Ansel Adams (New) Basic Photo Series

[Dr Bellows]

Hi all,
Can anyone shed any light on the differences between the "Basic Photo" edition of "The Negative" (1948) versus "The New Ansel Adams Photography Series" edition of same (1981 and another in 1995?)? I and my local libraries have the oldest version.

[Darin Boville]

I think the 1980s version is much more readable...I recommend them highly...

--Darin

[neil poulsen]

I have both sets. I would agree, the latter is more readable. It was written with the help of an editor. It was probably also upgraded to be current at that time. For example, he doesn't include as much discussion on older lenses in the 80's series. He refers to his 1 Degree Pentax spot meter in the 80's series, versus his 1/2 degree comparison meter (whatever it was). Etc.

The 80's edition is masterful. It's a great resource to which I've often referred. I also liked the discussion on filters in the older Natural Light book 4. I liked book 1 of the older series on Camera and Lens, which is the first of all the books that I read.

If you only have one set, the 80's versions is the one to have. But, I like having both sets.

[Stephen Benskin]

It's definitely an interesting comparison. More for a historical perspective and for the progression of the concept of the Zone System. One thing that struck me was how in 1948 people were still dealing with a number of different film rating systems probably because they still used older equipment. I also found it interesting that Adams seemed to have been inspired by the Weston exposure designation points on their meters. Another is how Adams was rather anti-sensitometry which is weird because the ZS is basically a simplified version. Below are some quotes that I found interesting.

P 10
While of utmost importance to the chemist, physicist, and manufacturer, sensitometry in its usual aspect does not concern the practicing photographer. But it is of real importance that the photographer be aware of the practical basis of sensitometry, and that he posses a concept of the relationship between exposure and density which will be of use to him in his work.

P 16
A surface of average tonality – such as the middle step of tone of a full scale glossy print – would have a reflectivity of about 15% and relates to Zone V of the exposure scale. Of course, the actual brightness of this gray tone would depend on the intensity of the light falling upon it. But we are concerned here with proportionate values of tone.

P 51

The concept of gamma is difficult to apply, for the following reasons:
1. As a considerable proportion of the negative values may lie on the toe or on the shoulder sections of the curve as well as on the straight-line section, gamma has little actual meaning in regard to the full scale of values in the negatives. Gamma can be determined only from the straight-line section of a true sensitometric curve.
2. Since for lenses of different construction the brightness range of the image from the lens will vary in relation to the range of the brightnesses of the subject, an arbitrary constant gamma is obviously difficult to realize. Considering the contrast of a fully coated lens as 1, an uncoated 8-surface lens may yield an image of 1/3 to 1/5 contrast of the coated lens. Of course, in practical work this contrast factor depends on the proportion of high to low brightnesses of the subject.
3. As the subjective values of perception and visualization of the final print involve a flexible control of exposure and development, gamma is a limited attempt at a utilitarian expression of values and relationships in the image.
Hence, is it not more logical to leave gamma to the sensitometrist and manufacturer, and to think of negative development in terms of a simpler symbol? X minutes at Y degrees temperature would represent “normal” with consideration for the photographer’s concept, lens, film, film developer, methods of printing and enlarging, and the paper used.

“7 minutes at 68 degrees F in Ansco 47 Isopan represents “normal” to me. I have no idea what the actual effective gamma is, nor do I care. I could consider this degree of development as yielding Gamma – 1.0 or being Development No. 9 or Operation H, or any other symbol I choose. But why should I inject an unnecessary and confusing sybol for a perfectly simple statement of procedure?

[AJ Edmondson]

My interpretation was that AA was not "anti-sensitometry" but was more concerned with practical results rather than absolute control. Having been down both the "Zone System" and "Beyond the Zone System" paths I came to the conclusion that the Zone System approach worked better for me (admittedly not everyone will share this sentiment) despite the technological superiority of BZTS with the computer aids.
I also agree with Neil that the later versions are indeed more readable and also the "Natural Light" was extremely useful in understanding the effect of filters in shadowed areas.