Black and White Development
mtp...@my-deja.com
prints for several years. I do not find many of them to be technically
close to what I had imagined. My main problem is that the prints I
make seem to lack the subtle tonality that really makes them stand out
(like many of the prints by Ansel Adams, but I have seen the effect on
35mm film prints also).
I'm not sure whether the development of the film is sub par of whether
it is the print. I think a combination of both is the culprit. I
mostly use kodak black and white. I folllow the black and white times
for film pretty much to the letter. For prints, I usually develop for
3 mins in whatever the standard developer is (I forget the name,
sorry). Any idea what I might be doing that is lacking this extra
detail in the midtones mostly to bring my prints one step closer to
perfection? Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bruce William Johnson
to the letter, actually he wrote a whole new letter, The Zone System. With
the Zone System you shoot and process the film for every photograph
according to the amount of contrast that you need to get desired results
from a specific scene. I wish I could help more but my best suggestion is
to buy a book on the Zone System ( Ansel Adams - The Negative - for example
) or look up information on the web. The Zone System pretty much requires
that you have a spot meter and it requires a lot of testing before you will
get what you are looking for.
Good luck and have fun.
Bruce W. Johnson
Jaykhill
You were not kindding when you said open-ended.
The easiest way to achieve the effect you are looking for with 35 mm film,
in my experience is to rate your film at 1/2 the ASA, then develop in a film
developer favoring low-and middle tones., while not overdeveloping the
highlights. Use a compensating or semi-compensating film developer like D-23
(my favorite), Rodinal 1:75 or 1:85, Edwal FG-7, or HC-110 1:50 from
concentate.
Then print with a diffusion light source.
In over forty years in the darkroom, I think the majority of negatives are
underexposed, and improperly developed, for good shadow and mid-tone density
and separation.
BTW, I most often use AGFA 25, nowadays, but also had acceptable results
as you describe with Ilford FP-4 and Tri-X.
The problem is that most film developers work most efficiently in the
highlight areas, the areas of your negative most suceptible to development
action, but which have the least need for development.
As a result, the negative is hard to print properly. Try it and let me know
your results.
John Cahill, Mt. Vernon, vA U.S.A.
Tom Raymondson
throwing a lot of prints in the trash but coming up with a few that I am
truly proud of, I found that the one factor that made the most difference
was the size of the negative. When I made my first prints from a borrowed
Yashica-Mat I was amazed at the detail and the "subtle tonality". Now I
shoot all of my b&w with a Fuji 6x7 rangefinder and I reserve the EOS for
color snapshots.
Rod Fleming
First thing, look at your negs. FWIW I personally tend to rate mono film
lower than the manufacturer recommends by 1 stop; roll film I dev in ID-11,
a variant of D76, and sheet film in either ID-ll or PMK Pyro, though I also
use Rodinal and Microphen from time to time. Personally I aim for an easy
print on grade 1 paper, though you have to be careful with this approach
sometimes. But that's a matter of taste. It is enough that your negs will
easily give a straight print on grades 1 through 3 (it might not be the
"ideal" print of that neg- but if you can't get a straight print of an
average subject to look at least reasonable on grade 1-3, you have other
problems to deal with before you get to the art).
Reproductions of "good" negs in halftone are really deceiving, but-
you should have adequate shadow detail with no "empty" areas- no clear film
please
You should have adequate highlight detail with no "blocking", with only the
specular highlights approaching the Dmax of the film
you should have a well-separated range of tones in between.
Once you have a good neg, the trick is more than half done- the finesse of
darkroom technique is to bring out the best in it- if you're having to use
all your wiles just to get an "acceptable" print, then you're going to
struggle. (People often turn their noses up at newspaper photogs- but until
you've had to print from negs of a professional boxing match featuring two
large men of African lineage, taken ringside looking up into the light, I
tell you sirree you ain't had to print!)
Use the most forgiving materials you can. Although T-grain films are very
good indeed, they are more demanding, and I would recommend using either FP4
or Plus-X in ID-11/D76 to start. Once you are getting prints that you're
happy with, by all means start using other films and exploit different
qualities. But for now, stick to the basics, stick to the easy stuff.
If you're happy as Larry with the negs, then it's down to printing
technique. Printing technique is very very difficult to learn "from a book"-
best thing would be to get onto a workshop or a nightclass or something, or
even join a camera club. In times gone by photographers were trained to be
good mono printers as they learned the trade, but this has passed by the
wayside now, unfortunately, so finding people to give expert help is getting
more and more difficult.
FWIW the most common printing faults I've seen are: too dark; not enough
contrast;excessively contrasty. If you are happy that you've got all that
right, and you just lack a certain final something, then experiment with
different brands of paper and also with toning- selenium is great for giving
a print a very subtle "edge".
Rod
<mtp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8iuuu6$d94$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> This is ultra-open ended. I've been developing my own black and white
> prints for several years. I do not find many of them to be technically
> close to what I had imagined. My main problem is that the prints I
> make seem to lack the subtle tonality that really makes them stand out
> (like many of the prints by Ansel Adams, but I have seen the effect on
> 35mm film prints also).
> I'm not sure whether the development of the film is sub par of whether
> it is the print. I think a combination of both is the culprit. I
> mostly use kodak black and white. I folllow the black and white times
> for film pretty much to the letter. For prints, I usually develop for
> 3 mins in whatever the standard developer is (I forget the name,
> sorry). Any idea what I might be doing that is lacking this extra
> detail in the midtones mostly to bring my prints one step closer to
> perfection? Thanks.
>
>
mtp...@my-deja.com
wished. I guess that's what you get for posting at 3AM after working
on writing 3D rendering code for 4 hours. Oh well. Anyway. I
understand the zone system. It know how it takes advantage of the
relation of exposure to development for each negative. This does not
work as well in 35mm since you develop the whole roll under the same
condidions. Since I am in college and do not have the finances to
upgrade to medium format or get new lenses (though I may get the Nikon
50mm 1.4 (opinions on that idea also welcome)). What I am looking for
are peoples ideas on what films/exposures/chemicals/development seem to
work better in most cases for bringing out the tonality. Thanks for
the comments I've already seen.
Mel1wood1
>Subject: Black and White Development
>From: mtp...@my-deja.com
>Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 06:09:17 GMT
>
>This is ultra-open ended. I've been developing my own black and white
>prints for several years. I do not find many of them to be technically
>close to what I had imagined. My main problem is that the prints I
>make seem to lack the subtle tonality that really makes them stand out
>(like many of the prints by Ansel Adams, but I have seen the effect on
>35mm film prints also).
>I'm not sure whether the development of the film is sub par of whether
>it is the print. I think a combination of both is the culprit. I
>mostly use kodak black and white. I folllow the black and white times
>for film pretty much to the letter. For prints, I usually develop for
>3 mins in whatever the standard developer is (I forget the name,
>sorry). Any idea what I might be doing that is lacking this extra
>detail in the midtones mostly to bring my prints one step closer to
>perfection? Thanks.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
Start at the beginning, tha'st with exposure, there are many books on
this alone. However Ibelieve I have found an abbreviated way of doing this.
Select your favorite film and developer, select a scence that will offer you a
"normal" range ... Then set your ISO numbers for each photo to differ by say at
least 1/3 to 1/4 stop KEEP GOOD NOTES... process it in you regular way. Then
make a contact sheet. The most
desirable frame is an excellent starting place for your ISO.
Then remember to increase development if the contrast in the scence is low
and
and decrease development time if it is higher. This you have to play with.
Without a good negative, to make a good print is just too much work!
Select your favorite paper until you are sure of all of it's
characteristics, know (very difficult) which paper contrast, or contrast filter
to use for YOUR particular intrepretation of the scence. A difussion enlarger
is ok initially, but you will never get good "crisp" Blacks and whites from it,
a condenser head enlarger has it's problems too (dust is one) but is really the
way to go. I own both enlargers and will decide how I want o go with the
printing, and that determines the selection of which enlarger I will use.
mel
z
The easiest route to making photographic materials do what you
want them to is Repeatability. Pick a film, (most people will
suggest Tri-X, and I agree), buy it in hundred-foot rolls and
shoot, shoot, shoot. Pick a developer, (most people would not
suggest T-Max RS, but I do), and test, test, test. Stay away
from tap water except for washing. Tap water is almost always
chemically different every day. Remember, repeatability
counts. Most bottled water is OK, but I think distilled is
better.
Ideally, use an incedent meter, (or indecent meter if you're
shooting girls) and shoot a lot. We used to say film is cheap,
but that's not the case any more. Even so, the more you shoot,
the more you'll learn what works. Photography is not brain
surgery. Anybody can learn it. Like anything else, it just
takes practice. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Print, print, print.
Good thing it's fun to do.
For now, (maybe forever) forget the Zone System. Before anyone
jumps all over me, the ZS is a superb method of doing
photography for those whose temperament is disposed to it. For
the rest of us, all it does is take something that's fun and
make it into work. The fun of photography is like pizza: When
it's good, it's very, very good; When it's bad, it's still
pretty good. Have a good time with photography. Do a lot of
it. Correct one mistake at a time. Nobody starts out as an
expert. The results you want will come with practice. Nobody
can teach you beyond which chemical to pour where. You'll learn
it by doing it.
This is, as I said purely my opinion, but I can tell you I've
done photography for a living for twenty years, and I've had a
blast every day.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
stu
> jumps all over me, the ZS is a superb method of doing
> photography for those whose temperament is disposed to it.
i say, Mr. Z, do you use a bastardized version of the Zone System? it
seems that a few of photographers (me included) go along with the idea
that the ZS is useful for doing this type of thing;
you're shooting a portrait...
so you meter off the subject's face, assuming she (heh) has white skin,
you think: "what do i want it to look like?" and then overexpose by a
stop or two, or whatever you want it too look like...
that's Zone System Appropriation 101, folks.
Or do you just take a light reading as it is and use that? with no ZS
fuckin' about?
:)
Stu.
--------------------------------------------
anything stated in the above text is nothing
more than an opinion, unless declared a fact,
so fucking well treat them as OPINIONS. :)
-------------------------------------------
Mark Bau
> From: mel1...@aol.com (Mel1wood1)
> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
> Date: 23 Jun 2000 20:00:34 GMT
> Subject: Re: Black and White Development
>
> A difussion enlarger
> is ok initially, but you will never get good "crisp" Blacks and whites from
> it,
Really? better tell that to Ansel Adams, John Sexton, Howard Bond et al.
Film exposure and development is pretty simple really, just be sure to give
the film plenty of exposure and be careful not to overdevelop.
Mark
MT
>
> This is ultra-open ended. I've been developing my own black and white
> prints for several years. I do not find many of them to be technically
> close to what I had imagined. My main problem is that the prints I
> make seem to lack the subtle tonality that really makes them stand out
> (like many of the prints by Ansel Adams, but I have seen the effect on
> 35mm film prints also).
I'm not quite sure just what effect you're going for. You might take a
look at "The Master Photographer's Lith Printing Course : A Definitive
Guide to Creative Lith Printing" by Tim Rudman and see if it gets you
closer to what you had in mind: .
Matt T.
Francis A. Miniter
I sense from what you say that the problem is probably not getting extra
detail in the midtones but LESS detail, in other words, higher contrast.
Take one of the prints that you are frustrated with and, if it was printed
with Grade 2 paper, or with a #2 filter on variable contrast paper, then
try grade 3 or 4 (or #3 or #4 filters). Midtones do not stand out when
they are cramped together. They need to be spread apart.
As an amateur printer, I have often taken two prints into my office,
identical except for the level of contrast. Almost invariably, the people
I work with prefer the one which is more contrasty.
Francis A. Miniter
mtp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> This is ultra-open ended. I've been developing my own black and white
> prints for several years. I do not find many of them to be technically
> close to what I had imagined. My main problem is that the prints I
> make seem to lack the subtle tonality that really makes them stand out
> (like many of the prints by Ansel Adams, but I have seen the effect on
> 35mm film prints also).
jjame...@my-deja.com
MT <tule...@nspm.home.com> wrote:
> mtp...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > This is ultra-open ended. I've been developing my own black and
white
> > prints for several years. I do not find many of them to be
technically
> > close to what I had imagined. My main problem is that the prints I
> > make seem to lack the subtle tonality that really makes them stand
out
> > (like many of the prints by Ansel Adams, but I have seen the effect
on
> > 35mm film prints also).
>
> look at "The Master Photographer's Lith Printing Course : A Definitive
> Guide to Creative Lith Printing" by Tim Rudman and see if it gets you
> closer to what you had in mind: .
>
> Matt T.
great photographs. It takes film, chems, and a lot of paper and printing
time. You can try to learn it from books like I did for a long time but
my suggestion is to find either a mentor that is a good printer or join
a camera club where the emphasis is on printing. Or like most people end
up doing, go to a jr college or even high school night classes and take
photography courses. We on the net can answer specific questions pretty
competently but we can't give you a whole course on printing. There are
just too many variables involved. Whatever route you take will involve
calibrating your system. Learn to calibrate your film's speed to your
cameras metering system and the type of images you take. Whatever ISO it
takes to get a good black with detail where you want detail and a good
developing time to give your highlights separation where there should be
separation. It is the single most important thing you can do to start on
the road to photographic competency. Many photographers use 35mm and use
it very effectively making masterful prints. But a great image
and print transcends format size. And the Zone System is nothing more
than a system to help you expose film properly. It ain't rocket science
and is very easy to learn. It says the same thing any other exposure
system says. "Expose for the shadows and develope for the highlights."
The people who say it is a crappy system and too hard don't know their
ass from a hole in the ground anyway so ignore them. Stick to one film.
Stick to one developer. And go to school. It is the easiest approach.
James
z
so you meter off the subject's face, assuming she (heh) has
white skin, you think: "what do i want it to look like?" and
then overexpose by a stop or two, or whatever you want it too
look like... "
Guilty as charged. That's EXACTLY what I do. I feel much
better now.
My suggestion to the young man stands, however.
z
and understanding the ZS and actually "practicing" the ZS are
nowhere near the same thing. Making intellegent decisions about
shadow and highlight exposure is not difficult to learn or to
do. Spending untold hours testing all those exposure and
development posibilities smacks of something that might grow
hair on our palms or make us go blind. Even if you just did
it 'till you need glasses, you still might not have time to do
all the tests.
As I said, it's a superb system for those with the right
temperament. For someone who enjoys the benefits of, say,
rollfilm, and who thinks of his negatives as something other
than densitometer food, there are less daunting ways to learn.
If you dig it, do it. This is just an opinion and, like some
other things, everybody has one. My wife suggests that, while I
may not always be right, I am never in doubt.
z
where there was only Tri-x and D-76, there would be a hundred
guys doing it a hundred different ways, and most of them would
be making pretty good photographs, and they'd have a lot in
common as well.
I know guys who LIVE the ZS, and wouldn't consider doing
anything else. They have a great time with it and I admire
their work. I also know guys who will put out their cigarettes
in the mouth of the developer bottle, then run a roll of film in
it, timed by glancing at their Timex. Some of these guys do
great stuff. Gene Smith was an example. The point is, no
thoughtful photographer can say, "This is THE WAY." He knows
better. There's LOTS of ways, and most of them work. There's
always something to learn. It never gets old. There's always a
challenge.
Not so with color. Where b/w is challenging and fun, color is
easy and BORING. Elsewhere on this board there's a guy who's
wondering why his color doesn't give him the same satisfaction
his b/w does. I believe the answer is that it never will.
Color just doesn't have the magic. (and there's no Zone System
for it.)
Rod Fleming
<mtp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8j071n$anq$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
What I am looking for
> are peoples ideas on what films/exposures/chemicals/development seem to
> work better in most cases for bringing out the tonality.
Okay, so try Ilford HP5 devved in ID-ll; rate the HP5 at 200 and add a
smidge to the dev time; as for paper, well, how long is a piece of string,
but Ilford's graded Galerie still does the biz for me. Toned in selenium it
has drop-dead gorgeous, intense cool blacks with clear highlights.
Rod
Joshua L. Wein
really the core knowledge you need to really understand Black and White
photography, you even mention testing and knowing your materials. One does
not need to "meter the detailed shadow" and expose to the 1/10th stop and
then time develop based on N +/- 1 etc. to be happy with their photography.
But in my opinion Zone system equals understanding to some degree. With
todays materials like VC paper and films with much higher Dmaxes it becomes
less important than in AA's day.
-Joshua Wein
z <cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:24c2d568...@usw-ex0101-007.remarq.com...
> "you're shooting a portrait...
> so you meter off the subject's face, assuming she (heh) has
> white skin, you think: "what do i want it to look like?" and
> then overexpose by a stop or two, or whatever you want it too
> look like... "
>
> Guilty as charged. That's EXACTLY what I do. I feel much
> better now.
>
> My suggestion to the young man stands, however.
>
Joshua L. Wein
> temperament. For someone who enjoys the benefits of, say,
> rollfilm, and who thinks of his negatives as something other
> than densitometer food, there are less daunting ways to learn.
It's funny that you mentioned that, it was a long time before the negatives
in my binder were mostly shot in the field as I had done so much testing. I
have a huge collection of photographs of the white border of the door
leading to my porch! Although it did cost time and film it was a tremendous
learning experinece, I determined that in XTOL 1:1 at 68 deg TMX should be
shot at Blah, Blah, Blah.... Actually looking back I probably could have
figured that out after looking at my first few rolls. I do measure a few
areas of the scene when using 4x5 to get a general idea of development time
changes so I guess I do use the zone system after all.
-Josh
stu
> has drop-dead gorgeous, intense cool blacks with clear highlights.
how come ilford don't have any info on Galerie on their homepage?
and i can't find anything with search engines... just links to
supposedly fine-(f)art "galeries". hmmm.
mind you, a -graded- paper? sounds pretty useless to me...not much room
for print manipulation. :)
Stu.
Joseph O'Neil
>how come ilford don't have any info on Galerie on their homepage?
>and i can't find anything with search engines... just links to
>supposedly fine-(f)art "galeries". hmmm.
Agreed. i thought for a short while that Ilford maybe had
dropped my overall favourite paper. But not so, it is stille asily
avaialbe, usually by order.
>mind you, a -graded- paper? sounds pretty useless to me...not much room
>for print manipulation. :)
Ah, no so grasshopper, you cannot see the forest for the
trees. :)
Seriously, try a two bath developing setup - one with Dektol
and one with Selectol Soft. I find by choosing one developer or
another you can really change things around on hwo your final print
look. Sometimes I even make a tray up conisting of a mix of both
developers.
the differences are sometimes subtle and do not always show up
well on RC papers, but they are noticeable on Galerie.
joe
Jimfinkle1
>From: jon...@multiboard.com (Joseph O'Neil)
>Date: 6/25/00 10:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <39560fca...@news.multiboard.com>
There is a use for zone system in color photograpy, it's in the meetering to
get a correct exposure. You can Spot Meter the darkest area of the
subject/scene, in color or black & white. Place tis reading on zone three, then
read where the zone five reading is, and set the camera for that reading. Then
shoot the exposure.
Jim
George Sanquist
system. It is a little daunting for a beginner, especially if he or she
do not have access to a good instructor or a college level course which
covers it. However even if a photographers does not use the zone system
in his own work; mastering it will have lasting benefits.
Learning the zone system will give a photographer a greater
understanding of photographic materials than other methods will.
The zone system provides a common language for photographers to talk
about their work. I think this is an underestimated contribution of the
zone system. It is not as good a language as it could be because there
are so many variations in the system and it's nomenclature, but it is
still a valuable communications tool.
Some people have argued that the zone system is less useful with
modern materials than it was in the past. There is some truth that
argument but the zone system remains an excellent foundation for a
photographer who wishes to master his craft.
z wrote:
> You asked for opinions and this is no more or less than that.
> The easiest route to making photographic materials do what you
> want them to is Repeatability. Pick a film, (most people will
> suggest Tri-X, and I agree), buy it in hundred-foot rolls and
> shoot, shoot, shoot. Pick a developer, (most people would not
> suggest T-Max RS, but I do), and test, test, test. Stay away
> from tap water except for washing. Tap water is almost always
> chemically different every day. Remember, repeatability
> counts. Most bottled water is OK, but I think distilled is
> better.
>
> Ideally, use an incedent meter, (or indecent meter if you're
> shooting girls) and shoot a lot. We used to say film is cheap,
> but that's not the case any more. Even so, the more you shoot,
> the more you'll learn what works. Photography is not brain
> surgery. Anybody can learn it. Like anything else, it just
> takes practice. Shoot, shoot, shoot. Print, print, print.
> Good thing it's fun to do.
>
> For now, (maybe forever) forget the Zone System. Before anyone
> jumps all over me, the ZS is a superb method of doing
> photography for those whose temperament is disposed to it. For
> the rest of us, all it does is take something that's fun and
> make it into work. The fun of photography is like pizza: When
> it's good, it's very, very good; When it's bad, it's still
> pretty good. Have a good time with photography. Do a lot of
> it. Correct one mistake at a time. Nobody starts out as an
> expert. The results you want will come with practice. Nobody
> can teach you beyond which chemical to pour where. You'll learn
> it by doing it.
>
> This is, as I said purely my opinion, but I can tell you I've
> done photography for a living for twenty years, and I've had a
> blast every day.
>
Michael A. Covington
> system. It is a little daunting for a beginner, especially if he or she
> do not have access to a good instructor or a college level course which
> covers it. However even if a photographers does not use the zone system
> in his own work; mastering it will have lasting benefits.
Or maybe a simplification of it. At minimum, every photographer needs to
think in terms of three zones -- detailed shadow, midtone, and detailed
highlight -- and to be aware of how exposure works (rather than just "is
there enough light?").
c._downs
wrote:
>With
>todays materials like VC paper and films with much higher Dmaxes it becomes
>less important than in AA's day.
I don't mean this as a flame at all just another hip boot deep ramble.
:o)
What the great new papers and films mean is that it is
easier to get to where AA or EW were 40+ years ago. The real meaning
of more advanced papers and films is that consummate artist have a
higher bar to reach so to speak. We now can explore subjects that
were very hard to do in Ansel's day. Weston often lost his
compositions due to slow film and Ansel had to omit scenes that
couldn't be carried to completion due to lesser quality equipment in
his time! { Uncoated lenses? give me a supermulticoat any day! }
We should be equal at least to AA and hopefully better! { As far as
technique and materials.... Choosing the subject and how to present it
to us was his mastery!} { we've got Ansel's books and Richard, Bob,
Steve, and a host of others to answer questions too! Bet Ansel would
have liked the internet groups instead of relentless testing
.....although I think he might just have had a tec rep or two helping
him at times :o)
With polycontrast paper we can have separate contrast on different
areas of a print today where Ansel would not have had as much leeway.
Any one can have a personal requirement that will allow for less than
the optimum when doing photography. I set up my wife's 35 mm camera to
expose color negative film with a matrix meter so that all she has to
do is press the button and zoom. She is a great subject spotter and
often our trip is best expressed through her eye. If I drop my camera
shooting move behind her camera and keep the same composition I can
almost always choose a better exposure than the camera by using the
zone system. I think most of the folks that are posting are trying for
the "objective best" that can be done in a situation and are searching
for the absolute best answer ... often that may involve compromises or
going another way entirely due to expense or other constraints.Rare to
catch a flying Eagle on 8x10! { but bet it sure would look better! }
Computers are now being used for photography and they absolutely use
every part of the zone system to achieve their results. Exposure range
and adjusting of color or tone is up to the individual entirely.
Computers are an excellent way to learn the zone system as the
controls used exactly mimic the zone system in use. I would bet a
person never having used a camera but well versed in Photoshop or
similar software would be able to use the zone system almost
immediately.
The zone system has become the basics of about all imagery and its
mastery will be necessary just to keep up if you are heading towards
what we define as top quality.
Actually the Zone system is not what drives the image world but the
sensometric data that the zone system describes does. Ansel just gave
us a common language.
Joshua L. Wein
with from a technical standpoint and an artistic/compositional standpoint as
well. At least for me I am much more adept at the former, the latter I find
much harder to achieve. This is where I need help and more education, one
that is not learned easily by books.
-Josh
<C. Downs> wrote in message news:3957332c...@news.mindspring.com...
c._downs
<cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
>Not so with color. Where b/w is challenging and fun, color is
>easy and BORING. Elsewhere on this board there's a guy who's
>wondering why his color doesn't give him the same satisfaction
>his b/w does. I believe the answer is that it never will.
>Color just doesn't have the magic. (and there's no Zone System
>for it.)
What you are refering to is amature level color. Zone system usage for
exposure is normal for top Quality color and the darkroom work can
usually produce at least the different contrast levels that most folks
can get from B&W. Great Color is as challenging as Great B&W.
Check Cole Westons comments on color sometime!
c._downs
wrote:
>This is where I need help and more education, one
>that is not learned easily by books.
You and everybody else!
I think that the only way to improve that end of photography is to
look at all the images you can ....and get into the field as much as
possible. About every 5 years or so I look back and can't imagine what
I was doing before :o) Then 5 years later the same thing happens! :o)
trav...@my-deja.com
mtp...@my-deja.com wrote:
>For prints, I usually develop for
> 3 mins in whatever the standard developer is (I forget the name,
> sorry). Any idea what I might be doing that is lacking this extra
> detail in the midtones mostly to bring my prints one step closer to
> perfection? Thanks.
It sounds as if your overdeveloping your prints. Overdevelopment will
build contrast.
JustusTFirefly
limited exposure window on any type of photographic material. This
window is now a lot wider than it used to be when the Zone System was
first devised. But it's still limited. So: for most part it doesn't
matter if you are not spot on, but you may lose detail at either end if
you are not careful.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
z
usage for exposure is normal for top Quality color and the
darkroom work can usually produce at least the different
contrast levels that most folks can get from B&W. Great Color is
as challenging as Great B&W.
I'm probably going to get in trouble here but, as the hitman in
Pulp Fiction said, "Allow me to retort:"
I hear a note of disdain in your term, "ameteur level" If you
examine the etymology(took me half an hour to look-up the
spelling of that word) of the word "amateur", you will find it
means,someone who does something for the LOVE of it, as opposed
to the "professional" who does the same thing simply for money.
As a pro who's hung out with other pros for many years, I can
tell you there are a LOT more incompetent pros than there are
incompetent amateurs. Of course, the line between them is not
well defined. There are many pros who strive for perfection,
but this effort must necessarily be balanced against the need to
provide for themselves and their families.
Amateurs, on the other hand, are able to focus (sorry) their
entire effort on producing that perfect photograph. The one
they hang on the wall and just enjoy having it stare at them
every day. The one that gives them that quirky little thrill
every time they walk past it. In the world of very high quality
photography, amateurs are where it's at.
Among top quality professionals, the ZS is NOT normal. Polaroid
is normal. Bracketing is normal. Crossing our fingers is
normal.
When you see a news report about some famous photograph selling
for $100K at Sotheby's or Christie's, it's NEVER a color
photograph. There are at least two reasons for this. (1) Color
materials are so unstable nobody knows how long they'll last.
(Yeah I know all about Cibachrome, see reason 2) (2)The other
reason is that nobody's willing to spend that kind of money on a
color photograph, perhaps the ultimate practical determination
of real value.
Contrast: Yes, you can underexpose your E-6 and cook it in the
1st developer and increase the contrast. So what? The color
goes to hell when you push.
Yes, you can control contrast in a color print by using high
contrast paper (like Mitsu or Agfa) and pre-exposing it through
frosted acetate, but again the color goes to hell and it takes
endless tests to get it back to where it belongs. Maybe some
people consider this a challenge. Feels like WORK if you're
doing it every day, and boring work at that. You can also stock
twelve different kinds of paper and yes, they are a little
different from each other, but nothing like the range you can
get with a friendly little set of VC filters.
Try doing radical burning and dodging on a color print and you
will see color shifts you never dreamed of. Yes, you can do
your burns through a magenta filter, but that only works up to a
point, then you're back to endless tests again and the color
still goes to hell.
If you have a way to control contrast, up and down, to the
degree possible with b/w, (5 grades with infinite variation)
please educate me.
Phew! I think I'm done. Sorry. Just don't dis da amateurs,
man.
Ken
>
> Amateurs, on the other hand, are able to focus (sorry) their
> entire effort on producing that perfect photograph. The one
> they hang on the wall and just enjoy having it stare at them
> every day. The one that gives them that quirky little thrill
> every time they walk past it. In the world of very high quality
> photography, amateurs are where it's at.
Great post, Z!!
--
Ken
jrf
>Phew! I think I'm done. Sorry. Just don't dis da amateurs,
>man.
I know the email/newsgroup technique to indicate happiness :^) and
unhappiness :^(
But is there an emoticon to indicate a standing ovation? If not this would
be a good occasion to invent one, wouldn't it.
Pierre Renault
>Among top quality professionals, the ZS is NOT normal. Polaroid
>is normal. Bracketing is normal. Crossing our fingers is
>normal.
To be fair to pros, they rarely have a chance to shoot over, are constantly
presented with jobs they have no prior experience with, they *have* to
perform at the moment instead of whenever the planetary alignement is
copacetic, they have to earn a living, and film is cheap. Plus, sometimes
the lab screws up (and most labs fluctuate 15-20% from day to day), so ya
bracket.
Pierre
z
ranting and raving. Very nice treatment of the FNG.
"(and most labs fluctuate 15-20% from day to day), so ya
bracket."
After getting sick of the labs, I got a very expensive machine
and started doing my own E-6 and C-41. Imagine my chagrin when
I discovered MY E-6 fluctuated worse than theirs. Kept the
machine for C-41, but went back to the labs for E-6. Sigh.
z
If I have offended you, Ms. Niedermayer, please accept my most
humble apology, but the other gentlemen and I have been quite
specific in this discussion. The example you quoted:
"Among top quality professionals, the ZS is NOT normal. Polaroid
is normal. Bracketing is normal. Crossing our fingers is normal."
You may call it mistaken. You may even call it an outright lie,
but it is anything but a generalization.
You're not one of those Zone System nazis are you?
z
Joshua L. Wein
paintings hanging in the MFA (Boston) are incredibly inspiring. Portraits
and landscapes.
-Josh
<C. Downs> wrote in message news:3957cbdf...@news.mindspring.com...
Pam Niedermayer
quality of their work, color/B&W, and on and on. Really can't believe
you guys are wasting bandwidth on this.
Pam
>
> >Among top quality professionals, the ZS is NOT normal. Polaroid
> >is normal. Bracketing is normal. Crossing our fingers is
> >normal.
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
1221 S. Congress Ave., #1225
Austin, TX 78704
512-416-1141
512-416-1440 fax
http://www.pinehill.com
c._downs
<cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
>Phew! I think I'm done. Sorry. Just don't dis da amateurs,
>man.
>
Sorry if I sounded like I was dissing amateurs! My apologies.
But I will say that there is a world of technique that you don't
mention.
That's why folks pay me or others to do exhibition color.
Silver masking usually controls the contrast not development changes.
The highlights are moved from a 1 to 2 stop contrast range to at lease
3 if not four stops in range. This will greatly enhance the internal
contrast of clouds and other higher values. by increasing the
highlight contrast and compressing the wide range of middle tones you
can raise the shadow areas by 1 or 2 f/stops. this greatly improves
the shadow contrast and allows texture in usually black areas. All in
all the useable contrast range is around 8 to 9 stops ....very similar
to B&W. No color shifts are caused by this process and it's been done
for the photographers that need the best since before I started in the
60's. It is common to see silver masked prints either in B&W or color
that have gaudy lines around the image's light and dark boundaries or
strange tones. This is usually poor technique and does not represent
the better printers work . If done correctly you will never see the
masking at all. There are a myriad of other techniques for better
color prints that are commonly practiced to change what you correctly
call boring if not done right. There is nothing new here and there has
been several threads on "Masking" on this NG in the last year or so,
that could be found at Deja.com. ... I believe that my old Kodak
manuals date to the mid 60's or before.
This is not commercial photography - its top of the line quality that
takes time and patience. As far as what commercial quality represents
you better ask the digital printers as they will be the de facto
"Quality Standard" in the days to come. B&W and Color.
As far as so called "Fine Art" and selling prints goes there are at
least two levels.
The very rarest masters like Weston and Adams, or in color, Porter or
more abstract someone like Haas..... You are absolutely right about
B&W selling more at that level -- but remember that they did not have
the color we have today. And there are very few prints sold at that
level each year... not enough to keep very many photographers in
business.
Then there's the rest of us that sell prints. There you have a
problem as right now Color sells at least as well as B&W. It is not a
steady preference market though. In the 60's B&W was the rage with
older artist really racking up as the first real sales of photography
as a fine art were taking place. { even Ansel said that he had not
made any real money at photo art until the early 70's}. In the 70's
color was KING in the art market - Home processed color was in full
swing and even coffee table books were predominately color.. By the
early 80's B&W small prints were the rage with collectors. Contact
prints from 8x10 or larger cameras was the hottest thing going ...
platinum even better but as the time moves on the prints are larger
and more and more color. There are damn few folks that sell through
galleries alone and make a good living. Most folks have to do shows
and exhibitions. I only know the US show circuit. I keep up with shows
in about every corner of the US and recently some of the better prices
for contemporary photography art is in color.-- R.G. Ketchum and even
Galen Rowell are bringing home good prices - Rowell gets about $6000.
apiece for 35mm format smallish prints. I talked to David Muench
recently at a seminar and he and Marc are thinking about more sales of
color prints. Wolfe and Shaw and other folks like Brandenburg sell
more books { all color} than what I imagine the whole B&W market is
together.
As far as the commercial market for images is concerned color is
almost the whole thing { I doubt that B&W is still even 3% }
That leaves only museum and gallery space that still uses B&W images
as a mainstay.
MOMA, Chicago, and many of the top museums regularly feature color
work now. The whole nature photography wing of photography is
dominated by color today. I only know of a handful of photographers
that can get a book published in B&W.
Now none of this is to say that B&W isn't viable today but just that
it is lost in a sea of color much in the way digital is overwhelming
the silver world. There are magazines and other publications that
detail the shows and what each artist sold as well as the disclosed
prices. The collectors, patrons or whatever we call them are getting
pretty "savvy" in their world. They buy for future value as well as
for personal prints for the wall.
In reality B&W and great B&W in particular are very small in the
photo world today and getting smaller day by day.
This is much to my dislike as I have shot B&W for a large part of my
living for 30 years. I often still shoot dozens of 8x10 format B&W
images a week on the average and would say that it is my driving
passion. It's not like I'm dissing B&W.
Art is not medium specific. Color, B&W, Bronze,Painting, Music, etc
... they all have the same ability to show the same qualities of art.
For years I had to listen to the reasons that photography wasn't an
art. Only in the last few years has photography been not only
recognized as an art but "THE" 2D art of the 20th century. It's what
you do with a medium that matters not what the medium is.
..... better make way for some outstanding digital photography in the
future and my bet is that color will somehow be used a little more
than B&W again. For good or bad.
None of this has to do with what the photographers wish any more than
painters can control their market. It is the folks that buy the prints
that determine the mounting styles, medium, and type of image that
sells..... unless you are another A Adams. :o)
Hey at least that my opinion! I don't mean to sound preachy!
c._downs
<cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
> If you
>examine the etymology(took me half an hour to look-up the
>spelling of that word) of the word "amateur", you will find it
>means,someone who does something for the LOVE of it, as opposed
>to the "professional" who does the same thing simply for money.
>As a pro who's hung out with other pros for many years, I can
>tell you there are a LOT more incompetent pros than there are
>incompetent amateurs.
There is just nothing to support this.
Hardly any of the recognized photographers of this century except
maybe Steichen was an amateur. Whether in the news as Eliot Erwitt or
fashion as Snowden or scenic as Ansel almost always the best of the
class is from a professional.
. From Bruce B. to Gene Smith or Ansel to Ed Weston all are what I
would label as pros.
We may be just using different definitions for pros. I am thinking of
professional fine art photographers. Just plain old commercial work is
as you say riddled with mediocrity. Pro or not.
You might well take in a top show or two.
I rarely see really top work done by amateurs and for the life of me I
don't understand what making a living at photography has to do with
the passion you bring to it. How about naming a single amateur that is
really recognized as a master today. Every photographer I know that
has any real recognition is professional , trying to be or at least
writing about it..
I'm not speaking of personal preferences - my favorite shot was done
by an amateur. I'm speaking of work that in 50 or 100 years will be
recognized as exemplifying the highest quality found today. I'm quite
sure that there are several amateurs on this NG that could be equal to
the best if they had the time, money, and drive to do it....but it
takes full time just to keep up and lifelong dedication to really
reach a point at which you are included with the best.
>Among top quality professionals, the ZS is NOT normal. Polaroid
>is normal. Bracketing is normal. Crossing our fingers is
>normal.
>
Sorry but I doubt it! Again I'm not talking about other than fine art
professionals trying to produce the finest image possible.
>When you see a news report about some famous photograph selling
>for $100K at Sotheby's or Christie's, it's NEVER a color
>photograph. There are at least two reasons for this. (1) Color
>materials are so unstable nobody knows how long they'll last.
>(Yeah I know all about Cibachrome, see reason 2) (2)The other
>reason is that nobody's willing to spend that kind of money on a
>color photograph, perhaps the ultimate practical determination
>of real value.
>
You are speaking of only 1/10th of 1%
Here you are buying work of the great "masters" and there is very
little of it to go around.
I'm speaking of the prints that sell from $200 through $10,000
dollars. The guys that are out there now selling their work to
museums, collectors, or just folks that want something for the wall.
Contemporary photographers.
And you go down a shaky road when you try to say what will last.
We as silver photographers are totally left behind by the Evercolor,
Some types od iris prints, or even the new ink jet prints that are
said to be able to last 200 years. This used to be one of the things
that photographers were beat up on all the time so when our medium is
one of the shortest lived in the whole art world better not throw
rocks! We all suffer when real longevity is mentioned.
What do you think one of Edward Westons color prints would bring?
Rarety would have driven the price right up with the rest of his work
if quality didn't. this mimics the reverse of the Sothebys example
with color being worth a great deal. Had they been printed on some of
the modern printing materials they might still be in as good of shape
as his fading B&W images at the Eastman house are. Sadly the B&W won't
be around very much longer either. { yes I do realize that his color
is gone but it was not even close to todays color.}
>Contrast: Yes, you can underexpose your E-6 and cook it in the
>1st developer and increase the contrast. So what? The color
>goes to hell when you push.
>
>Yes, you can control contrast in a color print by using high
>contrast paper (like Mitsu or Agfa) and pre-exposing it through
>frosted acetate, but again the color goes to hell and it takes
>endless tests to get it back to where it belongs. Maybe some
>people consider this a challenge. Feels like WORK if you're
>doing it every day, and boring work at that. You can also stock
>twelve different kinds of paper and yes, they are a little
>different from each other, but nothing like the range you can
>get with a friendly little set of VC filters.
I tried to point out how this is easily done in my first response.
Its by no means as easy as B&W but is not hard when you learn the
basics.
>
>Try doing radical burning and dodging on a color print and you
>will see color shifts you never dreamed of. Yes, you can do
>your burns through a magenta filter, but that only works up to a
>point, then you're back to endless tests again and the color
>still goes to hell.
>
Do it all the time without any trouble at all.
You have to learn to vary the amount of light with out varying the
time. Several techniques will work including a form of masking.
>If you have a way to control contrast, up and down, to the
>degree possible with b/w, (5 grades with infinite variation)
>please educate me.
I'm trying :o)
Color will not cover the range of b&w but then B&W doesn't have
anywhere near the separation of color. Cole Weston put it this way:
suppose you have a green field filled with brown cows....B&W doesn't
quite separate this subject well and color would show great
separation. Different mediums and each has its own qualities.
>Phew! I think I'm done. Sorry. Just don't dis da amateurs,
>man.
Don't mean to dis anyone just point out that there is a bit about
color you are missing.
My opinion as whether I think it's boring or not is of no concern as
what we are talking about is quantitative results verified by
densitometer. Color does have a shorter range than B&W. Fact! but the
whole scene that today represents the best of color is not shot in the
contrasty light. Just as light and its quality make up what looks best
in B&W light makes up what is the best color. Just another style of
lighting.
If you catch Art Wolfe or John Shaw shooting it will usually be in
the early morning when the light ratios are right. .... or maybe in
the moments after a storm. This again is old hat. Color is more about
separation of hues than line and form. It would be very rare that
great color could be produced by someone thinking like a B&W
photographer would and also the reverse is true and maybe even more
so....great B&W is almost never produced by someone thinking of the
scene as a color photographer would. No different in this than in pen
and ink drawing verses pastel chalks or monochrome etchings verses
multicolor stone lithographs. Each medium is on it's own.
Doubt that I have gained any converts but probably feel as strong
about color and the dissing you were giving it as you do about my
stupid comment about amateurs.
c._downs
<cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
>Yeah but....yeah but......OK, you're right, but.....shit
How about calling it a draw as my fingers are worn out from two finger
typing! Although you did catch me at home with the wife out of town
and car in the shop and it's either "talk shop" or clean up the
house!!
Pierre Renault
>"(and most labs fluctuate 15-20% from day to day), so ya
>bracket."
>
>After getting sick of the labs, I got a very expensive machine
>and started doing my own E-6 and C-41. Imagine my chagrin when
>I discovered MY E-6 fluctuated worse than theirs. Kept the
>machine for C-41, but went back to the labs for E-6. Sigh.
At one place, after having worked as a regular printing tech for a few months,
I took over the quality control position.
I spent three or four weeks ironing out all the little problems that had been
caused by the previous guy. I spent the next month or so fine-tuning the E-6
process so that whatever was on the slide would be *exactly* the same as print
(that's ink print - magazines, posters, etc - after colour separation). Through
that process, I developed my "super secret" formula for making a perfect and
rock-stable E-6 process.
The lab's owner had decided to have Kodak check my work. I remember one phone
call when the tech called to check my line. The readout for the various plots
(D-Min, Speed, Colour, D-Max) were read out to him by me, all at 0,0,0.
When I got to the small modification I had developed, after reading the plots
off where one of the colours was slightly off the line, he said "Something
tells me that's intentional". I explained I was doing that for the colour
separations and that my customers liked it. No problem, he replied, you're well
within the control anyway. He then asked me for my D-Max, which ran something
like +15, +20, +40 (there's no upper control limit for D-Max). He asked how I
got such intense blacks. So I explained it to him.
E-6, by the way, is a very easy process. The small modification I had brought
to the process was just to set the colours more to my liking and to give a
better colour rendition at separation.
The small lab I was working in had a very bad reputation for a very long time
and word started getting around that this tiny lab was running a better line
than the two biggies in town. Clients started filtering in (Kodak's top
technical rep even started bringing me his own film for processing). We managed
to steal one of the top advertising flyer accounts in town (at least 250 4x5's
and 50 rolls of 120 a week) from the brother of the account's art director.
I nailed down a solution to a problem that had plagued the EP-2 process for two
years (and was costing it quite a few hundreds of dollars in wasted chemicals
every few months as well as lost sales). I also set the EP-2 process to rock
stability: print techs were surprised to learn that filtration and exposures
for repeat jobs would be exactly the same over the course of months.
I decided to sit down and talk to the boss about my pay. I figured that after
having proved myself over the previous six months and being personally
reponsible for bringing in about a thousand dollars in business, I figured it
was time to ask for a raise (I was making a dollar more an hour than minimum
wage).
It was a very interesting argument that raged over a couple of hours that ended
with me giving my notice of resignation. I figured that for the same pay, I
could probably get a much easier job elsewhere.
Within a few days, I was contacted by one of the two big labs to replace the
slide duping technician, including a fair increase in pay. The job was easy, I
worked maybe 3 or 4 hours a day and I introduced a few new services, including
contrast- and colour-corrected interslides (easy when you understand how the
film works) as well as colour-corrected slide dupes including dodging and
burning at no extra charge. The customers were thrilled, all the jobs were
finished ahead of time, and I managed to read two novels a week at work. With
all the spare time I had, I also started helping out the chief technician with
his work.
The chief tech needed a second assistant and asked our boss for my to fill the
position. He explained that I understood the processes perfectly, that I had
solved a few of his problems and that I was a "fine mechanic" (I had worked as
a factory-trained camera repair technician for 4 years). The boss replied:
"He's doing too good a job in his department, let's use Xxxx instead"... The
head tech took me out for a few beers to let me know that he had asked the boss
to promote me and the result of his intervention.
About a month later, I got called into the boss's office, was gently
reprimanded for tardiness (I had a habit of arriving 5 or 10 minutes after
opening), and was asked to sign a notice of first warning, which I did. I
handed in my resignation at the same time, the boss was shocked. I figured that
if showing up on time was more important than doing good work, maybe it was
time I started looking elsewhere.
That's the way it is in labs. Good technicians quit the profession because it
seems that producing good work is not appreciated (it isn't).
There's one print tech I know who was a Stradivarius of the colour print, a one
in a thousand kind of guy who ended up quitting and dropping the profession
(not before I got him to teach me how to work), disgusted with attitudes
towards quality.
I've heard of another exceptionally talented colour printer who worked at the
same big lab I had quit from, who ended up quitting after having been told to
show up on time (to him, 9:15 AM was the same as 9:00 AM) despite the fact that
he produced three to four times as much work as the other techs. He drifted
away to a small lab, worked there for a year and ended up dropping the
profession entirely, disgusted with the attitude towards quality.
That's how it happens.
It should be fairly easy for a lab with automated equipment to produce very
consistent and high quality work. Problems lie with lab owners (who forget what
exactly a quality control technician's function is in a photolab and don't
appreciate the value of good staff), with most lab techs (who think they know
better than everyone else, including Kodak and Fuji) and with customers (just
read through the various photo newsgroups and count how many people ask about
which lab/film is the cheapest or is this cheap lab just as good as that other
slightly more expensive lab). Kodak (in Canada), for instance, practically only
hires MBA's as salemen, there are currently no sales techs working out of
Montreal (that I know of) with extensive experience in the photo industry
(outside of working at Kodak, that is).
Good quality work, whether E-6, C-41 or print, to a professional photographer,
should be and is worth its weight in gold: it means less reshoots, less trouble
calibrating shoots for colour and contrast, etc. ad nauseam. So why is it so
difficult for labs to produce good quality and to do it day in and day out?
I wish I had a simple explanation for why and what to do to solve this problem
but the upshot is that I'm no longer in the photolab business. Who knows, maybe
I'll get back into it some day, but not before attitudes change.
End of my quiet rant.
Pierre
PS: By the by, the guy who the big lab decided to use as the chief tech's
second assistant instead of me ended up dropping a $60,000 rack destroying it a
few weeks after I left. And both labs, the small one and the big one, are
closed. Small consolation, I guess.
z
thinking of professional fine art photographers. Just plain old
commercial work is as you say riddled with mediocrity. Pro or
not."
We're not only using different definitions, we're living on
different PLANETS. I've never met a "Fine Art Professional".
I've met some people that called themselves "Fine Art
Photographers, and some of them also look down on plain old
commercial work. They would never be professionals, because
nobody can see any reason buy the crap they produce.
" I tried to point out how this is easily done in my first
response. Its by no means as easy as B&W but is not hard when
you learn the basics."
I'm having trouble reconciling the above with:
" ....but it takes full time just to keep up and lifelong
dedication to really reach a point at which you are included
with the best."
The "Fine Art Professionals" you're talking about represent a
VERY small part of the photographic community. I was thinking
more of the MILLIONS of folks who buy the best camera they can
afford. They go down to the camera store and buy the stuff off
the shelf, and they make photographs, a lot of which are very,
very good, They don't send their negatives off to some wizard
for silver-masking or some other voodoo. They don't go to
the "Top" shows. They just take what they've got and make
photographs they like and are proud of, much of the time with
good reason, because they're good photographs, and they had a
great time doing them.
The average monkey has more artistic ability than I do. That's
what they make art directors for. I haven't had three good
artistic ideas in my whole life, but I can take an artist's idea
and make it happen in a photograph. I know there's value in
that because they pay me to do it. I'm not a "recognized
master", but by george I've had a great time doing "plain old
commercial work". And there are MILLIONS of guys just like me.
Perhaps I should re-phrase what I said. Among the photographers
I know, there are many more incompetent pros than there
incompetent amateurs. That's a fact.
I may be showing my ignorance here, but some of
those "Recognized masters", Steichen, for example, produced a
lot of blurry, poorly printed "Masterpieces" for which they
received a lot more credit than they deserved. If Mathew Brady
(or whoever he swindled) could make sharp prints of the civil
war, why couldn't these "masters" do it?
In the world where most of us reside, color printing is, as I
said, easy and boring. B/W is, as I said, challenging and fun.
I'm not knocking what you do. There's obviously a market for
it, and I'll bet your prints would knock my eyes out. I still
wouldn't send my stuff to you because, well, I just get a kick
out of making my own prints. I would never try to do what you
do, because it sounds like WAY more trouble than ordinary color
printing.
Maybe it's just me. I would love to have a John Lingenfelter
motor for my old Camaro, but you know, the one I built for it
still makes me smile every time I fire it up.
Pam Niedermayer
however-you-get-it-to-work-for-you-is-fine types. I just think it's
stupid as sin to try to generalize about the quality of a
photographer's work based on whether s/he is a professional
photographer or not. But if you guys are happy counting the number of
angels on the head of a pin, have at it, I'll just leave for a few
weeks, let me know when you're done. I'll just go play in the darkroom.
Pam
z wrote:
>
> I knew somebody would take a shot, but that one missed.
>
> If I have offended you, Ms. Niedermayer, please accept my most
> humble apology, but the other gentlemen and I have been quite
> specific in this discussion. The example you quoted:
>
> "Among top quality professionals, the ZS is NOT normal. Polaroid
> is normal. Bracketing is normal. Crossing our fingers is normal."
>
> You may call it mistaken. You may even call it an outright lie,
> but it is anything but a generalization.
>
> You're not one of those Zone System nazis are you?
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
--
c._downs
<cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
Chuck:
>" I tried to point out how this is easily done in my first
>response. Its by no means as easy as B&W but is not hard when
>you learn the basics."
>
Z:
> I'm having trouble reconciling the above with:
>
Chuck:
>" ....but it takes full time just to keep up and lifelong
>dedication to really reach a point at which you are included
>with the best."
>
Guess I should have been clearer. My writing skills aren't PRO yet!
:o)
What I mean to say is the there is a level of any art or craft that I
sincerely believe takes all you have to accomplish. You can become
good and even sometimes excellent doing it part time. But again a
personal vision where you carry the mental image you had, in your
minds eye, to the closest place that technique and material allow is
not easy to reach. Every time I think I'm there I see something that
makes me work harder to include the new improvement in my work.
Since I'm not as good at it as Ansel I'll try to quote and paraphrase
him on the subject.
His words: "If I feel something strongly I would make a photograph
the equivalent of what I saw and felt. It's interesting that with a
standard photograph, something shot with an automatic camera you would
get something superficial....it might not have any emotional meaning
at all....it would have what we call scenery quality....and scenery
quality is very different from the natural scene.....or from the
internal scene...it's pompous to say vision, but when I make a
photograph I quite obviously see something in my minds eye that is not
literally there in the true meaning of the word. I'm interested in
expressing something that is built up from within rather than just
extracted from without....."
That inner feeling and the best way to capture it is what I meant by
taking a lifetime to achieve something. It's intertwined together and
both parts are needed to do more than just use a camera to record an
event...no matter how well you record the event. I think that you
learn a technique and then find its' fingers sneaking into the
decisions that you make about how to photograph something.
Without ways to compress the highlights and expand the shadows I
would be lost in the forest areas I shoot. Sure I could just shorten
the development a bit and hold the highlights but the print while
having a wonderful gray scale and pure blacks and whispy whites....
would never express the overwhelming light I feel seeping to the
forest floor. YMMV, but I have needed years of work to learn how to
make a print appear to have light coming from within instead of just
an uninterpreted properly exposed zone system rendering of the scene
in front of me. As an artist{ of _ANY_ quality level } I hope to be
displaying my feelings about a subject and the use of bracketing and
use of Polaroid proofs can only tell me what I can do with an
automatic camera. Bracketing will only get you to the proper exposure
for the standard development you use. It can not guide you to an
understanding of where the shadows need to be placed or why. Does the
midtone area need to be compressed or the highlights held while at the
same time expanding the shadows? Check old Ansels writings and you
will find that this is a constant battle for him at his experience
level. He was often using waterbath techniques to get to the needed
images. "Moonrise" was retoned with sel. toner to increase the low
value's contrast.
To me this extra effort is the difference between shooting good
compositions with a full tonal range.... and producing Fine Art.
Not that you need to produce fine art but that I believe that most
folks are seaking the path that can produce Fine Art if they desire.
There are many levels of photographers in this group and some only
need help with which film is used for slides verses B&W. There are
others that have vast amounts of stored knowledge that always
surprises me to no end. Hopefully it will usually be given in an
objective way.
>The "Fine Art Professionals" you're talking about represent a
>VERY small part of the photographic community. I was thinking
>more of the MILLIONS of folks who buy the best camera they can
>afford. They go down to the camera store and buy the stuff off
>the shelf, and they make photographs, a lot of which are very,
>very good, They don't send their negatives off to some wizard
>for silver-masking or some other voodoo. They don't go to
>the "Top" shows. They just take what they've got and make
>photographs they like and are proud of, much of the time with
>good reason, because they're good photographs, and they had a
>great time doing them.
All true but what does that have to do with whether the zone system,
color, or for that matter any photo technique is valuable or useful as
the posted question implies.
As example there are millions of bike riders out there today. All are
having fun and enjoying themselves immensely I hope. This does not
mean that you would be correct in saying that wind-streamlining or
ultra light bikes are useless or that the folks that go to those
extremes for racing are not just as dedicated and "loving" of their
"biking" as those that only do it for hobby or afternoons pleasure.
Everyone even starting out in Adobe will have to have a good
understanding of the exact same principals as the zone system. You can
ignore it but that would be a personal judgement - not a qualitative
choice on whether the zone system had usefulness as was the original
question of this thread.
Quite the contrary seems to be the driving thread behind this NG. I
read of people not only fully practicing the zone system but carrying
it to the point of homebrew developers and special lenses that have
some real or perceived quality. Minute bits of formulation are
constantly being discussed. L. Format newsgroups are the same way -
the posters seem to be ever on the lookout for any way to express
their own vision with the best tools.
>
>The average monkey has more artistic ability than I do. That's
>what they make art directors for. I haven't had three good
>artistic ideas in my whole life, but I can take an artist's idea
>and make it happen in a photograph. I know there's value in
>that because they pay me to do it. I'm not a "recognized
>master", but by george I've had a great time doing "plain old
>commercial work". And there are MILLIONS of guys just like me.
Throw me right in there with you!
Again here we will differ in part though, as I am trying to answer
someone's question on the relative merits of the zone system in color
or B&W. I'm trying to give info based on what will work better and
with my limited writing skills not come off as some type of "zone
system Nazi".
I've taught pinhole camera courses and think they are great to work
with. As simple as they are the principals of the zone system are in
every part of the experience. The starting point for exposure and
development were worked out by the same math and concepts as the zone
system represents. You don't have to take advantage of anything that
the zone system has to offer. Just use tables and charts worked out by
others but even at the pinhole level just about every thing you choose
to do is covered by the zone system.
Ansel talked about how he was disappointed in the use of the term
"Zone System" as he was afraid that folks would rebel against it not
understanding that it was only the same old sensimetric system used
for years in all walks of photography. It's just a language covering
logs and gammas and exposure values. What you do with it is up to you.
I'm trying to clear up several constant threads about the zone system.
One is that it is used by other names and words to describe each
amount of light and tone. Offset printers use the same thing under
different terms and the whole computer world is completely driven by
the same principals.
I feel it to be a shame that people don't understand that it is just
a language to describe the H&D curves and mathematical logs for
exposure values and how they are used.
If it had been named the Sensimetric system instead of the zone
system I doubt that this type of discussion would ever take place as
not many would be interested in throwing away the Sensimetric System
in favor of bracketing. It's easier to me to say Zone 3 than to use
the sensimetric log equalivalent above film base and fog.
Guess that the zone system just gets a bum rap here.
I started working in a lab two years before Ansel published "The
Negative" and believe me folks were of a different opinion as to its
value at that time. It was a breath of fresh air in the drudgery of
using the sensimetric data of the time.
>
>Perhaps I should re-phrase what I said. Among the photographers
>I know, there are many more incompetent pros than there
>incompetent amateurs. That's a fact.
Better not generalize or might want to check your facts if you try to
carry that to any other than personal experience. I "feel" for the
clients of the incompetent pros you know. They are a rather usless
group in my thoughts. They only throw garbage into the world. I
noticed that you are a car enthusiast and would just say that you
might not really consider several of the commonly TV advertized paint
shops as being "Professional" .... yes they do make great amounts of
money but in the context of this discussion they would not be as good
as some of the Amateurs I know. That still does not qualify them to be
what I mean by the word Professional. I think some responsibility
needs to go with the title or you are just speaking about moneymakers
instead of a higher class I will call Pro.
>
>I may be showing my ignorance here, but some of
>those "Recognized masters", Steichen, for example, produced a
>lot of blurry, poorly printed "Masterpieces" for which they
>received a lot more credit than they deserved. If Mathew Brady
>(or whoever he swindled) could make sharp prints of the civil
>war, why couldn't these "masters" do it?
If sharpness is the quality you want then you better sell the reflex
cameras and buy a BIG view camera.
Steichen was shooting moving scenes! Try looking for sharpness in
Brady or his assistants work when the subjects were not posed or dead!
His unposed Lincoln shots are so blurry that we can't even be sure
some of them are actually Lincoln.
What needs to be discussed here is not the sharpness but the concept
behind the image. The limits of equipment are what you are looking at.
Steichen told AA that if he {AA} was a member of the F64 group then he
{Steichen} was in group F/128.
Standing in front of "The Steerage" and not seeing greatness would
seem sad to me. I might suggest that you look at the "Masters of
Photography" by Newhall { in most libraries - easy to find }and check
the Steichen section. Steichens work poorly printed? - you have really
missed something - blurry? - check the " The Empire State Building".
I'm afraid that the soft street scenes he tried to capture with the
equipment of the day {used in some text books} are somehow obscuring
the bulk of his work. One of my old college professors has some of his
original prints. I have stared at his work in awe at times when seen
in person. I freely admit that he is atrociously represented in the
books usually. People are just making money off books and do not
always care to try to match high quality in print. Even the book I
speak of is porely printed. His prints rarely look in person like the
poor quality book reproductions... the same is to be said about many
of the older processes like platinum, or gum or one of my favorites-
Albumen- prints. Books cannot relate the exquisite long tonal range of
these superb processes. I always tell folks to look at the book prints
before, and during if possible, when they go to see an artist work.
Really gives a new perspective.
>
>In the world where most of us reside, color printing is, as I
>said, easy and boring. B/W is, as I said, challenging and fun.
>
>I'm not knocking what you do. There's obviously a market for
>it, and I'll bet your prints would knock my eyes out. I still
>wouldn't send my stuff to you because, well, I just get a kick
>out of making my own prints. I would never try to do what you
>do, because it sounds like WAY more trouble than ordinary color
>printing.
It is "way" more trouble at first! But that's the challenge you speak
of!!!!!!!
Your B&W sounds like it is "WAY" more involved than the standard
machine made print from the one hour processor.
Color has IMHO even more difference between normal printing and Great
printing as it is not nearly as forgiving. Whether we find something
boring or not is not much of an objective criterion to base the
usefulness of it on.
>
>Maybe it's just me. I would love to have a John Lingenfelter
>motor for my old Camaro, but you know, the one I built for it
>still makes me smile every time I fire it up.
But I doubt that you would "dis" or try to brush off any technique
that John used to get his quality. Its not the subjective thought
about process that I feel most photographers seek - instead it's the
best tools and techniques that they can muster that makes them keep
working on their personal tastes. Most posters would rather know the
facts and let them decide what they want to do with it, whether it is
boring, complicated or just a push of the button.
z
made a mess here. It's reaching the point where it's not any
fun. In fact, it's reaching the point where it's MISSING the
point.
My original post, the one that started all this bullshit, was
advice to what I thought was a beginning photographer who wanted
to improve his work. I suggested that familiarizing himself
with one film and one developer, shooting a lot of it and
exploring what he could do with it was a better starting point
than tryingto practice the ZS. I still stand by that advice.
I was roundly sanctioned by Mr. Stu, who rightly suggested that
I probably appropriated some of the precepts of the ZS in my own
work. To which I admitted.
I then suggested that the ZS was a superb system for those whose
temperaments were disposed to it, but there were less daunting
ways to learn how to make intellegent decisions about
exposure. I stand by that as well.
If I have blasphemed St. Ansel, forgive me. That was not my
intent. Although, having had the misfortune of living in
arizona, I gotta tell ya, I've seen enough rocks and dirt and
cactus to last me a lifetime. (There I go again. Sorry.) My
point is that what Ansel and those other "Top" guys say is not
the Last Word about anything. Everybody who does photography
has a point of view, and it is no less valid if they're
not "Recognized" or a "Master" or both.
John lingenfelter builds better motors than me because he's
smarter than me. You probably make better prints than me
because you're smarter than me, too. But I'll probably keep on
building my own motors and making my own prints because it gives
me great pleasure to do it. I like the stuff I do, and I like
having it stare at me from the wall or a magazine, at the risk
of one more generalization, I bet a lot of photographers feel
the same way.
Oh yeah:
"Bracketing will only get you to the proper exposure for the
standard development you use."
What's wrong with that?
c._downs
<cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
> "Bracketing will only get you to the proper exposure for the
>standard development you use."
>
>What's wrong with that?
As in most of what you say....subjectively nothing. Every photographer
should shoot any thing they want the way they want it.
Objectively ..... you throw away a great deal of the control that many
photographers seek.
wboyce
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2000 19:35:52 -0700, z
> <cypress...@gbso.net.invalid> wrote:
>
> > "Bracketing will only get you to the proper exposure for the
> >standard development you use."
> >
> >What's wrong with that?
>
> As in most of what you say....subjectively nothing. Every photographer
> should shoot any thing they want the way they want it.
>
> Objectively ..... you throw away a great deal of the control that many
> photographers seek.
Sorry for off-topic, but trying to contact C. Downs via private email
without success. Would appriciate his response re: his eemax tankless
heater specs for heating darkroom wash water. Thanks, W.Boyce