched to a red filter to achieve that and printed accordingly. That was something like a dozen or more years before the Zone System came along, as I recall. Thus, the visualization was the objective, and the Zone System became the strategy.
So, when I approach a scene, the first thing I do is visualize the final print. Then, I measure values in the scene to see if their relationships match my visualization. If they don't, then I have to do something tactical--filtration, exposure manipulation, dodging or burning in, graduated neutral density filters--whatever. Once the values in the scene match my visualization, I need an exposure that will make it possible to render those values.
I do not think it is necessary for a person to be religious on this topic. Getting from measured values in the scene to specific densities in the print is not a matter of faith. Any method that works predictably is good. Those who measure the average of the scene and hope for the best (which is, for example, what incident measurement does) are the ones depending on faith. For low-contrast situations, it will usually work--it's easier to add contrast when printing than to remove it, though with a loss of smoothness in the gradation. But for high-contrast scenes where either highlights or shadows must be sacrificed, a decision must be made as to which sacrifice to make. That seems to me an artistic decision made not on faith but as a result of measurement and technique. The Zone System is one approach to doing that.
Rick "who can't think about exposure without thinking about zones" Denney
I don't use the zone system at all.
Eric Biggerstaff
1-Jul-2009, 09:50
Rick,
The Zone System was developed by Adams and Fred Archer, not Adams and Picker.
SamReeves
1-Jul-2009, 09:51
I halfway cheat. I use the system as a determination for a starting point on development. Reading density, plotting N, and N-1. After that I never worry about plotting the Z-III and Z-VIII in the photograph. I just look at the lighting outside, then say it's an N-1 day or an N day.
kev curry
1-Jul-2009, 10:42
I don't use the zone system at all.
Hi Brad, just out of genuine interest what sort of exposure/dev method do you use?
Rick,
The Zone System was developed by Adams and Fred Archer, not Adams and Picker.
Sheesh. Picker was a later explainer, according to Wikipedia. Don't know why I forgot Archer. Memory is the second thing that goes...
But I rather disagree with the notion in the Wiki article that Adams's early explanations are at fault for misunderstandings about the Zone System. I read a number of descriptions of it by subsequent explainers, and never really grasped the simplicity of it. Then, I read The Negative and it all became transparent. Maybe that was a later version of that book that benefited from professional editing. Or maybe I was just ready to understand it. But I think lots of folk get caught up in densitometry measurements and so on and miss the fundamental process of placing tones (and then seeing where other tones fall) to achieve a visualization.
Of course it's not necessary. Paul Strand made his beautiful photos without even the benefit of a light meter, as I recall reading somewhere. But I wonder how many plates and negatives of his were ruined by improper exposure before he figured it all out.
Rick "who has used everything from the Zone System with a 1-degree meter to Sunny 16" Denney
Hi Brad, just out of genuine interest what sort of exposure/dev method do you use?
Exposure:
Normally, I'll make an incident reading or three and choose one that is kinda in the middle.
When shooting 320TXP in the Crown Graphic hand held, I'll often just eye up the shadow cast by a tree and decide whether it is an f/11 day , an f/8 day, an f/5.6 day or a don't waste film day.
Development:
Kodak 320TXP, in D-76 (1+1) 7-1/2 minutes or so... with continuous rotational agitation. (straight from the Kodak data sheet)
I used to shoot FP4+ too but have not in a while so do not remember the numbers off the top of my head.
Helcio J Tagliolatto
1-Jul-2009, 13:40
Of course it's not necessary. Paul Strand made his beautiful photos without even the benefit of a light meter, as I recall reading somewhere. But I wonder how many plates and negatives of his were ruined by improper exposure before he figured it all out.
Rick "who has used everything from the Zone System with a 1-degree meter to Sunny 16" Denney
So did Sudek.
ZS is a must to do scientific photographic work, but not for art.
ZS is a must to do scientific photographic work, but not for art.
When I put a tuba in my lap and check my pitch against an electronic tuner, I'm not conducting science. I'm also not conducting science when I repeatedly practice a difficult bit of music using an electronic metronome. I'm making sure that my technical performance will not limit my artistic objectives. (It doesn't work, but that's another story.)
If my guess exposure, however well-founded in experience, leaves half the scene outside the sensitivity range of the film, then no amount of purposeful art will be served by the result. The result may be acceptable, and even beautiful, but it won't necessarily be what I visualized. Getting an acceptable result without visualization is to me a faith-based process. Working through a process to predictably achieve what I visualize does not make that visualization any more or less artistic.
The Zone System is an approach by which the desired result can be attained through analysis rather than only through experience.
But there is nothing about the Zone System or any other method that invalidates results achieved without it. The results speak (or not) for themselves.
Rick "noting many examples of scientific methods used in pursuit of art" Denney
Gem Singer
1-Jul-2009, 15:21
The main premise of the Zone System is: "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights".
The system was designed to teach photo students how to get the most out of B&W film.
If the information was not on the film, it could not be created on the print.
That was before Photoshop.
Rick,
The Zone System was developed by Adams and Fred Archer, not Adams and Picker.
i was under the impression that the zone system or something
like it, but called something else
was devised in the 1800s, and adams and archer just improved upon
what was already known and being used.
Darin Boville
1-Jul-2009, 18:21
I've always wondered whether Adams thought that people's obsession with the Zone System was a little over the top. As Adams has said, it is just a straight forward processes derived directly from basic principles.
I'm not sure it is so much an invention or discovery as an organized way of thinking about exposure and development as a single process.
I sometimes see mention of the Zone System as a major part of the foundation of Adams' achievement (such as one of the web entries on the current San Diego exhibit). I think he achieved far more than that.
--Darin
Helcio J Tagliolatto
1-Jul-2009, 19:17
When I put a tuba in my lap and check my pitch against an electronic tuner, I'm not conducting science. I'm also not conducting science when I repeatedly practice a difficult bit of music using an electronic metronome. I'm making sure that my technical performance will not limit my artistic objectives. (It doesn't work, but that's another story.)
If my guess exposure, however well-founded in experience, leaves half the scene outside the sensitivity range of the film, then no amount of purposeful art will be served by the result. The result may be acceptable, and even beautiful, but it won't necessarily be what I visualized. Getting an acceptable result without visualization is to me a faith-based process. Working through a process to predictably achieve what I visualize does not make that visualization any more or less artistic.
The Zone System is an approach by which the desired result can be attained through analysis rather than only through experience.
But there is nothing about the Zone System or any other method that invalidates results achieved without it. The results speak (or not) for themselves.
Rick "noting many examples of scientific methods used in pursuit of art" Denney
Rick,
I agree. Photography is science, craft and art. If you do the "scientific part" well, the process will be much more predictable.
But visual art is a process of surprising the viewer, and the most of the images from the Master (and creator) of the ZS do little this way. (It's not a matter of taste, since I deep appreciate Adams' work).
I think the deliberate use of ZS does little or nothing to the final impact of a picture.
Helcio
Merg Ross
1-Jul-2009, 20:43
Any mention of the Zone System brings to mind the wonderful historical writings of Ira Latour. He writes on many photographic subjects, including the Zone System, with factual documentation.
I have known Ira for over fifty years, and have joined him in his efforts to separate fact from fiction. As he approaches 90, he has lived a lot of the history. I will link his website.
http://www.iralatour.com/writings.cfm?action=show&id=8
Jim Fitzgerald
1-Jul-2009, 20:49
Merg, thanks for the link. This is what I would call cutting to the chase!
Jim
Robert Budding
1-Jul-2009, 20:55
Rick,
I agree. Photography is science, craft and art. If you do the "scientific part" well, the process will be much more predictable.
But visual art is a process of surprising the viewer, and the most of the images from the Master (and creator) of the ZS do little this way. (It's not a matter of taste, since I deep appreciate Adams' work).
I think the deliberate use of ZS does little or nothing to the final impact of a picture.
Helcio
It's more likely that the artist will surprise himself if he lacks control his medium.
But visual art is a process of surprising the viewer, and the most of the images from the Master (and creator) of the ZS do little this way. (It's not a matter of taste, since I deep appreciate Adams' work).
I think the deliberate use of ZS does little or nothing to the final impact of a picture.
Two points come to mind. One is that impact is an effect on the viewer, not an effect of the art. It says as much about the viewer as it does about the art, if not more. While Adams's work may not surprise you, it astonishes me. I am all the more astonished by how difficult I have found it to reproduce what he did, even when putting my tripod in his holes and attempting exactly the same images.
I could say the same about, say, Rembrandt. There is little about Michelangelo that surprises me, but I'm still astonished by the power of his work.
The Zone System is not an art producer. It's a technique. I once asked my tuba teacher which was more important, technique or musicality. His response: "Yes." Great technique cannot make music, but lack of technique can certainly undermine it.
The second point is that any surprise in Adams's photographs must be measured against the experience of people in the time he made them. He did not attempt to use photography as a means of recording social status or current events, which was the common application of photography then as now. He did not attempt to imitate other non-photographic styles as was common in the day. His subject was the natural scene--the same subject loved and portrayed by countless artists throughout the ages. But he portrayed the natural scene in a uniquely photographic way, staying true to purely photographic rendering. It is not surprising today, but it certainly was in the 1930's, particularly considering his subjects, which were places rarely or never seen in any representation by a large number of viewers.
We may think of his photos as cliche now, but we might as well think of Beethoven's music as cliche, as if Beethoven is to be blamed for the fact that we hear it too often and it loses its fresh power for us. When we allow that, we forget that Beethoven rocked the musical world--people stopped their ears when they first heard the Eroica Symphony. As Beethoven defined Romantic music, Adams established a new school of photography, and as much as any American established photography as a bona fide art form. Surprise was not necessary, but people were still surprised.
This strikes at a dichotomy that I see (from my layman's perspective) throughout art. Adams saw in his mind's eye what he wanted his final print to look like. That goes against the modern-art grain, where artists eschew such determinism. Pollack certainly didn't know how shaking leaky paint cans over a canvas would turn out, and not only did he not visualize the result, but he specifically opposed the value of such visualizations as being a contrivance. His stochastic faith opposed determinism. When Cage sat in front of a piano for four and a half minutes (plus three seconds), he was leaving the audience with their own internal music. Not only did he have no control over the musical result, he had no knowledge of it. That loss of control was his objective--he was a musical anarchist. Once might respect that opinion and even agree with it (which I happen not to) without insisting that it define all art or undermine the value of any particular technique just because it's traditional.
I can listen to Bach, about whose music we probably know 99.999% of all that we will ever know, and still be transported. It is not surprising--I have the score in front of me and know every note. But it astonishes me nevertheless how such familiar forms (at least familiar to us in hindsight) can still be so compelling.
Rick "it's not just a matter of taste" Denney
sun of sand
1-Jul-2009, 22:36
"Pollack certainly didn't know how shaking leaky paint cans over a canvas would turn out"
If pollock didn't have a vision of how a something was going to turn out than anyone could produce those paintings of his
That's certainly false
He had to have a sense of how the paints were or were not working together
Whether his visualization was 10 hours before paint or immediately before -as in while- painting/tossing
doesn't matter
Are you saying he was a monkey? Why would he even look at the canvas? He could have worked blindfolded or behind his back. Actually, he probably could have.
If because he did something gesturally, quickly
without any noticable planning means he did not visualize a result
would be like saying each and every time we sign our names it's a matter of luck we have inked anything legible at all
Look at your hand when you autograph something and tell me it's different from how pollock appeared to toss skeins of paint "uncontrollably"
Prove it to me
I believe photography is an art
It's not science or anything else
It's art
It doesn't matter if your highlights are blown. That's all nonsense.
Athletics are not dependent on systems.
Neither is art
You can shoot a ball with one hand, two hands and even granny style
Put in in the hoop and that's all that matters.
Tiger Woods wouldn't be a hacker if he didn't have video feedback
It's about putting club on ball
Numerous ways to do it and all can work just as well
Zone System is just one way suited to one "aesthetic"
Are you saying he was a monkey?
No. But his purpose was not to achieve any particular "look". His purpose was to achieve NO particular look. He apparently believed in the concept of randomness.
He didn't actually shake the cans himself, by the way. He hung them on ropes from frames, and then shook the frames, often with dozens of cans hanging from them. In some cases, he attached those frames to machines. He was doing exactly the same thing John Cage was doing with music with 4:33--he was expecting the viewer to bring the art out of their own consciousness by presenting them with art devoid of form.
This was all rooted in a philosophy of random chance rather than in a philosophy of deterministic order. Imposing order was the exact opposite of what he was trying to do. He was not interested in whether the paints "came together".
Yes, it was gestural, but not the sort of gesture that I learned when studying art. Our gestures were supposed to spontaneous, yes, but also purposeful and directed. His were intentionally devoid of direction.
Even so, he was still concerned with technique. He didn't "blow his highlights". Though the visual effect was random and without intentional form, the fact that it was random and without form was intentional, and he explored techniques to achieve greater randomness and formlessness.
I get your point about just putting the club on the ball, though I think the analogy inapt. The point is to further the motive force driving the work, and any worry about mere technique that inhibits that detracts from that force. Fine. But for most artists, that force is not incompatible with technique. In fact, some beautiful art is made as an expression of technique. Why did Rembrandt paint his canvasses with a wash of a complementary color? Because it was an expression of technique that would support the look he wanted--the glow which defines his work--by giving the final color depth that white gesso would not provide. Why did Beethoven arrange his symphonies in the Sonata form? Why did Bach alternate between suspension and resolution? These are all questions of technique, but in each case that technique supported the artistic agenda.
In the case of Pollack and Cage, the agenda was to have no agenda, and the technique was one of having no technique. At least that's how it seems to me when I view or listen to it. What they intend is meaningless--what they express is their statement on the matter.
Yes, the Zone System, like all techniques, is oriented to a particular aesthetic. A hammer is a tool used to drive a nail. You don't need a hammer if you oppose the use of nails. But if you do use nails, driving them with a screwdriver is likely to undermine the result.
Rick "for whom anarchy is not the answer" Denney
sun of sand
2-Jul-2009, 00:16
No. But his purpose was not to achieve any particular "look". His purpose was to achieve NO particular look. He apparently believed in the concept of randomness.
How do you know this? If he wasn't going for any particular look aren't you saying he was going for ANY look
Apparently? How can you know one thing but not the other
You know the purpose of his art but not his beliefs which would create the art
I'm not sure I'd characterize his art as random paint
He didn't actually shake the cans himself, by the way. He hung them on ropes from frames, and then shook the frames, often with dozens of cans hanging from them. In some cases, he attached those frames to machines. He was doing exactly the same thing John Cage was doing with music with 4:33--he was expecting the viewer to bring the art out of their own consciousness by presenting them with art devoid of form.
He didn't only shake cans of paint. I'm no Pollock expert but he seems to have used pretty much anything that would give varying suitable to his tastes lines blobs and flows
This was all rooted in a philosophy of random chance rather than in a philosophy of deterministic order. Imposing order was the exact opposite of what he was trying to do. He was not interested in whether the paints "came together".
Prove this. Now you do know his philosophy?
Random chance is monkeys on typewriters again. Are you saying he simply put paint on canvas with no care as to where?
Came together as in lines and forms coming together in accord with how he was seeing or visualizing the artwork as it being created
instead of a preconceived visual he had a continual editing which amounts to continual visualization .. a final balancing of original concepts ..or however you could say it
Many masterpieces were edited during creation to achieve the right "look"
No different
Many golf swings are edited during the swing to give the right "feel" that is known to produce the desired end shot
Yes, it was gestural, but not the sort of gesture that I learned when studying art. Our gestures were supposed to spontaneous, yes, but also purposeful and directed. His were intentionally devoid of direction.
What does it matter his method not being the one you're used to? Different language same meaning. This is monkeys again.
His paint was NOT directed in any way? That's absurd. If it wasn't directed it would be a bucket of paint tossed over the head blindfolded from 25 yards where only one bucket landed on canvas for every 10 thrown
That's nondirectional and random
Even so, he was still concerned with technique. He didn't "blow his highlights". Though the visual effect was random and without intentional form, the fact that it was random and without form was intentional, and he explored techniques to achieve greater randomness and formlessness.
Don't believe it. He painted thousands and picked a few he thought were outstanding?
monkeys on typewriters. This sounds like you're doing all you can to avoid giving him credit for being able to control AT ALL where that paint landed
I've exampled how one can achieve the greatest randomness ..why would he mess around with such contraptions?
I get your point about just putting the club on the ball, though I think the analogy inapt. The point is to further the motive force driving the work, and any worry about mere technique that inhibits that detracts from that force. Fine. But for most artists, that force is not incompatible with technique. In fact, some beautiful art is made as an expression of technique. Why did Rembrandt paint his canvasses with a wash of a complementary color? Because it was an expression of technique that would support the look he wanted--the glow which defines his work--by giving the final color depth that white gesso would not provide. Why did Beethoven arrange his symphonies in the Sonata form? Why did Bach alternate between suspension and resolution? These are all questions of technique, but in each case that technique supported the artistic agenda.
Isn't technique art -not distinct from it
That technique of overwash was in the beginning just art...doodled experiment that became technique because it worked. The look wanted overrides techique which produces it because the desired look creates the techique.
There are some awful golf swings that in the end work. They work because they've been worked to the point they get what they want out of it
There are horrible exposures of film that in the end work because they work the print till they get what they need out of it
Sometimes a golfer gives up distance another with a better swing wouldn't but if the bad swing golfer picks up something on the better swing golfer it all works out
Sometimes in poker a guy may win because he's a good bluffer or very aggressive
Sometimes though the patient player will lure the bluffer into a bad raise and make up for all the "bad" folds he's committed
In fact, some beautiful art is made as an expression of technique.
Please, show me an example. I personally don't think art works that way. I've heard this before and just don't believe it
To me -coming from an athletic background that's akin to saying a center fielder can make up for his bobbled catch by his dazzling sprint to the ball ... having a chance at making a play no other could
For me, you gotta catch the ball.
In the case of Pollack and Cage, the agenda was to have no agenda, and the technique was one of having no technique. At least that's how it seems to me when I view or listen to it. What they intend is meaningless--what they express is their statement on the matter.
"To me" "to me" "to most"
isn't this opinion? "Is" ? You have a mix of opinion and fact that is confusing me
You're saying not only was pollock a monkey but he was a monkey bent on mocking art?
Matter=art? Meaningless=their statement on art?
Yes, the Zone System, like all techniques, is oriented to a particular aesthetic. A hammer is a tool used to drive a nail. You don't need a hammer if you oppose the use of nails. But if you do use nails, driving them with a screwdriver is likely to undermine the result.
Likely? What is that? A hammer is a perfected through time tool. That's like saying the rock on the end of the arm cupped in hand was crap ..but how could it be crap if it led to the perfection of a tool now known as a hammer
I'd say patience with any tool will do as good a job as the perfected for task hammer
Or you could work quickly and accept a less than stellar rate of success
Either way the shelter will be built and I'd bet it would last just as long
I don't believe egyptians were anarchists. Are you saying the egyptian would be an one today if decided to use his methods for building to the exclusion of our distinctly modern ways?
A parking garage just collapsed
I havent heard of a pyramid collapsing in a while
Rick "for whom anarchy is not the answer" Denney
Helcio J Tagliolatto
2-Jul-2009, 05:59
Any mention of the Zone System brings to mind the wonderful historical writings of Ira Latour. He writes on many photographic subjects, including the Zone System, with factual documentation.
I have known Ira for over fifty years, and have joined him in his efforts to separate fact from fiction. As he approaches 90, he has lived a lot of the history. I will link his website.
http://www.iralatour.com/writings.cfm?action=show&id=8
Excellent. Thank you very much.
Helcio J Tagliolatto
2-Jul-2009, 06:38
The second point is that any surprise in Adams's photographs must be measured against the experience of people in the time he made them.
No Rick. I remember the very first time I had a book of Adam's picture on my hands (I think it was 1969). I was so excited I couldn't sleep. I was surprised, by the definition os surprise in art that Picasso stated. And it was a long time since Adams had made them.
We may think of his photos as cliche now, but we might as well think of Beethoven's music as cliche, as if Beethoven is to be blamed for the fact that we hear it too often and it loses its fresh power for us.
Beethoven has never surprised me, except for the Grand Fugue (please, no offenses here :) I much prefer the more complex orchestral works of Schoenberg, Villa-Lobos and Richard Strauss)
I can listen to Bach, about whose music we probably know 99.999% of all that we will ever know, and still be transported. It is not surprising--I have the score in front of me and know every note. But it astonishes me nevertheless how such familiar forms (at least familiar to us in hindsight) can still be so compelling.
Bach has always suprised me!
Hélcio
Wallace_Billingham
2-Jul-2009, 07:53
I know the zone system very well, but it is just one approach of many that at the end of the day will get you a good exposure.
One of Ansels most famous works "Moonrise Hernandez" was shot on a single sheet of film with an exposure that he guessed by knowing how bright the moon was. Which of course was exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows fall as they may. That is totally against what the Zone system is all about.
In my work which is 99% B&W landscapes with very long exposures my main concern is keeping the highlights contained and that is what I aim for. My thoughts are how long can I stretch out the exposure without blowing the highlights
Brian Ellis
2-Jul-2009, 08:52
. . . It doesn't matter if your highlights are blown. That's all nonsense.
If you didn't want the highlights blown then it matters a whole lot.
One of Ansels most famous works "Moonrise Hernandez" was shot on a single sheet of film with an exposure that he guessed by knowing how bright the moon was. Which of course was exposing for the highlights and letting the shadows fall as they may. That is totally against what the Zone system is all about.
Of course, he also complained about how difficult it was to print it, and he intensified the bottom foreground portion of the negative in chromium intensifier in an attempt to make it more printable. That doesn't undermine its value as art, of course.
Adams himself complained that describing what art means in words is ultimately a waste of time, and we've probably managed to prove that again in this thread. Let's just conclude that all artists depend on technique to the extent that it supports their artistic vision, and ignore it when it detracts from that vision. To say any given technique is rubbish outside the context of the artistic vision is an over-generalization. To say that it is the only way is probably even worse. It's a tool, and tools have their uses.
Rick "letting the art speak for itself" Denney
sun of sand
2-Jul-2009, 18:59
If you didn't want the highlights blown then it matters a whole lot.
Sure
I didn't say anything about that, though
I'm just saying art is art and nobody can say that a photo with blown highlights is automatically a lesser photograph than one with all available tones on the paper
Not even when the all tones on paper photograph is itself a masterpiece
sun of sand
2-Jul-2009, 19:15
Let's just conclude that all artists depend on technique to the extent that it supports their artistic vision
This is where I always have an issue
I just don't get it
"Technique" in this sense sounds like something you learn ..asin from a book
"Technique" is never natural
Someones technique -no quotes- is their way of doing something through their natural progression of learning how to do that thing
To say "depend on" and then "ignore" is my issue here
If some athlete tells you how they hit a ball
this is their technique
There is nothing in their technique that can be ignored if they are to play up to their standards
Everything about the way they do it is technique ..even in abnormal circumstances where normal default technique has to be altered to suit the change
That's not ignoring some aspect ..it's just very complicated and malleable
Their vision is created by the technique that brings it about
I don't think there is any way of getting around this
A ballplayer doesn't carry around a bag of tools that belongs to someone else and when in need goes fishing for one
You have your bag and that's it. You can steal a tool -often done- but before putting it to use you yourself have to practice with it before you will ever get anything out of it
In the end it is your tool. Your technique. Just because you have 100 tools at your disposal doesn't mean that if you don't need the hammer for a certain job that you've "ignored" part of your technique
"Technique" in this sense sounds like something you learn ..asin from a book
"Technique" is never natural
Someones technique -no quotes- is their way of doing something through their natural progression of learning how to do that thing
To say "depend on" and then "ignore" is my issue here
I'm using "technique" in the sense that musicians use it--the ability to articulate as needed, play the desired pitch, get the desired tone and the desired dynamic. It's their technical skill. There are lots of players who never read about technique or took a class on it but still have it. But I can't think of any musicians who have great technique who didn't spend hours, days, and years learning it, however they understood it to begin with, just for the sake of having command of it. And musicians who have poor technique can't express their musical thoughts, because their lack of control over articulation, dynamics, pitch, and tone get in the way of the story they wish to tell.
The great musicians don't, however, confuse technique with music, and perhaps that's your point. A musician with great technique may have nothing to say with that technique, and the music will fall flat in musical terms. But if the musician has no technique, then the great musical concept that may be floating around in his head won't find expression.
Maybe a particular photograph is no less artful for having blown highlights. I can see where some photographs are enhanced by blown highlights, and can conceive of photographs where it just doesn't matter. But I can also conceive of photographs whose story is sufficiently connected to the gradation of the highlights that it does indeed matter. In fact, since tone is our only tool for portraying form, color, and texture, I rather think that connection will be there most of the time.
It's worthwhile for any photographer to try to understand (in the context of their own vision) what about a photograph draws people in rather than turning them away. I agree that often we give much too much credit to the role of flawless technique in doing so. But just as Rubenstein practiced his legato on the piano for years so that he could form his phrases without the crutch of the pedal, so we too practice our technique of achieving the tonality we desire to empower ourselves to tell whatever story we choose to tell.
Rick "who has seen more than a few cloud studies with most of the clouds blown to nothing" Denney
There are lot of good aspects in this discussion.
I am with Rick opinions and when photographing seriously, I just can't be thinking of zones and how I will 'visualize' final print.
Somewhere, perhaps visualization thread, was interesting link to Paul Butzis's article where he tested variable contrast vs. expansion and contraction (http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm). The result was bit suprise, if it can be generalized, then there is no real need for other than say, N-2, N+1, N+2 developments. If I only would had known that during times when I used 6x6 camera a lot, I would used probably only three, even two film backs instead of five! That's much in space and weight.
Have to admit that still after reading that, I will prefer full contrast adjustment during develpoment when using LF. It just feels so good when you know that you and even anyone else will get somewhat good proof print of the original visualization when printing negative at grade 2.
That is a good thing. Kinda standard.
It is also true that you can 'visualize' final print without using a zone system with zonal tones, only by using zone system or some other contrast control method to ensure that important shadows and highlight are recorded to the negative, then just do rest on the darkroom and rely on the notebook to get original idea of print. And if not using traditional silver gelating papers but scanner + printer instead, then it's way more easier.
My approach is perhaps some kind of philosophy. Originating from days I first learned to use zone system. In the way which probably was based on the Minor Whites writings (don't know, haven't read Whites's book).
Perhaps I am more - can I say concerned(?) - about lousy usage of term zone system. One says that he/she uses zone system when doesn't care of tonal values during/before exposure. Only caring of total contrast range.
The another says that he/she uses zone system and does precise zone placement before/during exposure.
But how can reader (or listener) know the difference, because both cases refers to the zone system?
For controlling only contrast, there are way easier approaches than zone system. One that I have come across several times is Rob Gray's method, which he explains in the PDF document that lies around the net: http://www.robgray.com/giftshop/freestuff/pdf/exp_cont.pdf (as far as I know, he has gone for digital long time ago).
Sorry about my bad english :(
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.