# The Zone System



## stone_family3 (Apr 15, 2010)

Anyone use this system? Our Adv B&W class requires us to use this, it's been 3 weeks and it just isn't clicking.


----------



## ann (Apr 15, 2010)

yes,

why not talk to your insturctor and get some help in finding out where your lost and how to get on track.

It really is more difficult to read about than do, just takes a bit of practice. Slow down and think about what your class lesson have covered.


----------



## stone_family3 (Apr 15, 2010)

I've talked to him several times, I also took the class back in 2003. I can manage it semi-okay with still life but not with live action shots.


----------



## SoonerBJJ (Apr 15, 2010)

Yes.

What resources are you using to gain understanding?


----------



## stone_family3 (Apr 16, 2010)

Well aside from our text book, a lot of writing down exposures, a few charts, teacher help, help from other students, and a lot of practice. I can do okay on a still life but not on action.


----------



## ann (Apr 16, 2010)

It is a theory that can be very useful in learning to understand grayscale and seeing in black and white terms.  If you were in my class i would suggest you not worry about the action shots as you don't have the time to meter, and make the same type of decision that one makes with still life or images that aren't moving.

Have you tested your equipment to determine your proper EI and development times?

THe system is a guide line, was development to help photographers to talk the same language and be able to control their tools. With , 35mm film , one needs to commit the whole roll to the conditions so you can't pick and chose which shot gets what type of exposure /development. So , pick what you think is going to work the best for you and the lighting and shoot, you seem to be over working this to the point of freezing.

i mention 35mm film as i thought it was unlikely your doing sports with 4x5, altho, it has been done , in fact for years .


----------



## stone_family3 (Apr 16, 2010)

Yes I've already determined proper EI and development times and also which developer works best with my film choice.


----------



## ann (Apr 16, 2010)

good, so with sports, go with what the meter is reading for middle gray and use a fast shutter speed and let the other values fall where they may. In a normal daylight setting the values usually balance out


----------



## Petraio Prime (May 28, 2010)

stone_family3 said:


> Anyone use this system? Our Adv B&W class requires us to use this, it's been 3 weeks and it just isn't clicking.



Develop and print your negative 'normally'. If they need a little more snap, use a higher grade of paper. If they are too contrasty, reduce development. 

The zone system has no merit whatsoever and is a fraud.


----------



## dxqcanada (May 28, 2010)

The Zone System is not about the subject. It is about light.

It is about manipulating the exposure of the film, development of the film, and printing of the film to create an end exposure.

What exactly is not clicking about the Zone System ?


----------



## Dwig (May 28, 2010)

stone_family3 said:


> Anyone use this system? Our Adv B&W class requires us to use this, it's been 3 weeks and it just isn't clicking.



The Zone System is actually rather simple, at least at its heart. It is merely a carefully controlled and calibrated variant of the ancient common widsom, "expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights". 

What it adds to that old rule is adjusting the film's tonal range by modifying development so that a particular scene's range from shadow to highlight fits the tonal range of the film. Complete application of the Zone System does require that each shot be developed differently. This is most practical with large format sheet film. 

For many users of small format cameras that shoot rolls of film such custom development of each shot is not practical. These users generally calibrate they film and its processing in a "one size fits all" way. They still use the Zone System rules for determining the optimum exposure for a given shot, but they live with the one tonal range (number of usable Zones) that their one film/development combination produces. 

For the bulk of my old B&W film days I used this limited sub-set of the Zone System (roughly a 20 year period). I did shoot a little large format and used image specific development modification. The basic concepts also apply to color film, though without the development adjustments, and digital.


----------



## Petraio Prime (May 29, 2010)

Dwig said:


> stone_family3 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone use this system? Our Adv B&W class requires us to use this, it's been 3 weeks and it just isn't clicking.
> ...



 Over a broad range it makes no difference whatsoever (tonally) whether you adjust film contrast or paper contrast. The zone system was developed when VC papers were not available or primitive, and only graded papers were used. At that time, it was not possible to make _small_ adjustments in paper contrast; one had to use grade 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Some papers (portrait types) were available only in a single grade. Subsequently, it became a religion to vary contrast by film development, even though it's easier and more practical to adjust paper contrast while developing film uniformly, and has been for decades.


----------



## Mike_E (May 29, 2010)

None of this is helping, is it?

Maybe if you told us what you expect out of the Zone System or what you think that it can do, we could begin there.


----------



## Torus34 (May 30, 2010)

For those who are reading this thread and are not all that familiar with the Zone concept, a suggestion:

You can find a basic explanation of it at: 

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/articles-interest/147250-b-w-film-photography-part-vi.html

For those using 35mm rigs and wanting to apply the full Zone concept, a suggestion:

You can overcome the '35mm-ist's Dilemma' by bulk-loading, say, 6 exposure cassettes. Devote each cassette to a single image situation. ['Ah!' you say. 'But then I give up the 35mm-er's advantage of shooting several subjects on a single roll!' Yup, you do.] Expose as per the Zone system.  [Hint: Bracket as a 'back-up'.] Then go ahead and modify development as the full Zone procedure dictates.


----------



## Petraio Prime (May 30, 2010)

Torus34 said:


> For those who are reading this thread and are not all that familiar with the Zone concept, a suggestion:
> 
> You can find a basic explanation of it at:
> 
> ...



No.


----------



## christopher walrath (May 31, 2010)

PM sent


----------



## coreduo (Jun 7, 2010)

Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

coreduo said:


> Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.



The trouble is most of what it contains is false.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> coreduo said:
> 
> 
> > Read The Negative by Ansel Adams. He thoroughly discussed it in his popular book.
> ...



Your being a little negative and not very helpful at all to the question at hand. If your only reason for posting is to raise your post count then try to be a little bit more helpful. I'm not trying to be ugly but some people can be put of by this kind of attitude and just leave altogether and not return because of not getting their questions answered.

Try this site for a little more explanation. A simplified zone system for making good exposures

dxqcanada and Mike_E are correct, we need to know what it is that you are having problems with, what don't you understand. We could spend a lot of time stomping over the same ground and not get anywhere at all, if you could try to tell us what you do understand we can clear up the muddy areas.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

guitstik said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > coreduo said:
> ...



What has my post count to do with anything?

There is nothing to 'understand'. The zone system is simply nonsense.You can tell your teacher that.

The zone system is wrong conceptually and rests on fundamental errors. It is a fraud, and this should be pointed out. The vast majority of B&W photographs should be exposed and printed with 'normal' contrast. (Under exceptional conditions, such as very heavy fog, which tends to lower contrast significantly, you may need to depart from this practice.)

From Kodak:

 *[FONT=&quot]"As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve."

"[/FONT]**[FONT=&quot]It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows."[/FONT]  

"*[FONT=&quot]*In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade." *

[/FONT]The zone system completely ignores this. It is not scientific; it does not reflect a basic understanding of human perception, namely that extremely high or low gradient (contrast) looks 'unnatural'. Trying to squeeze 14 stops into 7 stops just results in a crappy print. I can always tell when I see a zone-system manipulated print. It just doesn't look 'right'.

The zone system does not reflect scientific research (the Kodak statement above does), but unscientific dogmatism. It is total BS.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 7, 2010)

To be honest, I think you are simply missing the point. Kodak produces photographic equipment, the majority of people that write these instruction sheets are chemist that do not think as most photographers do. It's like reading the instructions on a pack of tooth picks, rather pointless.

Ansel Adams was a Photographer/Artist and he wrote for other artist at a time when photography was really in it's infancy so some of the things he wrote about may not apply today. Who's to say, not me.

I tell my son all the time that his instructor is in charge of the curriculum. He may not agree with him/her but that is irrelevant, who assigns the grade? Telling stone_family3 to disregard the instructor is counter to a successful grade for the assignment. I suspect that the advanced B&W class is more geared towards the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography.  

You and I have been on this forum for about the same amount of time but in all that time, the only posts that I have found from you have all been caustic. It was not my intention to offend you but to give gentle correction on how to play well with others.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

guitstik said:


> To be honest, I think you are simply missing the point. Kodak produces photographic equipment, the majority of people that write these instruction sheets are chemist that do not think as most photographers do. It's like reading the instructions on a pack of tooth picks, rather pointless.
> 
> Ansel Adams was a Photographer/Artist and he wrote for other artist at a time when photography was really in it's infancy so some of the things he wrote about may not apply today. Who's to say, not me.
> 
> ...



Missing the point? Hardly! Just as anything else in life, there are bound to be mistakes made. The zone system is a mistake. A huge one. It's fundamentally wrong, and I am pointing out _how _and _why_. Just because something is 'taught' doesn't mean it's 'right' or sound. And I mean to tell people about this fact. I have been talking about this zone system nonsense for quite some time.

It is also _perfectly _legitimate to tell the teacher he's wrong, that what is being taught is mistaken and absurd. What makes you think otherwise? They are simply teaching what _they _were taught...and it's wrong. The power of "the grade"? Nonsense! I have in the past (in my college days) vehemently disagreed with what I have been taught in the classroom, and refused to follow what was taught, and was not penalized by bad grades. Any teacher with integrity will act the same way if you can support your position with strong evidence and good arguments. And in this case, there's more than enough support for the _contrary _position. The reason the OP doesn't 'get it' is because it's 'ungettable'.

The Kodak quote represents the summary of extensive testing performed back about the same time Ansel Adams was working, so the research is well-founded. Read the text carefully. If you "read between the lines" you will see that the part "[FONT=&quot]This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate" refers obliquely  to Adams and his cronies such as Minor White. Kodak had to be careful in what they said so as not to offend them. Also remember that Adams was a commercial photographer primarily.

I have read Minor White's _Zone System Manual_ and found it utter hogwash. It could be used as a particularly bad example of pseudo-scientific nonsense.  It would be laughed out of any Philosophy of Science class.

Also, be aware that the Kodak 'grey card' is not right, and gives a bad reading. It was made to be the wrong reflectivity (18% instead of 12%) because Ansel Adams demanded it and Kodak caved in:

http://www.bythom.com/graycards.htm

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000eWN

http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~schneidw/vico222/gray_card_musings.html

[/FONT]"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." --  *Mark Twain*
[FONT=&quot]  
Almost everything Ansel Adams ever said [/FONT]just ain't so[FONT=&quot]...
[/FONT]


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 7, 2010)

Any system will work in a vacuum.

The trick is to not mix systems.  To only view the world through the lens of the system that you are using if you like.

The Zone System does work when I use it to map out a composition's exposure.  Especially when I intend adding light to a central subject yet wish to still retain shadow definition.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Any system will work in a vacuum.
> 
> The trick is to not mix systems.  To only view the world through the lens of the system that you are using if you like.
> 
> The Zone System does work when I use it to map out a composition's exposure.  Especially when I intend adding light to a central subject yet wish to still retain shadow definition.



I think you missed the point of my response altogether.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 7, 2010)

I think that we may have hijacked this post and I apologize to any and all who have taken offense.

I am not saying that dis-agreeing with the instructor is ill advised just the way that it is broached. A class room without debate is not a class room at all. Obviously the instructor has a curriculum in mind and that may include teaching one practice and then pointing out other thoughts on which that practice differs. Or as I stated earlier, it may be based more on the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography, and in art, who is to say what is right and wrong?

It may just be me but you seem to "attack" rather than "inform". The "Greater Masses" are not into photography as an art but just as a way to keep family memories and so your argument may fall on deaf ears. How important is this anyways? I mean most avid photographers learn the "basics", right or wrong and then continue on to raise the bar for the rest of us with their own style. You may be one of those. Have you ever heard the saying "You get more flies with honey than vinegar"? (Who wants flies anyways) The point being, you may want to start your own post and bring your points out in a more friendly manner.

The science of gravity and aerodynamics have been pretty much set in stone but yet the humble bumble bee has been cited by scientist "not suitable for flight" still it, the bee, refuses to follow the precepts of science. Why should we as "artists" follow the precepts of science. Ansel Adams may have been wrong according to you and Kodak but does that diminish his brilliance as a photographer? As long as we don't try to drastically rearrange the fundamental mechanics of photography, what or who is hurt?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

guitstik said:


> I think that we may have hijacked this post and I apologize to any and all who have taken offense.
> 
> I am not saying that dis-agreeing with the instructor is ill advised just the way that it is broached. A class room without debate is not a class room at all. Obviously the instructor has a curriculum in mind and that may include teaching one practice and then pointing out other thoughts on which that practice differs. Or as I stated earlier, it may be based more on the artistic rather than the mechanics of photography, and in art, who is to say what is right and wrong?
> 
> ...



'Brilliance'? I think we are much farther apart than you suspect. I consider Adams a hack. But one is not supposed to say that, so I will quote Bob Schwalberg's remark on AA:   

  "It's definitely not true to say that if you seen one Ansel Adams, you've seen them all.

  But if you've seen two, you've seen them all."


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > Any system will work in a vacuum.
> ...



No, I was simply trying to redirect to the original point of the thread.



Petraio Prime said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> > I think that we may have hijacked this post and I apologize to any and all who have taken offense.
> ...




I wish you many years of happiness with _your_ brilliance.  I hope it keeps you company always.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 7, 2010)

I have exhausted my 0.02 on this one.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

guitstik said:


> I have exhausted my 0.02 on this one.



Here it is in a nutshell:

1. You can divide the darkest to the lightest values a paper can produce into 10 zones. (Yeah, so?)

2. 'Normally' developed negatives of 'normal' (typical) scenes will fill these 10 zones.

3. If the scene doesn't, i.e., if the scene is too contrasty or too flat, you can alter development of the negative to fill the 10 zones. The former is called contraction; the latter is expansion. 

There's more to it than that, but that's basically it.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 7, 2010)

Please don't feed the troll.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 7, 2010)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Please don't feed the troll.



An all-too typical response to someone who is not a sheep.


----------



## coreduo (Jun 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 

The Zone system is made up of 10 shades of black, gray and whites. Now, if you cannot appreciate the Zone system you might as well can  say that you do not understand what CONTRAST means.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 8, 2010)

coreduo said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > guitstik said:
> ...



1) If you significantly alter the overall gradient in either the negative or printing stage (expansion or contraction), the mid-tone gradient will be significantly altered. This looks unnatural. That's the criticism. 

2) You can't preserve 'contrast' when the overall gradient is altered. With compensating development, some compression of the highlights can be accomplished without too severe of an impact on the mid-tones, but this is not part of the zone system 'methodology'. Trying to fit the sun and a coal mine in the same exposure simply isn't possible, if any contrast is to be left.


----------



## coreduo (Jun 8, 2010)

I just fervently hope that none among us are criticizing Ansel Adam's teaching only because he was subject of witchhunts during the days of McCarthysm or else it would be a violation of his right to associate and freedom of speech. I hope none among us. Just asking..


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 8, 2010)

It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.

As I recall it was all about exposing a film is such a manner as to actually capture whatever you wanted to illustrate and then to develop that film in accordance with the way it was exposed by use of a nomenclature called the Zone System.  A system designed to codify the measure of contrast so that guess work cold be lessened and you could thereby have a better expectation of successfully printing your vision on photographic paper.

This is the reason I asked the OP what he expected from the Zone System.  The vast majority of people I hear gripe about the Zone System expect it to do something.

The Zone System DOES NOTHING!  *You do*!

The trick in anything for you to do something in such a fashion _that you actually know what you are doing is consistency_.  To do something consistently you need a process and another word for process is SYSTEM.

And for this, the Zone System works very well thank you.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 8, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.
> 
> As I recall it was all about exposing a film is such a manner as to actually capture whatever you wanted to illustrate and then to develop that film in accordance with the way it was exposed by use of a nomenclature called the Zone System.  A system designed to codify the measure of contrast so that guess work cold be lessened and you could thereby have a better expectation of successfully printing your vision on photographic paper.
> 
> ...



The whole point of the zone system is to 'fit' the scene to the 'vision' you have, to fill the 10 zones (usually). Believe it or not, if you simply expose and develop 'normally' most scenes need no 'manipulation'. That's the beauty of film.* When you go to N+2, N-2, however,  etc., your mid-tones will look like crap. It doesn't matter that it 'works', what matters is what it looks like. You can get something to 'work' but it may not be 'good'.

*When faced with extremely contrasty scenes, simply give more exposure to make sure the shadows register. The natural shouldering that occurs in the highlight region will nicely roll off the highlights and give you a printable negative, provided you are using the right kind of film (Tri-X Pan, for instance). Using compensating development will help more to handle such scenes.

If a scene is kind of flat to begin with...well it _should _reproduce that way. If you don't like it, shoot something that has more tonal interest. B&W photographs work best with strong directional light...so it's kind of silly to try to 'boost' the contrast of essentially flat scenes...it simply looks like crap. And the reverse is true as well...if your scene is 22 stops in brilliance range...you won't be able to get it to look good.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 8, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 8, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Mike_E said:
> 
> 
> > It's been a few years since I read AA's books but I don't recall his saying anything about being able to go beyond a film's ability by using any system.



Hmmmm...film can capture an enormous range of brightness...but the point I'm making is that this is irrelevant, because 1) You may not be able to print it; 2) even if you can, prints will look good within only a narrow range of gradients. If you try to do "too much" you may not exceed the film's capabilities, but you will exceed the bounds of what "looks right". 

Here's one by John Sexton that's really crappy:

http://www.alindergallery.com/sexton%20aspen%2072.jpg






Anybody notice it just doesn't look quite right?

The lighting is simply too flat, and it looks like he has expanded it...and perhaps also used a green filter to lighten the grass.

Compare this shot, made with strong sunlight....

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html

It was shot 'straight' and no tonal manipulation was used.


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Jun 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> MartinCrabtree said:
> 
> 
> > Please don't feed the troll.
> ...



Tremendous insight from 5 words. :er:  Quite the contrary as you haven't a clue what or who I ascribe to. Simply an observation of your short time here and the posts you've made. Good day.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

MartinCrabtree said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > MartinCrabtree said:
> ...



In case you haven't realized it by now, I am opposed to the teaching of the zone system. It is a fraud and a very poor way to make photographs. I have actually studied the _Zone System Manual_ by Minor White (who was a mystic, not a scientist) and found it woefully lacking in scientific rigor. It would be laughed out of a Philosophy of Science class, I assure you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_White

The zone system should not be taught. It should be buried in the scrap-heap of criminally stupid ideas. I invite the original poster to write to me directly, and let me talk to his 'teacher'.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> MartinCrabtree said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



Interestingly, I have found the ones that complain the most about the Zone System are the ones whose artistic vision is vapid, lacking any creative impulse whatsoever. Personally, John S. and I have vastly dissimilar aesthetics, I wouldn't call the particular print you displayed crap, perhaps not to your liking, but crap, really???? Perhaps your opinion of the Mona Lisa, if you would, or Duchamp, Pollack, Piet Mondrian??? Or is R. Emmett Kelley or Kinkade's  banal, simplistic work more to your taste? Much as in music, there are varying levels of maturity and sophistication, say what you will, but a careful deconstruction of Thornton's, John's or AA's images, encompassing both composition, exposure, development and printing would yield an amazing sophistication, much like comparing pop music to Miles Davis, Mozart or Handel. There is a craft aspect to photography that today's photographers have missed totally unless they actively pursue analog photography as an art form, not just a hobby. Live, eat and breath the art of creative image making for a year, the reasses what's been written in this thread and ask yourself which opinions correspond with your experiences.

In your example exposure you recommend TXP??? I'm curious as to why?? it's designed to render low contrast and tungsten illuminated subjects, with a short linear area and strong heel and shoulder in the H&D curve. My experiences "in the wild" have been ok, but it is a film very, very critical of perfect exposure (as well as having been dicontinued) Have you looked at the curves for TMX or TMY???? I used to shoot Super-XX when I first started shooting LF 30+ years ago, and the zone system was created for films such as this, as well as TMX and TMY, with a long linear response that seemingly goes on forever. By placing your exposure where you desire on that curve, and compressing (or expanding) through development, you can accurately and realistically portray far more brightness than a simple, incident metered scene reading will allow. As an artistic tool, The Zone System is a way for people to understand sensiometry, in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your delusions of adequacy and superiority cloud your ability to realize not everybody can look at a sensiometric curve and "get it", by separating exposure and development, you can manipulate the curves to suit your artistic vision.

PHotography is not just creating a realistic representation of the scene, there are times when, for artisitic purposes, we may wish to manipulate reality, the Zone System allows you to do it in a predictable, repeatable way. Were we all shooting 5-7 stop brightness range subjects, with film processed to ISO guidelines, the world would be a very boring place. You strike me as a "color within the lines" and "roses are red" kind of person, time to get over your own self importance and realize that out of 100 photographers, there will be 150 different interpretations of the same scene, giving students the tools to make that a reality makes good educational sense.

You claim to have studied the manual by Minor White, but have you actually established your personal EI for your film using a densitometer? Have you put aside any preconceived notions and tried it? Do you previsualize your image and then work towards that visualisation through filtration, exposure and darkroom work? Adam's original work is based on sound sensiometric data, distilled to it's essence, do you think that the .1 above fb+fog was pulled out of thin air? It's typically the point on the H&D curve where linearity begins using most developers. (though I typically use Zone III for my deepest shadows, primariily with TMY, as it's linear portion is insanely long)

Establishing a CI is just as silly, right? I mean really, who cares about fine tuning your film processing for consistency and repeatability if you can just dial up the contrast on the paper (or down). This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses VC paper. I know it may seem odd, but some of us may print in Platinum/Palladium, Carbon Transfer, Gum Bichromate, albumen, Azo and and even some Dye Transfer printers. Yet, regardless of what printing method we use, I can assure you that you can establish a consistent CI tuned to your process, that will make the entire exposure/development/printing process repeatable and consistent. Kodak's interest are first and foremost their shareholders, ergo increasing sales and profitability. As a working commercial photographer for the last quarter century, I can assure you that when shooting products (typically with E6 films), contrast ratio, proper exposure and accurate rendering of the product is critical, and I have in fact, on occaision, had to tweak my E6line to lower contrast (hence giving N- development essentially) through ph adjustments. An offset printing press will only hold 4-5 stops of information, max and any more gets clipped, printing presses expand the contrast range of flim negatives, fact of life, if you shoot without that knowledge, and characterize your medium accordingly, you would last a few jobs at most in the field. Today, digital capture is pre-eminent, and the few photographers that get it right tend to be.....the very same ones that shot film and understand the importance of contrast range, subject brightness and how exposure influences and modifies them. 

Most of my work these days is duplicating glass plate negatives for historical societies and conservationists, random metering and "letting the exposure fall where it may" doesn't work, the dupes have to be identical to the originals, without the ability to expand and contract, the likelyhood of success  would be less than zero. 

With regard to your gray card comment, no gray card will blankly give you the correct reading, it is only through intellegent use of those tools that you can interpret the readings and your your judgement to determine exposure. No gray card is inherently right or wrong (and that 18% figure isn't quite right either, every major meter manufacturer uses a different reference, from 12% to 18%, so they are all wrong, and all right at the same time)

I find it odd that most people wouldn't hesitate to say that they profile their capture devices, monitor and printer to have a "calibrated" work flow, yet the same people will scoff at the idea of doing the same in an analog process.

To the OP, I can recommend a book by an acquiantance, the late Barry Thornton, "Edge of Darkness, the art, craft and power of the high definition monochrome photograph" This book may answer some of the questions you have, as well as put to rest alot of the crap slung around on these internet message boards by "experts".


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > MartinCrabtree said:
> ...



Yes, really. Utter crap. Light is all flat, no center of attention, no nothing. Total crap.

Compare my photo of the rugby game. Note the compositional aspects (triangles, diagonal lines, etc.).



> Perhaps your opinion of the Mona Lisa, if you would, or Duchamp, Pollack, Piet Mondrian??? Or is R. Emmett Kelley or Kinkade's  banal, simplistic work more to your taste? Much as in music, there are varying levels of maturity and sophistication, say what you will, but a careful deconstruction of Thornton's, John's or AA's images, encompassing both composition, exposure, development and printing would yield an amazing sophistication, much like comparing pop music to Miles Davis, Mozart or Handel. There is a craft aspect to photography that today's photographers have missed totally unless they actively pursue analog photography as an art form, not just a hobby. Live, eat and breath the art of creative image making for a year, the reassess what's been written in this thread and ask yourself which opinions correspond with your experiences.


I don't aspire to create photographic 'art'; photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'. What I do excel at is create visually interesting photographs. I do think this one is rather good, and is the kind of work that not everyone can do well:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html

This sort of photograph depends on a little luck, of course. But look at the diagonal tension between the ball being pitched in the lower left of the frame and the faces being pushed in the upper right of the frame. This is close to a perfect photograph, as close as can be achieved under the conditions. No zone-head could dream of making such a photo. It's beyond their understanding and capabilities. 



> In your example exposure you recommend TXP??? I'm curious as to why??
> it's designed to render low contrast and tungsten illuminated subjects, with a short linear area and strong heel and shoulder in the H&D curve. My experiences "in the wild" have been ok, but it is a film very, very critical of perfect exposure (as well as having been dicontinued) Have you looked at the curves for TMX or TMY???? I used to shoot Super-XX when I first started shooting LF 30+ years ago, and the zone system was created for films such as this, as well as TMX and TMY, with a long linear response that seemingly goes on forever. By placing your exposure where you desire on that curve, and compressing (or expanding) through development, you can accurately and realistically portray far more brightness than a simple, incident metered scene reading will allow. As an artistic tool, The Zone System is a way for people to understand sensiometry, in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your delusions of adequacy and superiority cloud your ability to realize not everybody can look at a sensiometric curve and "get it", by separating exposure and development, you can manipulate the curves to suit your artistic vision.


I was referring to Tri-X Pan (ISO 400), not Tri-X Professional (ISO 320)



> Photography is not just creating a realistic representation of the scene, there are times when, for artisitic purposes, we may wish to manipulate reality, the Zone System allows you to do it in a predictable, repeatable way.


I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at 'realistic' representations.



> Were we all shooting 5-7 stop brightness range subjects, with film processed to ISO guidelines, the world would be a very boring place.


Nonsense.



> You strike me as a "color within the lines" and "roses are red" kind of person, time to get over your own self importance and realize that out of 100 photographers, there will be 150 different interpretations of the same scene, giving students the tools to make that a reality makes good educational sense.


Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. Look at some of the stuff I have on-line here:

http://www.photographyboard.net/members/gnarly1/

Be sure to page through to the older stuff.



> You claim to have studied the manual by Minor White, but have you actually established your personal EI for your film using a densitometer?


No, but I have established a working speed for films based on making prints. A densitometer is not needed at all to make good negatives. You do tests to find this out, by printing them.



> Have you put aside any preconceived notions and tried it? Do you previsualize your image and then work towards that visualisation through filtration, exposure and darkroom work?


No, I reject all of that mysticism. 




> Adam's original work is based on sound sensiometric data, distilled to it's essence, do you think that the .1 above fb+fog was pulled out of thin air? It's typically the point on the H&D curve where linearity begins using most developers. (though I typically use Zone III for my deepest shadows, primariily with TMY, as it's linear portion is insanely long)


I tried the original version of TMY and found it was poorly suited for outdoor / available-light work. The new version may be better.



> Establishing a CI is just as silly, right? I mean really, who cares about fine tuning your film processing for consistency and repeatability if you can just dial up the contrast on the paper (or down). This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses VC paper.


Not at all. I use grade 3 as 'normal' (which is optimum for 35mm) and develop my film so that sunny scenes of typical subject matter fit that grade. Rarely do I adjust contrast in printing. I typically vary between grade 3 and 3.5, rarely anything else. It just isn't necessary.



> I know it may seem odd, but some of us may print in Platinum/Palladium, Carbon Transfer, Gum Bichromate, albumen, Azo and and even some Dye Transfer printers.


That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.



> Yet, regardless of what printing method we use, I can assure you that you can establish a consistent CI tuned to your process, that will make the entire exposure/development/printing process repeatable and consistent. Kodak's interest are first and foremost their shareholders, ergo increasing sales and profitability. As a working commercial photographer for the last quarter century, I can assure you that when shooting products (typically with E6 films), contrast ratio, proper exposure and accurate rendering of the product is critical, and I have in fact, on occasion, had to tweak my E6line to lower contrast (hence giving N- development essentially) through ph adjustments. An offset printing press will only hold 4-5 stops of information, max and any more gets clipped, printing presses expand the contrast range of film negatives, fact of life, if you shoot without that knowledge, and characterize your medium accordingly, you would last a few jobs at most in the field. Today, digital capture is pre-eminent, and the few photographers that get it right tend to be.....the very same ones that shot film and understand the importance of contrast range, subject brightness and how exposure influences and modifies them.
> 
> Most of my work these days is duplicating glass plate negatives for historical societies and conservationists, random metering and "letting the exposure fall where it may" doesn't work, the dupes have to be identical to the originals, without the ability to expand and contract, the likelihood of success  would be less than zero.


That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.



> With regard to your gray card comment, no gray card will blankly give you the correct reading, it is only through intelligent use of those tools that you can interpret the readings and your your judgement to determine exposure. No gray card is inherently right or wrong (and that 18% figure isn't quite right either, every major meter manufacturer uses a different reference, from 12% to 18%, so they are all wrong, and all right at the same time)


The card is wrong for its intended use.



> I find it odd that most people wouldn't hesitate to say that they profile their capture devices, monitor and printer to have a "calibrated" work flow, yet the same people will scoff at the idea of doing the same in an analog process.


I don't reject 'calibration'; I reject zone system manipulations of contrast.



> To the OP, I can recommend a book by an acquiantance, the late Barry Thornton, "Edge of Darkness, the art, craft and power of the high definition monochrome photograph" This book may answer some of the questions you have, as well as put to rest alot of the crap slung around on these internet message boards by "experts".


I recommend that book too, and it rejects the zone system approach as well.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > MartinCrabtree said:
> ...



Yes, really. Utter crap. Light is all flat, no center of attention, no nothing. Total crap.

Compare my photo of the rugby game. Note the compositional aspects (triangles, diagonal lines, etc.).



> Perhaps your opinion of the Mona Lisa, if you would, or Duchamp, Pollack, Piet Mondrian??? Or is R. Emmett Kelley or Kinkade's  banal, simplistic work more to your taste? Much as in music, there are varying levels of maturity and sophistication, say what you will, but a careful deconstruction of Thornton's, John's or AA's images, encompassing both composition, exposure, development and printing would yield an amazing sophistication, much like comparing pop music to Miles Davis, Mozart or Handel. There is a craft aspect to photography that today's photographers have missed totally unless they actively pursue analog photography as an art form, not just a hobby. Live, eat and breath the art of creative image making for a year, the reassess what's been written in this thread and ask yourself which opinions correspond with your experiences.


I don't aspire to create photographic 'art'; photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'. What I do excel at is create visually interesting photographs. I do think this one is rather good, and is the kind of work that not everyone can do well:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html

This sort of photograph depends on a little luck, of course. But look at the diagonal tension between the ball being pitched in the lower left of the frame and the faces being pushed in the upper right of the frame. This is close to a perfect photograph, as close as can be achieved under the conditions. No zone-head could dream of making such a photo. It's beyond their understanding and capabilities. 



> In your example exposure you recommend TXP??? I'm curious as to why??
> it's designed to render low contrast and tungsten illuminated subjects, with a short linear area and strong heel and shoulder in the H&D curve. My experiences "in the wild" have been ok, but it is a film very, very critical of perfect exposure (as well as having been dicontinued) Have you looked at the curves for TMX or TMY???? I used to shoot Super-XX when I first started shooting LF 30+ years ago, and the zone system was created for films such as this, as well as TMX and TMY, with a long linear response that seemingly goes on forever. By placing your exposure where you desire on that curve, and compressing (or expanding) through development, you can accurately and realistically portray far more brightness than a simple, incident metered scene reading will allow. As an artistic tool, The Zone System is a way for people to understand sensiometry, in a way that makes sense. Perhaps your delusions of adequacy and superiority cloud your ability to realize not everybody can look at a sensiometric curve and "get it", by separating exposure and development, you can manipulate the curves to suit your artistic vision.


I was referring to Tri-X Pan (ISO 400), not Tri-X Professional (ISO 320)



> Photography is not just creating a realistic representation of the scene, there are times when, for artisitic purposes, we may wish to manipulate reality, the Zone System allows you to do it in a predictable, repeatable way.


I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at 'realistic' representations.



> Were we all shooting 5-7 stop brightness range subjects, with film processed to ISO guidelines, the world would be a very boring place.


Nonsense. Besides, I don't follow ISO guidelines. I generally give more exposure and less development, and print on higher-grade paper. My negatives are generally more delicate than ISO guidelines call for, because that works better, giving better sharpness and finer grain. See Barry Thorton's book _Edge of Darkness_.



> You strike me as a "color within the lines" and "roses are red" kind of person, time to get over your own self importance and realize that out of 100 photographers, there will be 150 different interpretations of the same scene, giving students the tools to make that a reality makes good educational sense.


Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just know that every process and activity has certain limitations that must be respected. You need to understand your materials and equipment.

Look at some of the stuff I have on-line here:

http://www.photographyboard.net/members/gnarly1/

Be sure to page through to the older stuff.



> You claim to have studied the manual by Minor White, but have you actually established your personal EI for your film using a densitometer?


No, but I have established a working speed for films based on making prints. A densitometer is not needed at all to make good negatives. You do tests to find this out, by printing them.



> Have you put aside any preconceived notions and tried it? Do you previsualize your image and then work towards that visualisation through filtration, exposure and darkroom work?


No, I reject all of that mysticism. 




> Adam's original work is based on sound sensiometric data, distilled to it's essence, do you think that the .1 above fb+fog was pulled out of thin air? It's typically the point on the H&D curve where linearity begins using most developers. (though I typically use Zone III for my deepest shadows, primariily with TMY, as it's linear portion is insanely long)


I tried the original version of TMY and found it was poorly suited for outdoor / available-light work. The new version may be better.



> Establishing a CI is just as silly, right? I mean really, who cares about fine tuning your film processing for consistency and repeatability if you can just dial up the contrast on the paper (or down). This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone uses VC paper.


Not at all. I use grade 3 as 'normal' (which is optimum for 35mm) and develop my film so that sunny scenes of typical subject matter fit that grade. Rarely do I adjust contrast in printing. I typically vary between grade 3 and 3.5, rarely anything else. It just isn't necessary.



> I know it may seem odd, but some of us may print in Platinum/Palladium, Carbon Transfer, Gum Bichromate, albumen, Azo and and even some Dye Transfer printers.


That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.



> Yet, regardless of what printing method we use, I can assure you that you can establish a consistent CI tuned to your process, that will make the entire exposure/development/printing process repeatable and consistent. Kodak's interest are first and foremost their shareholders, ergo increasing sales and profitability. As a working commercial photographer for the last quarter century, I can assure you that when shooting products (typically with E6 films), contrast ratio, proper exposure and accurate rendering of the product is critical, and I have in fact, on occasion, had to tweak my E6line to lower contrast (hence giving N- development essentially) through ph adjustments. An offset printing press will only hold 4-5 stops of information, max and any more gets clipped, printing presses expand the contrast range of film negatives, fact of life, if you shoot without that knowledge, and characterize your medium accordingly, you would last a few jobs at most in the field. Today, digital capture is pre-eminent, and the few photographers that get it right tend to be.....the very same ones that shot film and understand the importance of contrast range, subject brightness and how exposure influences and modifies them.
> 
> Most of my work these days is duplicating glass plate negatives for historical societies and conservationists, random metering and "letting the exposure fall where it may" doesn't work, the dupes have to be identical to the originals, without the ability to expand and contract, the likelihood of success  would be less than zero.


That's fine. We are not discussing that here though.



> With regard to your gray card comment, no gray card will blankly give you the correct reading, it is only through intelligent use of those tools that you can interpret the readings and your your judgement to determine exposure. No gray card is inherently right or wrong (and that 18% figure isn't quite right either, every major meter manufacturer uses a different reference, from 12% to 18%, so they are all wrong, and all right at the same time)


The card is wrong for its intended use.



> I find it odd that most people wouldn't hesitate to say that they profile their capture devices, monitor and printer to have a "calibrated" work flow, yet the same people will scoff at the idea of doing the same in an analog process.


I don't reject 'calibration'; I reject zone system manipulations of contrast. I rarely vary more than half a grade from grade 3. The photos look best that way.



> To the OP, I can recommend a book by an acquiantance, the late Barry Thornton, "Edge of Darkness, the art, craft and power of the high definition monochrome photograph" This book may answer some of the questions you have, as well as put to rest alot of the crap slung around on these internet message boards by "experts".


I recommend that book too, and it rejects the zone system approach as well.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 9, 2010)

Yo, Pet, your site is really a hoot.  The part where it says:

"Charkra says
Have to ask, what ISO and speed was the picture taken at? The background gives the impression that it may have been early in the morning or after dusk. I am learning to take macro shots and find this info helpful when I attempt to capture macro images, and see how the background can enhance the subject of the focused area.

flemming says
Thank you charka, I take picture with automatic digital camera. Best regards flemming."    

Really says it all.  :lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> Yo, Pet, your site is really a hoot.  The part where it says:
> 
> "Charkra says
> Have to ask, what ISO and speed was the picture taken at? The background gives the impression that it may have been early in the morning or after dusk. I am learning to take macro shots and find this info helpful when I attempt to capture macro images, and see how the background can enhance the subject of the focused area.
> ...



What are you talking about?

I use Leicaflex manual cameras. I just put some photos there. Is there a good site you recommend to show photos?


----------



## compur (Jun 9, 2010)

^ A lot of people use Flickr for posting film photos:
http://www.flickr.com


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

compur said:


> ^ A lot of people use Flickr for posting film photos:
> http://www.flickr.com



Thanks.


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 9, 2010)

If Pet comes up with something worth reading could somebody let me know.  I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the ignore button.  And to think that I made it all the way through jerryph.


BTW the quote is/was from the site you linked to/claimed although a quick perusal shows it to no longer be there.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Compare my photo of the rugby game. Note the compositional aspects (triangles, diagonal lines, etc.).
> 
> I don't aspire to create photographic 'art'; photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'. What I do excel at is create visually interesting photographs. I do think this one is rather good, and is the kind of work that not everyone can do well:
> 
> ...


To the first point, I thought that Steiglitz, et. al. established that over a century ago, you may want to Google "photo secession". Photography, as an art, has been accepted for over a century, do you, in contrast to those photo historians, curators and authors, bring something to the table we don't know about? Would you care to share it with us? A blanket "I don't accept photography as art" isn't enough, elucidate, please.

To the second point, all photography is based on compositional principals of varying sophistication (see the Gestaltists work, for examples of advanced compositional theory). While from a photojournalistic standpoint (where you seem to be stuck idealistically, btw), the linked image is very good; from a fine art perspective, it's a no starter, displaying a lack of cohesiveness and no communication of concept, typically banal and "snapshot"ish. Note that we come from different worlds, and have different notions of where the line between documentation/photo journalism and Fine Art exist. (or in your case, the outright rejection of the concept of Fine Art Photography)

Art (capital A) communicates concepts or feelings through the use of compositional tools and media, please explain the concept you are trying to communicate with this image in a manner that would be consistent and present your argument at the level of a university level academic portfolio review, please. 



> I was referring to Tri-X Pan (ISO 400), not Tri-X Professional (ISO 320)


My error, I haven't use TX of any flavor in years, the reciprocity issues (solved by TMY, incidentally), make it an absolute last choice for me.



> I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at 'realistic' representations.


Only if _YOU_ want it to be realistic, ref. Rieslander, Uelsmann and others. Does your rejection of photography as an art form extend to these artists as well. (please do tell, as Jerry and I have an ongoing discussion going on about a very similar topic) For further examples, I suggest you review Steiglitz's Equivilents series, as well as Edward Weston's large body of work. You may also wish to peruse the work of Man Ray's photograms as part of his larger body of New Bauhaus work, Margaret Bourke-White, HCB (Henri Cartier-Bresson), and others. I'm guessing that you also find the work of Picasso, Dali, Mondrian, Rothcko and Pollack "sick" as well. Understanding starts with an open mind, free of preconceived notions and a willingness to attempt to understand.



> Nonsense. Besides, I don't follow ISO guidelines. I generally give more exposure and less development, and print on higher-grade paper. My negatives are generally more delicate than ISO guidelines call for, because that works better, giving better sharpness and finer grain. See Barry Thorton's book _Edge of Darkness_.


So, essentially, you expose for the shadows and pull development, aka N- development. Funny, where have I heard that term before....Yes, Barry has a methodology that works well, for smaller negatives. If one has a target resolution of ~10lp/mm in the final print, shooting 4x5 and 8x10, one really doesn't need to get "absolute maximum" sharpness, a 16x20 from a 4x5 negative only requires 40lp/mm of resolution in the negative, easily obtained with any lens made in the last century or so, Even with poor technique. I agree that Barry's methods are invaluble if you need higher enlargement ratios (working with smaller negatives), but in the rest of the photographic world, it's just an adaptation and simplification of the Zone System. He and I had several conversations regarding this very issue, and while his techniques are essential for smaller format work, as you move up in negative size, they become less and less important.



> Not at all. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just know that every process and activity has certain limitations that must be respected. You need to understand your materials and equipment.
> 
> Look at some of the stuff I have on-line here:
> 
> ...


But you contradict yourself, only by having objective, hard data (e.g. denstiometer readings, both transmissive and reflective) can you control your process, printing is verification that you have gotten it right, not a metric in and of itself. How else can one learn the limitations of the materials at hand without empirical data? The true artist knows how to use those limitations, and how to manipulate them to suit his vision. While your approach may hold valid on that one negative, printed at that time, future negatives may or may not have the same characteristics. The measure of success is the final print, yes, but it is not a measure of whether your negatives have been exposed and processed properly, separation of cause and effect, one of the core principles of the scientific method.



> No, I reject all of that mysticism.


So, you don't look at a scene, try different vantage points, determine which, if any contrast control filter you need (if shooting black and white). Essentially, you just fire away and hope???? While you may not do it consciously, I bet at some level you do, nearly every photographer of any experience does, though not typically conciously. Are you sure you're not really an art major, heavily influenced by Dadaism, rejecting all that came before? (and attempt at humor, btw) 



> I tried the original version of TMY and found it was poorly suited for outdoor / available-light work. The new version may be better.


Poorly suited in what way? it has one of the longest stright line curve segments since Super-XX, minimal reciprocity failure, and is very tolerant of mis-handling. All of my Fine Art work is shot on TMY or TMX, with only a few exceptions. It is one of the most predictable, stable long tonal range modern emulsions around, bar none. 



> Not at all. I use grade 3 as 'normal' (which is optimum for 35mm) and develop my film so that sunny scenes of typical subject matter fit that grade. Rarely do I adjust contrast in printing. I typically vary between grade 3 and 3.5, rarely anything else. It just isn't necessary.


 Optimum according to whom? I bet if you changed enlargers, or paper, ore developer, your "optimum for 35mm) would go away quickly. Grade 3 compresses the upper values horribly in my opinion. What enlarger, paper, filtration are you using, out of curiosity?



> The card is wrong for its intended use.


No, it's intended use is to give you a repeatable, consistent shade of gray to meter from. Kodak even cautions against using a gray card for sensiometric testing, recommending either a Q13 or Q14 card. Every year I send all my meters to be recalibrated and checked out, on each invoice is a reminder from the cal shop to "verify metering and either adjust to your process or recalibrate your process". This is from one of the largest light meter service centers in the world, do they know something you and I don't?



> I don't reject 'calibration'; I reject zone system manipulations of contrast. I rarely vary more than half a grade from grade 3. The photos look best that way.


Manipulations are but a small part of the zone system, a very small part. What "looks best" to you may not to others. I have printed several Fine Art prints for clients that, due to lower light levels than in the gallery where my work was on exhibit, requiring a slightly lighter print. Are they wrong? Of course not, the effect on tonality and light levels is intuitive, or should be. 



> I recommend that book too, and it rejects the zone system approach as well.


One thing I recommend to everybody that asks me about learning photography, at the very least, take a few art classes at the local community college, it's easy to get caught up in the technical nonsense, and somehow miss the forest for the trees. Having a good solid footing in art history, compositional skills and color theory make photography infinitely easier, and make the photographer a well rounded artist as well.

I guess we can agree to disagree, though I would ask that you at least consider some of what I've written.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

Mike_E said:


> If Pet comes up with something worth reading could somebody let me know.  I'm afraid that I'm going to have to use the ignore button.  And to think that I made it all the way through jerryph.



Are you casting aspersions on my posts? I just find it rather incredible that the zone system is taken at all seriously by anyone, ever. It is nothing but mysticism and unscientific nonsense.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

Petraio, out of curiosity, how old are you?


----------



## guitstik (Jun 9, 2010)

It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Petraio, out of curiosity, how old are you?



Age is 60. Why?

I know all about the zone system, thank you very much. In the late 1960s it was all the rage. But slowly it dawned on me that the photographs made with severe expansion or contraction looked like crap.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

I would have guessed much, much younger. Any tool, taken to an extreme can look horrid, (just take a look at the HDR Craze a year or so ago) In moderation, either technique can be effective, if not over done.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

guitstik said:


> It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.



I have always wondered why people say things like this, instead of either criticizing the arguments of the posters, one way or another. It is amazing to me how gullible people are, and that when anyone questions or attacks the ideas or work of some guru or icon (such as Ansel Adams or John Sexton)  that they feel in some way hurt. Do people actually think that these people are infallible? That it is not possible that they're wrong?

There is a fable about the emperor having no clothes. If you like Ansel Adams photographs, fine (I like one or two of them), but he is no god, and he _certainly _was wrong about the zone system and the best way to make B&W photographs.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> I would have guessed much, much younger. Any tool, taken to an extreme can look horrid, (just take a look at the HDR Craze a year or so ago) In moderation, either technique can be effective, if not over done.



Why did you think that? I don't belong to the hippie crowd and never did. A lot of the Western-landscape-hippies are zone-zombies.

Yes, the HDR stuff looks like crap too.

Over the years I have tried to 'purify' my technique more and more, with the result that I use almost no manipulation of contrast these days.

I'd like to see a zone-zombie do anything like this:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html

Contrast manipulation, as I have come to realize, is so lame. It is no substitute for having something interesting to photograph in the first place.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

(while my gut instict tells me this is best done in a pm, in the interest of an open, hopefully constructive dialog, I'm posting it here)

My contentions are based soley on my opinions. I have found the Z.S. to be invaluable to characterize a new film or film/dev combo. My questions from above still stand, can you elucidate, in a manner more revealing than "it's b.s." your following statements:

"I think that sort of mentality is sick. Photography is best at  'realistic' representations."

"...photography isn't 'art' and can never be 'art'"

No, I reject all of that mysticism. " and more specifically how you compose and expose with no preconceived visualisation

"The card is wrong for its intended use." and specifically my comment regarding the use of Q13 and Q14 cards for sensiometric purpsoses

"I rarely vary more than half a grade from grade 3. The photos look best  that way" and specifically what confers upon you the abilty to determine "best" for other's 35mm work?

I await your replies.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> guitstik said:
> 
> 
> > It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
> ...



If you do not remember, I have tried to debate you on this issue several times on this post. I do NOT think that A.A. is god just because I happen to enjoy his work. I like a lot of ART and I think that photography can be art if it is viewed that from the outset by the "artist". If you start out by viewing it as cold, heartless and mechanical that is what you will get. The ZS is just another paintbrush in my art kit just as the paper type, developer or even the choice of lens that I use. You are such a zealot against the ZS that I keep expecting you to strap on an enlarger and blow yourself up:lmao: That is why this is a "train wreck" it just keeps going on and on without resolving anything and people just keep coming back to watch.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

Petraio, 
just to clarify, I'm neither invalidating you experience nor opinion, nor am I attacking you personally. However,  I ask that you afford me the respect of clearly elucidating your statements, many of which are in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings, to better understand where you are coming from. 

I would appreciate sticking to the facts, political and societal references (e.g. the use of the term "hippies" and "zone-zombies") would be counterproductive to same.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Petraio,
> just to clarify, I'm neither invalidating you experience nor opinion, nor am I attacking you personally. However,  I ask that you afford me the respect of clearly elucidating your statements, many of which are in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings, to better understand where you are coming from.
> 
> I would appreciate sticking to the facts, political and societal references (e.g. the use of the term "hippies" and "zone-zombies") would be counterproductive to same.



1) There is a sort of "photo-culture", from which I try to distance myself. In general, I don't seek out the company of photographers, and do not consider myself a 'photographer', for _cultural reasons._ It is important to understand that this 'culture' affects your opinions, and it's why I try not to look at much other work these days. I'm not interested in what others do, really. There are indeed 'landscape hippies' and 'zone zombies'. Those terms represent a mind-set. Those people look at each others' work and reinforce their approaches. The trouble is it's a closed box. Not one of them is even remotely capable of doing anything like my rugby shot. They don't have the reflexes, anticipation, compositional skills, etc., to do this sort of thing on the fly. It's just beyond them. If it's not a rock or tree or waterfall, they're hopeless. Is that condescending? Perhaps, but it represents the truth of the matter.

2) I had for a long time felt there was simply something 'wrong' with the zone system approach _in principle_, but I wasn't quite sure what it was. When I found that quote from Kodak, which essentially says "the mid-tones are most important of all, more important than highlights or shadows", it finally clicked (see the Kodak quote earlier in the thread). _The problem with contrast manipulation is that it messes up the mid-tones. _Kodak had made thousands of photographs using all sorts of exposure and printing combinations, and asked viewers to judge them. This was time-consuming work, but it enabled Kodak to develop exposure and processing recommendations that were based in reality. That statement summarizes this testing.

I also read Thornton's book, which shows how to get best sharpness etc., from small formats. Although I had already (re-) discovered this myself years before, it was nice to see it all carefully explained and verified.  

3) Thus, what I say is not "in contradiction to a century plus of work, knowledge and writings". On the contrary, what I am saying is that what *Kodak *said is right and what the zone system gurus teach is wrong.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Compare my photo of the rugby game. Note the compositional aspects (triangles, diagonal lines, etc.).
> ...



1) You need to learn more about the term 'art'. Primarily, it means the product of the human hand. Photographs have a causal relationship to something that exists and reflects light. 'Art' does not have any such causal relationship; the relationship is _representational_, not _causal_. One could have a painter set up his easel in front of the Queen and paint...a dog. It would be 'art'. That's what 'art' is. 

Look up the term 'art' in an unabridged dictionary or encyclopedia. The terms 'Bachelor of Art', 'Bachelor of Science' have a connection to this discussion. The 'Liberal Arts:

Liberal arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "Fine-Art Photography" is an oxymoron. The "fine arts" are painting, sculpture, etc. The adjective 'fine-art' refers properly to the tools (brushes, oils, chisels, etc.) used by painters, sculptors, glass-blowers, pot-makers, etc. 

Also, see Roger Scruton's essay "Why Photography is not Art" in _The Aesthetic Understanding_ (1983). 

2) As you can see, it is almost pointless for me to talk to _photographers _about such philosophical issues. They don't have the educational background to discuss these things. Steiglitz was not a philosopher, and he had no idea what 'art' means.

3) You will _never _need a densitometer to make good prints. All that matters is that you develop the film in such a way that you get good results in printing.

4) The most beautiful photographs are not tonally 'manipulated' (by which I do not mean _uncontrolled_).

5) No, I do not use 'N-1'; I simply find that from the standpoint of fine grain and sharpness, the ISO recommendations are not the best.

6) The original TMY had a 'sagging' lower mid-tone curve, and a rising upper curve. The meant that the shadow areas were 'weak' in contrast (the worst thing for outdoor work, where flare is more prevalent) and the highlights (where clouds record) were strong in contrast (making it hard to avoid blown-out clouds). Tri-X Pan has the very reverse, a 'hard' shadow area and 'soft' highlight area. This is more suited to outdoor work for obvious reasons. generally speaking I have not been a fan of T-Max films, at least not for outdoor work. They are more suited to studio use.

7) The rugby photo is I think quite good compositionally (sorry the image quality on the site is not that good), but I have to say a bit of luck was involved. At the same time, I had the 'luck' because I have the skill and experience to know what to _try_...look at the diagonal 'dynamic tension' between the lower left and upper right.

8) _Tonally _it makes _no _difference if you develop for grade 2, 3, or 4. Paul Butzi proved this a few years ago (he had a whole article on-line about it, which seems to have disappeared). He used step-wedges, and he was surprised to find it made no difference over a long range (grade 2-4 at least). The reciprocity fell off a bit at very low grades.

The use of grade 3 allows a lower-contrast negative to be used, produced by gentler development.  Every second a film stays in the developer it is getting blurrier and grainier...(all development is infectious)...so it makes a difference in _overall image quality,_ not _tonality_, to use a harder grade. I use Ilford Gallerie grade 3 as a reference. Why not grade 4? It's worse, that's why. the ideal seems to be about grade 3.


----------



## epatsellis (Jun 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> epatsellis said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio,
> ...



1. Sadly, you are partially correct, though peer review can and does help, but one has to be able to accept, in a constructive manner, intelligent criticism and utilise it appropriately. An ad hominem attack based on a cultural grounds is no better than one based on any other specious claim,and just as invalid. The "photographic culture" as you refer to it, is nothing more than a xenophobic excuse to avoid (quite likely relevent) constructive, peer based criticisms. Howard Hughes would be proud of you. 

2. There is nothing inherently wrong with the zone system, anymore than there is anything inherently wrong with any paradigm, how an individual chooses to use that knowledge can be aesthetically valid or invalid, but such usage neither confirms nor negates the validity of the paradigm in and of itself. 

3. Examine your posted quote carefully, important statements highlighted in red (and would you please cite a source for this that I can verify?)

 "*"[FONT=&quot]...*[/FONT]*[FONT=&quot]Generally  speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0,  even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the  highlights and shadows."[/FONT] *

*"*[FONT=&quot]*In  other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print  to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless  of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken.  To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or  gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade."*



For snapshots and pictures of the family vacation, perhaps, but what if, for example, the important detail, as I visualised the image, was the deep shadows, or extreme highlights. Following this "guideline" would be anathemic to the entire creative and photographic process. These publications may be valid for the majority of situations, but they are only guidelines, and as in life, there are times when guidelines fail to fully encompass all possibilities. Kodak's generalized reccomendations, and the Zone system are not at odds here, in fact they agree that standardizing your exposure and development is critical to ensuring consistency. Where they differ drastically is in the "one size fits all" approach by Kodak, vs. the (admittedly tedious at first) approach to characterising your entire process, and having checks in place to ensure your process remains in control. (essentially statistical process control a la Demming 101)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As I recall, on Ilford Photo's  forum several year ago (2005??) you posted similar drivel, citing a long  unobtainable copy of a paper. there was one user that agreed with you,  to a point, but also raised the point that I do, it's a tool for  creative use, choosing to use it or not is up to the individual artist.

[/FONT]As to your eschewing of the Zone system principles, I quote your post on Photo.net on April 23 of this year: 
"Film speed loss is almost non-existent, for as you know shadow sped is  almost unaffected by changes in development, as can be seen in any set  of H&D curves. My recommendation to increase exposure by 2/3 stop is  not because the development causes a significant loss of film speed,_  but because I believe ISO speeds are too high._ Film speed (shadow  detail) varies very little even with significant changes in development  times"

e.g. expose for the shadows (some would argure 2/3 isn't enough, myself included depending on the film), yet here you say that the entire Zone System paradigm is wrong, however you use the very same paradigm, in a different form. 

Or as Jay De Fehr more eloquently stated in that thread:
"In your contrarian zeal you've produced a true pearl of anti-wisdom!  Bravo! I've not seen a more perfect example of a logical fallacy than  your marvelously misconceived thought experiment Let's examine all the  ways your wrong about this, and why you _can't_ be right."
[FONT=&quot]
Given the vitriol you chose to unleash in that thread, I'm done with it, I have tried to have an intellegent, fact based discussion with you and you prefer to be adamant and unable to accept that other's may have a different opinion and/or experience level. 

I generate a significant amount of my income from my photography, and have for over two decades. With over a dozen exhibits, images in several permanent collections and regular shows, I speak from a position of having done the work, paid my dues and reaped the benefit of the criticisms and knowledge of those around me. 

You sir, choose not to substantiate your claims, pointing to one image over and over as though it's the frickin' Mona Lisa. 
Here's news for you, even a blind squirrel gets a nut now and then. Get over yourself Mike, you're really not that good. I remember what happened over at the Leica forum, you had a significant hand in those goings on as well, IIRC. 

In summary, you are a self centered, ignomable fool, who refuses to even consider your fallibility, and I will hear no more of it. 

Good Day Sir!!!
[/FONT]


----------



## Mike_E (Jun 9, 2010)

Thanks Erie!

You may be the most patient person on this forum.

p.s. the ignore function works pretty well.

by-the-bye, it's not that someone can't have an opinion (even if it's as my wife would say:  half-cocked-crazy) that's caused this thread to go on for so long, it's that someone should not be _allowed to bully others_ into accepting an opinion they would not have otherwise reached.  Especially people who have yet had the time to form their own with out obstruction.

by-the-bye2, Gnarley1?  Really?!?   :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 9, 2010)

epatsellis said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > epatsellis said:
> ...



1) The rugby shot is 'very good', no more. Within the genre of work, however, it is above average; also, as I said, I was _lucky_. Did you not read that? Lucky. There were other so-so photos made that day, but on _that _one I hit it on the nose. And it's certainly better than the damned "puddle-jumper" photo by HCB that is so undeservedly famous.







2) Why does everyone feel so defensive about criticism of the zone system? This extreme sensitivity is often an indication of an emotional attachment, not a rational one. Is it perhaps because people think that by using the zone system they partake of the divinity they ascribe to Adams?

3) You are _not _a philosopher; I am not, _culturally speaking_, a photographer, by which I mean that I do not subscribe to the "photographer culture"; I don't "hang out" with photographers. But I never said that I don't value others' opinions, did I? But at this stage of my "photography career" (46 years on) I doubt there's anything of value that I have not heard before. I am not a 'beginner', having first taken photos when I was 14, 46 years ago. After a while one acquires a certain right to have one's judgement. 

4) The Kodak book is very explicit and your comments are misdirected. For example:

"[FONT=&quot]Here, then, is how and why a portrait negative should be exposed: The darkest shadow areas should be well down on the toe of the characteristic curve, the middle tones should be on the central portion of the toe, while the highest diffuse facial highlights should be on the straight-line portion of the curve. Ideally, these highlights should have density values of about 0.8 to 1.0. For most portrait films, this value should not be above 1.2. A negative which has been exposed in this manner will result in a print which, most observers agree, is of better quality than the best obtainable print made from negatives with appreciably less or more exposure. This ideal negative has, accordingly, highlights which have appreciably more brilliant tonal separation than the shadows. This evidently helps to concentrate observer attention on the most important area of the portrait, the face, while subordinating the shadows with a lower printing contrast."[/FONT]

"[FONT=&quot]In other words, in portraiture, a more pleasing picture may be obtained if toe densities represent the shadows in spite of the fact that it may be a less literal reproduction of the subject. Thus, from a pictorial standpoint, retention of shadow detail may be unimportant.[/FONT]"

In other words, the you don't have to worry so much about retaining detail in the man's pinstriped blue suit.

The level of understanding is quite above what you will see today.

5) Ever see the work of Willy Ronis? He did the kind of work I admire.

"Willy Ronis" - Google Search

This is also the 'genre' in which I work (urban 'reportage', etc.).

6) [FONT=&quot]"As I recall, on Ilford Photo's forum several year ago (2005??) you posted similar drivel, citing a long unobtainable copy of a paper. there was one user that agreed with you, to a point, but also raised the point that I do, it's a tool for creative use, choosing to use it or not is up to the individual artist."

[/FONT]The Kodak quote is from a book intended for professional photographers. _Negative Making for Professional Photographers_, Eastman Kodak, 1956.
[FONT=&quot] 
What you call "creative use" I call "misguided, bizarre, tonal distortion". 

Photographers are not 'artists'. Photography is not 'art'. 'Art' means "made by hand"; it doesn't mean 'good'. Photographs are produced by direct causal means, in accordance with natural laws. Thus, it cannot be 'art' because the meaning of the word 'art' excludes such a causal relationship. To say your work is 'art' is a mistake in the use of the word 'art'. To deny your work is 'art' is not to deny it is 'good'.

I don't care if in the "photography culture" you call yourselves "artists", _it's still incorrect. _That's why I explicitly stated I am not part of that culture, and why I mentioned about the linguistic/stylistic/philosophical/cultural 'inbreeding' that goes on in such groups. 

In summary, the OP is advised to tell his teacher the zone system is misguided, fruitless, and wrong. 

More from the Kodak publication:

[/FONT] *[FONT=&quot]"THE COMMERCIAL NEGATIVE[/FONT]*
  [FONT=&quot]Commercial photography encompasses almost all subjects not included under the portrait category previously discussed. Commercial negatives would be typified by normal negatives of product illustrations for advertising, display, or catalogue purposes, press shots, and many types of industrial photography. [/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]Whereas in portraiture the photographer is primarily concerned with the reproduction of facial tones, in commercial photography he is interested equally in both highlights and shadows. In other words, the commercial photographer wants to reproduce all important portions of his subject with a minimum of tonal value distortion. In general, this means a slightly more dense negative in order to avoid the tonal distortion of shadows occurring in the toe portion of the characteristic curve. Many commercial photographers feel that these conditions are fulfilled if the average commercial negative receives about one stop more than the average portrait negative. Thus, the recommended technique for making a meter reading by either reflected light or incident light will produce negatives of the desired exposure level. [/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]It has been customary for commercial negatives to be developed somewhat more than portrait negatives. However, _there is no photographic reason why an average commercial negative should be developed to a higher gamma than a portrait negative. _[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]As the portrait photographers have their adage, so also do the commercial photographers who say, "Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights." Is this sound advice? First, let us examine this statement more closely. Admittedly, adequate exposure is desirable to record the important shadow tones. But to "develop for the highlights" implies that the time of development, or in other words, the gamma, should be varied in accordance with the brightness range of the scene. The idea is, of course, to prevent overdevelopment of highlights, so the scale of tones can be kept within that which photographic paper can render. Thus, should a negative of a short scale subject, such as an average building exterior taken on an overcast day, be developed to a higher gamma than a negative of the same scene taken in brilliant sunlight? The answer is generally no; both negatives should be developed alike. This is probably contrary to the practice which some professional photographers advocate. The reasoning for this answer follows: Although photographers speak of "important highlights" and "important shadows," for the most part _it is actually the middle tones which are most important of all. _Middle tones are, of course, the range of grays between highlights and shadows. Stated differently, middle tones of a negative or print are those densities which are not associated with toe or shoulder areas of the characteristic curve.[/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]It has been found through a series of comprehensive tests that for the great majority of scenes the middle tones should be reproduced at a gradient of 1.0 on a tone reproduction curve. This curve is a plot of densities in the print versus the logarithms of the luminances or "brightnesses" of corresponding areas in the scene. A gradient of 1.0 means that if there is a 10 percent difference between two tones in the scene, then these same tones should be reproduced with a 10 percent difference in the print. Generally speaking, the middle tones should be reproduced with a gradient of 1.0, even if this can be done only at a sacrifice of gradient in the highlights and shadows. 

[/FONT]   [FONT=&quot]In other words, the majority of people want the middle tones of the print to reproduce most original subjects as closely as possible, regardless of the lighting conditions that prevailed when the pictures were taken. To do this, all negatives should be developed to the same contrast or gamma for the same printing conditions and paper grade. [/FONT]

  [FONT=&quot]There are exceptions, of course. The "majority" of outdoor subjects in the tests mentioned previously included about 85 percent of picture-taking situations, such as portraits, landscapes, and architectural pictures taken in sunlight, in shade, and on overcast days. The remaining 15 percent of the scenes had, for the most part, large and very deep shadow areas which comprised an important part of the subject. It was these latter scenes which the majority of observers thought were best printed on a paper one grade softer than normal. *Thus, even for subjects with a long scale of brightnesses, it was found satisfactory to develop the negative as though for a normal scene and to let the range of paper grades compensate for the unusual nature of the subject."

*I can find no more explicit rejection of zone system thinking than this quote. [/FONT]


----------



## guitstik (Jun 10, 2010)

Petraio, you lost it when you claimed that "photography is not art" and "that to be art it must be created by hand". First off, ART does not start at the paint brush or the chisel not even in the hands but in the vision, heart and soul of the Artist. You, yourself said as much when talking of your beloved rugby photo. You obviously had a vision of what the perfect shot would look like and you had the  foresight and the presence of mind to take that shot when it came into view. If that is not art then there is no art, you would see that if you were not so blinded by your own venom. You are obviously a lonely, bitter, twisted old man who is not happy unless he is spreading his poison to everyone around. 
You are the only one who is claiming that "we" are trapped by the precepts espoused by those who have gone before us, but it is you who are trapped by the narrow minded, myopic opinion of yourself. I pity you but at the same time I refuse to  continue to allow you to draw me into your cesspool of hate and vitriol. I shake the dust of you off of my heels and bid you a due.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 10, 2010)

guitstik said:


> Petraio, you lost it when you claimed that "photography is not art" and "that to be art it must be created by hand". First off, ART does not start at the paint brush or the chisel not even in the hands but in the vision, heart and soul of the Artist. You, yourself said as much when talking of your beloved rugby photo. You obviously had a vision of what the perfect shot would look like and you had the  foresight and the presence of mind to take that shot when it came into view. If that is not art then there is no art, you would see that if you were not so blinded by your own venom. You are obviously a lonely, bitter, twisted old man who is not happy unless he is spreading his poison to everyone around.
> You are the only one who is claiming that "we" are trapped by the precepts espoused by those who have gone before us, but it is you who are trapped by the narrow minded, myopic opinion of yourself. I pity you but at the same time I refuse to  continue to allow you to draw me into your cesspool of hate and vitriol. I shake the dust of you off of my heels and bid you a due.



Unfortunately, you simply don't understand the terms concerned. Again, I urge you to read up on the term 'art'. Football is not cricket either. My rugby shot is not 'art', nor is Adams's _Moonrise_. That does not diminish their value.

And it is 'adieu'...


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 10, 2010)

What is considered art by some is not considered art by others, that is called OPINION.

Art is Art, whether or not we like one thing and someone likes something else.

Art is created. Photographs are created. 



Petraio
You may not like it, that is your opinion, and can be respected. Such as your opinion about one of the most famous photographic images ever taken. So you don't like, okay.
 Art is ever evolving and each individual creates in his/her own style.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 10, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> What is considered art by some is not considered art by others, that is called OPINION.
> 
> Art is Art, whether or not we like one thing and someone likes something else.
> 
> ...



I have tried to explain this is _not _a matter of opinion; it's a matter of understanding the proper usage of the word (i.e., reading the _definition_). To call something 'art' in the photo subculture vernacular means it is 'good'; but of course that's _not _the meaning I am referring to. No matter how 'good' your photograph is, it cannot be 'art' in the _true_, technical sense of the word 'art' that is used in aesthetics, art criticism, and philosophy (and _this _is the one that counts). 'Art' is a technical term, the core sense of which means 'made by the hand of man'. A fossil, made entirely by natural processes, is not a work of art. Why not? Because it's due to natural processes. Can it be beautiful? Of course. Many fossils are exquisitely beautiful. 








A photograph is in a way like a fossil. It could be considered "fossilized light". A work such as this:






or this:






in which natural shapes are imitated, is 'art' _because it was made by the hand of man_. 

In other words, the difference between 'art' and 'non-art' is a _technical _one (by which I mean "made by the hand of man), not a matter of _virtue _or _beauty_.

Understand now?

Thus, even though Adams's _Moonrise _is not 'art', that does not mean it isn't _very _cool. I _do _like it; and it is _not _art.

Consider this analogy:

Fiction and non-fiction. 'Fiction' is like 'art'; 'non-fiction' is like 'photography'. Neither is superior to the other. No matter how well-done non-fiction is, it's _still _not fiction. Understand now?


----------



## epo (Jun 11, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> pbelarge said:
> 
> 
> > What is considered art by some is not considered art by others, that is called OPINION.
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 11, 2010)

epo said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > pbelarge said:
> ...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 11, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> What is considered art by some is not considered art by others, that is called OPINION.
> 
> Art is Art, whether or not we like one thing and someone likes something else.
> 
> ...



Not sure there's an argument here.


----------



## christopher walrath (Jun 11, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> The zone system is a mistake. A huge one. It's fundamentally wrong


 
OK. I must ask this in the most respectful manner possible. If your statement is true, then how can you explain the successful exposure of tons of film by photographers the world over in using this system. When asked about the outdatedness of the Zone System during a lecture and confronted by Minor White's version, Ansel Adams replied 'I practice zone, not zen.' So who is right? Who is wrong? Edward Weston contact printed 8x10 sheet negatives under a light bulb in a garden shed for crying out loud. You don't have to get the Zone System. You do not have to use it. And you do not have to be presumptuous and cause a fire fight in a thread where a photographer is asking for help using a system you apparently do not ascribe to, nor believe is any means for a photographer to ply their craft.

It is your presumption that has completely ruined this thread. My apologies to the OP, but this is not characteristic of behavior here on TPF and I ask the mods to prevent this atrocity from continuing. Shut this shameful thread down, please.


----------



## Derrel (Jun 11, 2010)

I've enjoyed reading these long posts. I actually have. There are a couple of real nuggets buried in the verbiage. As far as the Original Poster's questions....hmmm....boy, it's been a while since I read the OP, but I do not think that the Zone System is all that necessary for action photography....take a mid-tone reading and shoot somewhere close to that...develop normally...print on whatever grade of paper your enlarger/exposure/development time requires....results 'oughtta be good enough for sports/action work.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jun 12, 2010)

christopher walrath said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > The zone system is a mistake. A huge one. It's fundamentally wrong
> ...



It  seems you haven't read a word I wrote. It is possible to break the speed limit, but _should_ you do it? Of course the zone system 'works',_ but it produces distorted tones in the process_. Read the Kodak quote, again, again, and again until you 'get it'. Normal contrast midtones are of the highest importance. I have never denied the zone system 'works'. It does what it is supposed to do. The trouble, the mistake, is that_ what it tries to do is wrong in the first place._

The OP is encouraged to tel his instructor he's teaching a fraud.


----------



## guitstik (Jun 12, 2010)

Petraio, I thought we had you in rehab?


----------



## terri (Jun 13, 2010)

Congrats to PP for continuing to hammer his point until he conjured up enough interest to get the argument he was after from his first post in this thread. 

If you'd had any _real_ interest in helping the OP you could have sent him a PM to expand on your comments, but that would not have served your apparent need for an audience, would it? :er:

Thread closed.


----------

