# Recommended Exposures by Ansel Adams



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

These I think are the recommended exposures for different shades of black, gray, and white that comprise the subject. I read them in Ansel Adams' book THE NEGATIVE. I experimented if it can apply to digital as the same way as film. It does...Thank Ansel for the diligence employed in coming up with these recommended exposures. They are still of good use as of today..


ZONE 0 (darkest black)

1/125 at f/22

ZONE 1 (Black)

1/60 at f/22

ZONE 2 (grayish black)

1/30 at f/22

ZONE 3 (dark gray)

1/30 at f/16

ZONE 4 (gray)

1/30 at f/11

ZONE 5 (moderately light gray)



ZONE 6 (light gray)

1/30 at f/5.6

ZONE 7 (grayish white)

1/30 at f/4

ZONE 8 (whitish gray)

1/15 at f/4

ZONE 9 (whitish)

1/8 at f/4

ZONE 10 (invisibly white)

1/4 at f/4


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 2, 2010)

I really need to pick up his books.


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2010)

I think taken out of the context of the book these recommended exposures mean nothing to readers here (and I think if you copy the whole book here it will be breaking copywrite ). 

Without any form of context its hard to really give any meaning to these values nor application.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 2, 2010)

Overread said:


> Without any form of context its hard to really give any meaning to these values nor application.


Yeah...  I mean, assuming the light was 'right', I'm sure those settings would work, but what kind of light are we talking about here?


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

You must always assume sufficient lighting whether artificial or natural...Or for the present generation, presumption that it would undergo autoediting by Photoshop...

I experimented it on my D5000 Nikon. It works. Man, I just was imparting to you what he taught. It was a quote from his book and referred to him as an author. There was no violation of intellectual property rights..Just when you list your bibiliography when you submit a research paper...


----------



## bazooka (Jul 2, 2010)

I think what they're saying is that "sufficient lighting" could mean anything. Moonlight is sufficient lighting if your exposure time and aperture are set correctly, likewise a sunny day. But you certainly wouldn't use the same for both. So under what lighting conditions is he referring to?


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> I really need to pick up his books.


 

benlonghair, Ansel Adams has 4 books to his credit. I know the three: The Camera, The Negative, The Print. There is another one but I forgot the title. I think the other one was his seminal work. I keep on reading and reading The Negative..Once you've mastered his book, I think no precarious situation can disappoint you..Just read his recommended exposures..


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

bazooka said:


> I think what they're saying is that "sufficient lighting" could mean anything. Moonlight is sufficient lighting if your exposure time and aperture are set correctly, likewise a sunny day. But you certainly wouldn't use the same for both. So under what lighting conditions is he referring to?


 

All his sample pictures were either under direct sunlight or artificial lights..Usually he takes pictures of the Grand Canyon which is under direct sunlight or portraits under direct sunlight..But there are pictures taken with artificial light..


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

coreduo said:


> These I think are the recommended exposures for different shades of black, gray, and white that comprise the subject. I read them in Ansel Adams' book THE NEGATIVE. I experimented if it can apply to digital as the same way as film. It does...Thank Ansel for the diligence employed in coming up with these recommended exposures. They are still of good use as of today..
> 
> 
> ZONE 0 (darkest black)
> ...



This is useless without knowing what lighting conditions you are in, what speed  film you have, etc. 

On an unrelated point, every copy of that book should be burned. It's full of nonsense and lies.

Adams has done more to _*destroy *_any understanding of B&W photography than anyone ever. His books and ideas are total hogwash.


----------



## Aragorncito (Jul 2, 2010)

I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If  you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

Aragorncito said:


> I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If  you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.



I have been doing B&W 35mm photography for 46 years. I know more about what I need to do than Adams ever dreamed of. His ides are totally wrong. Pay no attention to them.

The first error he makes is to assume that tones are the most important feature of photographs. He's wrong!


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

coreduo said:


> He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...



Because they're full of falsehoods!

He used large-format camera. He would have been helpless photographing anything that wasn't stationary.

I'd like to see if he could have done this, for instance:

http://www.photographyboard.net/airborne-skater-1.jpg-846.html

Or this:

http://www.photographyboard.net/chasing-the-ball-1086.html

Or this:

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

Or this:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-1085.html

No, he could not!


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2010)

Ahh so its not that his words or theories are incorrect but that his methods are focused around landscape and stationary subjects and not live action!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

Overread said:


> Ahh so its not that his words or theories are incorrect but that his methods are focused around landscape and stationary subjects and not live action!



No, there's far more to it than that...he's wrong about almost everything!

I have respect neither for his work nor for his misguided 'teachings'.


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2010)

So you keep saying - yet thus far you seem to offer little proof upfront unless people prompt you for it. Might be an idea to start your own thread on the topic and outline your thoughts and reasonings for why you consider AA to have theories that are not as "correct" (in your view) as others belive them to be.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

Overread said:


> So you keep saying - yet thus far you seem to offer little proof upfront unless people prompt you for it. Might be an idea to start your own thread on the topic and outline your thoughts and reasonings for why you consider AA to have theories that are not as "correct" (in your view) as others belive them to be.



I don't really have time. Suffice it so say he's wrong.

Basically, his zone system requires you to vary film development to adjust to scene contrast. This is absolutely false.

I have a copy of a Kodak professional publication that goes into a great bit of detail about this, and explicitly denies this idea.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 2, 2010)

Does he have a book on focusing?


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2010)

So you offer no proof to prove that he is wrong and yet you expect us to believe you over a guy who has international respect and adoration for his works and teachings?


----------



## erichards (Jul 2, 2010)

@Petraio--Whoa! From what i can tell you and AA have different styles.  Thus not making him wrong just different from you.  Meanwhile making _you_ look really angry/hot head and closed minded, all the while you saying nothing concrete to back up your unfounded statements.
He did non moving objects...you seem not to.
I would really love to see someone master a view camera on a non-stationary object of any kind the way AA did on non-moving things.
And IMHO tone in B&W does matter...a lot. It's not everything but it's important.
Overread is right you really should start a new thread on AA saying what is wrong with at the very least a smidge of proof or something more than hot headed splutterings.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

Overread said:


> So you offer no proof to prove that he is wrong and yet you expect us to believe you over a guy who has international respect and adoration for his works and teachings?



Yeah, the same people who think Meryl Streep is a great actress, James Cameron is a great film-maker, and George Winston a great pianist.

Basically, Adams appeals[FONT=&quot] to bourgeoisie [/FONT]sorts. Not to me.

Adams was a one-note hack.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Does he have a book on focusing?



I hope not, because he would be wrong about that too.


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > So you offer no proof to prove that he is wrong and yet you expect us to believe you over a guy who has international respect and adoration for his works and teachings?
> ...


 
He does not appeal to bourgoisie. He is hated because he was a victim of McCarthysm witchhunt. He was a member of a progressive and not a reactionary organization. You probably hate him because he was tagged a communist. He might have Leftist inclinations but he resigned from the Artist organization because he is not a communist but a legitimate Leftist. I doubt if you have read any of his books. You should like him because bourgoisie does not appeal to him just like you.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

coreduo said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



No, this is not political. I have no knowledge of these accusations. I don't care one whit about him. I have read his books, as well as Minor White's book on the zone system. This is strictly about his photographic ideas and practices.

And he certainly _does _appeal to [FONT=&quot]bourgeoisie [/FONT]tastes. 

"If I go to somebody's house and there's an Eric Clapton album, I leave." (member of Culture Club)


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

I offer a deal to every poster in this thread. His books are all available in public libraries. Let us read them all. Then after 4 months let us gather ourselves in another thread and discuss every item in detail. I tell you, he is credible. Believe me.. I studied law. I know everything about fraud..And the guy is no quack. He talks sense. Let us all read his books. THE CAMERA, THE NEGATIVE, THE PRINT..


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 2, 2010)

coreduo said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



No, this is not political. I have no knowledge of these accusations. I don't care one whit about him. I have read his books, as well as Minor White's book on the zone system.

And he certainly _does _appeal to [FONT=&quot]bourgeoisie [/FONT]tastes. 

"If I go to somebody's house and there's an Eric Clapton album, I leave." (member of Culture Club)

"If I talk to somebody about photography and he mentions Ansel Adams, I leave." (Me)


----------



## Overread (Jul 2, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> "If I talk to somebody about photography and he mentions Ansel Adams, I leave." (Me)



So why are you still in this thread? 


Seriously this is getting tedious now - either produce some evidence (I suggest in your own thread - as before I'm not closed to arguments provided there is decent and well founded proof) or just stop with the endless "trolling" of your point.


----------



## coreduo (Jul 2, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> coreduo said:
> 
> 
> > He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...
> ...


 
Ansel Adams, if you read his books, does not discriminate between or among 35mm, medium or large format camera users. Actually he recommends a 35 mm and tells his readers or students not to mind the grain if they have good composition. quote unquote..'THE CAMERA....A picture might not have grain but if it does not have good composition, it is nothing compared to one with some...(again quote unquote, Ansel Adams, THE CAMERA..See how logical his theory is..Read Black and  White Photography magazine (this month)/ You see Marilyn Monroe picture with lots of grain in it. It made the magazine..


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 5, 2010)

coreduo said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Overread said:
> ...



No, this is not political. I have no knowledge of these accusations. I don't care one whit about him. I have read his books, as well as Minor White's book on the zone system.

And he certainly _does _appeal to [FONT=&quot]bourgeoisie [/FONT]tastes. 

"If I go to somebody's house and there's an Eric Clapton album, I leave." (member of Culture Club)

"If I go to somebody about photography I leave." (member of Culture Club)


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 5, 2010)

de ja vu anyone?


----------



## ann (Jul 5, 2010)

yep


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 5, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> de ja vu anyone?



Sorry for the duplicate post.


----------



## mathews (Jul 7, 2010)

does it apply to colour photography


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

mathews said:


> does it apply to colour photography



Does what apply to colour photography?


----------



## mathews (Jul 7, 2010)

does Ansel Adams teachings apply to colour photography


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

mathews said:


> does Ansel Adams teachings apply to colour photography



They don't apply to B&W or color. The whole thing is a lie, a fraud.


----------



## icassell (Jul 7, 2010)

Actually, I have seen outstanding portraits done by Adams as well.  He was also an innovator (look at his work with Polaroid, for example).  The comment that he couldn't photograph anything that wasn't stationary is just plain incorrect.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

icassell said:


> Actually, I have seen outstanding portraits done by Adams as well.  He was also an innovator (look at his work with Polaroid, for example).  The comment that he couldn't photograph anything that wasn't stationary is just plain incorrect.



I remember him discussing in one of his books a photograph of a clergyman in front of a white church (or something similar). He went on and on about how the development needed to be changed to accommodate the lighting. A _real _pro would have simply (and wisely) used fill-in or reflectors to even out the light. What Adams advocated was _wrong_. He is _always _wrong.

He was a fool.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

erose86 said:


> icassell said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I have seen outstanding portraits done by Adams as well.  He was also an innovator (look at his work with Polaroid, for example).  The comment that he couldn't photograph anything that wasn't stationary is just plain incorrect.
> ...



Cameras that take sheet film in holders, 4x5, 5x7, 8x10, 11x14. The larger sizes are contact-printed.

Such cameras are unsuited for rapidly moving or changing subjects. They are great for photos of rocks.

:lmao:


----------



## icassell (Jul 7, 2010)

Ansel Adams?s Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar - About This Collection - (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1932762_1974604,00.html

By the way, everyone has his niche.  There are many sports or portrait photographers who couldn't do good landscape imaging to save their lives.  Does this make them any less accomplished photographers.  Most photographers can't teach what they do -- Adams was a superlative teacher.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

icassell said:


> Ansel Adams?s Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar - About This Collection - (American Memory from the Library of Congress)




If he took such photos, he didn't use a view camera to do so.


----------



## Glycerol Sound (Jul 7, 2010)

Hey Petraio Prime... can we see your work? Cause if those sports shots were your best work, you have a long way to go before you can say anything about Adams


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

Glycerol Sound said:


> Hey Petraio Prime... can we see your work? Cause if those sports shots were your best work, you have a long way to go before you can say anything about Adams



That kind of work is impossible using other equipment (the kind he used). You cannot compare the 'quality' of an 11x14 contact print to a 35mm neg enlarged. On the other hand, I get the best that can be gotten _under the circumstances_. Those were taken with a 560 mm lens. Focus was _perfect_. You can see the sweat dripping off the nose of the halfback.

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-right.jpg-857.html

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

On this one, you'll note the ball is just breaking the plane of the goal line:

http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-1085.html

(If you want to criticize the presence of the defender, remember that an SLR has a black-out period. He was not there when I started to take the photo.)

Soccer: Note the focus is perfect on the running boys:

http://www.photographyboard.net/chasing-the-ball-1086.html

The site does not have very good resolution. I'll upload these to this site soon.

Adams could not even _dream _about such shots. He had neither the equipment nor the reflexes. If it wasn't a rock or tree, he was helpless.

This kind of photography is _very, very_, difficult and requires years of experience, good reflexes and _physical _skills. If you think it's easy, just try it yourself.  The players are way out in the field and you need big lenses. The slightest movement is magnified, and the angle of view is tiny (diagonal, horizontal, vertical - 4.4°, 3.7°, 2.5°)  Players move in and out of the field of view and it is difficult, to say the least, to follow them. Composition is therefore very difficult.

The 'level of difficulty' is _many _times greater than those Adams mountain scenes so many rave about. Those shots are comparatively easy...you have all day...nothing is moving...

Try to make a perfect composition in 1/50 of a second!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Wedding photographers are the only real photographers.
> 
> No landscape photographers are!
> 
> ...


----------



## icassell (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> ...nothing is moving...


 
Except, of course, for the sun, the clouds, the wind, the water, and the imagination of the photographer ...

I daresay there's a big difference between technical skill and artistry.  Adams had both.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

icassell said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > ...nothing is moving...
> ...



You know what I mean. They are not 'running around'. There is a _huge _difference...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...



OK, here is what I am saying: there is not nearly enough appreciation for the genre in which I work (I don't mean _my _work itself) and way too much for the style of work of the large-format 'nature' guys. There is no comparison in the level of difficulty. Not saying that hiking over mountains is easy...but the purely _photographic _skills (fast reflexes, timing, rapid composition, focussing, anticipation, etc.) are not the same. Not even close.

In other words, the photos I posted here are much more difficult to achieve on a purely _photographic _level. Not everyone can do this sort of work. It requires above-average _physical technique_.

Bear in mind that I do not use auto-focus, auto-exposure, or a motor drive. My camera is 100% manual.


----------



## TheSolicitor (Jul 7, 2010)

So your overwhelming problem is not that Adams work is overrated, not that the composition isn't too difficult, not that he kept getting lucky after hauling pounds of gear to locations to shoot landscapes, but your problem is that people appreciate landscape photography more than they do sports photography?

I feel like there is a personal inadequacy to your photography that you are fighting based on your defensiveness, chest-pounding, and inability to articulate WHY Adams is less of a photographer and more of a lucky schmuck.

I'll return to the sidelines and continue soaking logs in gasoline to throw on the fire.

With love,
The Solicitor.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

TheSolicitor said:


> So your overwhelming problem is not that Adams work is overrated, not that the composition isn't too difficult, not that he kept getting lucky after hauling pounds of gear to locations to shoot landscapes, but your problem is that people appreciate landscape photography more than they do sports photography?
> 
> I feel like there is a personal inadequacy to your photography that you are fighting based on your defensiveness, chest-pounding, and inability to articulate WHY Adams is less of a photographer and more of a lucky schmuck.
> 
> ...



Not exactly. I don't do _just _sports. Those simply happened to be rather strong examples that required precise timing, etc. They were not easy. It took years if not decades of preparation to be able to do that. My skill is in _spontaneous composition_. 

It just irks me that Ansel Adams is better known than Willy Ronis, or Eugene Smith, for instance. Adams is _way _overrated. But even more, I find fault with his zone system. That's the crux, and the topic of this thread.

It also irks me that even the attempt to criticize Adams, his work, or his 'system' meets with strong, irrational resistance. No-one is beyond criticism. Adams was no god. His zone system is seriously flawed.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...



I didn't say that. I didn't say _my _genre was 'better'. I said that there's _not enough appreciation for the skill required to do it and for the results,_ and _too much_ for the landscape guys. I _do _recognize there is skill involved in what the landscape guys do, but it's not the _same _skill. It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.

It's like John McEnrose vs a chess master. They are different. But if I'm choosing a tennis partner...LOL...you know I'd prefer McEnroe to Bobby Fisher. I would not send out John Sexton (a disciple of Adams) to cover a rugby match...he'd be hopelessly out of his depth. The physical/mental skill required to take the photos I have shown here is greater, far greater, than the landscape guys.

Again, it's not a matter of 'who's better', it's a matter of the appreciation by the public.


----------



## icassell (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.



Here's where I would totally disagree with you.  I believe both are sets of photographic skills.  Your's are action-photography skill sets.  His were landscape-photography skills.  

I think there are many film-photographers out there who would argue that those who don't process film in a darkroom have no photographic skills either.  I do have darkroom experience, but I would disagree ... digital processing is yet another skill.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

icassell said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > It's not 'photographic' skill. It's something else entirely.
> ...



Well for me, B&W darkroom skills are highly desirable, but surprisingly not all of the best B&W photojournalists have agreed, and many were not confident in their darkroom skills. Some have highly trained assistants, including some of the most famous.

Someone whose work I admire is Sebastião Salgado:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebasti%C3%A3o_Salgado

I would say any of us who work in 'spontaneous photography' have to admire Salgado's work.

http://www.google.com/images?um=1&h...q=1&aqi=g3&aql=&oq=Sebastiao+Salgado&gs_rfai=

 I have no admiration for Adams. None.

Do you see the difference? Do you see what makes Sebastião Salgado completely different from Adams?


----------



## eagleseyeview7 (Jul 7, 2010)

what you guys don't get is that a landscape PHOTOGRAPHER isn't really a photographer. He/she is something totally different. ha ha


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

eagleseyeview7 said:


> what you guys don't get is that a landscape PHOTOGRAPHER isn't really a photographer. He/she is something totally different. ha ha



I would actually agree with that. It really isn't the same thing...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > TheSolicitor said:
> ...


----------



## icassell (Jul 7, 2010)

Does one have to be a humanist to be a photographer? I think not.  On the other hand, I would say that there is definite humanism in his internment camp photographs. Frankly, I don't find much human warmth in most sports or fashion photography (although I am not suggesting that they are not photography).


----------



## pbelarge (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime 

You may think you are a good photographer...just because you spent 46 years at it. The work you have shown is the same that 1000's of others can also perform, which makes you one in a thousand, SO WHAT.


What you are good at is being self centered, egotistical and just plain old boring.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I don't really have time. Suffice it so say he's wrong.



20 posts later, so you now have the time? You have yet to provide any solid argument about Adam's life work being rubbish except the fact that he supposedly couldn't shoot sports (or fast moving things) as well as you can.

Here's an example of a photo YOU'LL never be able to shoot:

http://jeffbean.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ansel_adams_mountains.jpg

Or how about:

http://www.dailyartfixx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Jeffrey-Pine-Sentinel-DomeAnsel-Adams.jpg

Or maybe this:

http://saxtonstudio.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/adams-1.jpg

Here's a thought. Get over yourself. You are not God's gift to photography. The photos you linked from those other photographers are amazing, to be sure. But how many photographic innovations did they come up with? How much of an influence were they on modern photography? Your opinion, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't matter at all.

You sound like my brother who didn't want to buy an iPhone because it was too popular and that somehow made it bad. Yet I can see the regret in his eyes everytime he finds out yet another feature my phone has that his doesn't. You don't like Adams because you want people to think you are edgy and smart. In reality, it makes you look like an ignorant tool.

Oh, one more thing I'd like to add.



> *I think* their work is more _important _more _involving_, than  Adams' is.



I've bold faced the operative phrase in your quote. Think about that for a bit.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 7, 2010)

coreduo said:


> He was able to publish books that became bestsellers. Why would I not believe him. His books should not have sold if he is a quack. He carved a name for himself. Ansel Adams! BIG TIME!! How then do you find his pictures. They're perfect !! Whether he used a 35 mm or a medium format, his pictures don't have even the slightest defect...


L. Ron Hubbard sold a lot of books, too.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Still think I am being misunderstood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You might want to think about not chopping the body parts off so many people in your pictures. That's a trick the pro sport photags seem to manage.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 7, 2010)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Does he have a book on focusing?


BwaaaaHaaaaaHaaaaa...

That little gem was almost lost in this thread.

Quote of the Week.


----------



## white (Jul 7, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Adams could not even _dream _about such shots. He had neither the equipment nor the reflexes. If it wasn't a rock or tree, he was helpless.
> 
> This kind of photography is _very, very_, difficult and requires years of experience, good reflexes and _physical _skills. If you think it's easy, just try it yourself.  The players are way out in the field and you need big lenses. The slightest movement is magnified, and the angle of view is tiny (diagonal, horizontal, vertical - 4.4°, 3.7°, 2.5°)  Players move in and out of the field of view and it is difficult, to say the least, to follow them. Composition is therefore very difficult.
> 
> ...


Well, nothing is moving except for cloud cover maybe, but the world's largest diffuser constantly moving in front of the largest key light known to mankind isn't such a *BIG DEAL*, is it?

Nah.

Wasn't it you who said Cartier-Bresson was overrated? Yeah, it was. That is so ironic considering how much you're singing your praises here. 

FYI, the people who say their work has perfect composition usually have their head so far up their ass they're incapable of seeing anything with fresh eyes.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 7, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really have time. Suffice it so say he's wrong.
> ...



I have seen Adams' work before. It appeals to bourgeois tastes. Not to me.

And as far as 'innovations', the zone system was not even his idea. And it's wrong. See the zone system thread for my discussion of that.

Americans' worship of Adams is just incomprehensible to me.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Still think I am being misunderstood.
> ...



What are you talking about?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

white said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Adams could not even _dream _about such shots. He had neither the equipment nor the reflexes. If it wasn't a rock or tree, he was helpless.
> ...



Yes, I said HCB was over-rated. But he's not as over-rated as Adams is. Selgado consistently makes the best photographs I have ever seen. Hundreds of them. Adams made 2 or 3 good ones.

If you don't appreciate how much _skill_ goes into making the rugby photos I posted, try it yourself. Which way is the halfback going to turn? Where is the ball going? Do _you_ know? 

Waiting for the clouds to drift by? That's what you call _difficult_? 

:lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really have time. Suffice it so say he's wrong.
> ...



Why? OK, their work IS more _important _more _involving_, than  Adams' is


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> Petraio Prime
> 
> You may think you are a good photographer...just because you spent 46 years at it. The work you have shown is the same that 1000's of others can also perform, which makes you one in a thousand, SO WHAT.
> 
> ...



Aha, you must be a 'photographer'.

And you are quite wrong in what you said. Many pros today use auto-focussing machine guns. I did this with an_ all-manual_ camera.

What you also don't realize is that Sports Illustrated will have several photographers at a football game, each of which concentrates on only one player at a time. One will cover only the quarterback, another the receivers, etc. There is no comparison. What they're doing is _comparatively_ easy. They will take hundreds of frames during a game of one player. I use a few rolls. I'm not being paid to do this.

The result is that what you see in SI represents only a very limited selection, the best of thousands of frames.


----------



## maris (Jul 8, 2010)

coreduo said:


> These I think are the recommended exposures for different shades of black, gray, and white that comprise the subject. I read them in Ansel Adams' book THE NEGATIVE. I experimented if it can apply to digital as the same way as film. It does...Thank Ansel for the diligence employed in coming up with these recommended exposures. They are still of good use as of today..
> 
> 
> ZONE 0 (darkest black)
> ...



Well, you did leave out the Zone V exposure which would be 1/30 at f/8, to follow your sequence. The exposures you give would be useful for a normal panchromatic film of ISO = 8 (were there such a thing) on an average sunny day. A mid grey subject photographed at 1/30 at f/8 would then yield negative density V which in turn could be re-photographed on gelatin-silver paper to produce print value V. The other exposures in your list would render the mid grey subject much as you describe though it would be odd to place a mid grey thing on Zone II or zone XI for example.

If the film was different, the subject different, or the light different your list would be utterly wrong.


----------



## maris (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Aragorncito said:
> 
> 
> > I agree you need a light reference, but it's not usless at all . Hansel Adams Zone's are difficult, If  you want to simplify things I have a plugin for Adobe Photoshop specially designed to work with Hansel Adams Zone's . I've worked with both film (scanned of course , ) and digital with very nice results.
> ...



If you have only done B&W 35mm photography for only 46 years you haven't done much. I've just started my sixth decade in photography on all formats from 35mm to 8x10. But seniority doesn't count.

I have had the privilege of looking closely (magnifying glass distance) at many of Ansel Adams' original photographs in the National Gallery of Australia and at other galleries. These were actually made by him at his Yosemite darkroom and are not copies or reproductions. I even own ($$$) a small Ansel Adams' photograph; unfortunately not one of his $100 000 national treasures.

It could be that Adams' ideas are totally wrong but in spite of this he has produced an enormous volume of some of the most ravishingly beautiful black and white photographs ever seen. Image what he could have achieved if he had followed the advice of a 46 year 35mm veteran!


----------



## pbelarge (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Aha, you must be a 'photographer'.
> 
> And you are quite wrong in what you said. Many pros today use auto-focussing machine guns. I did this with an_ all-manual_ camera.
> 
> ...


 

I am curious, what gallery can I go to and view your photos? Since I now gather that you are the worlds foremost photographer, you must have your own gallery...no? Have you not sold thousands, no-millions of you work to your adoring public? Please do tell us where we can go and bow down to the ugh, uh...


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> What are you talking about?


I see subtleties are lost on you. 

You're simply not as good as you say you are.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > What are you talking about?
> ...



The question is straightforward enough. What are you talking about?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Aha, you must be a 'photographer'.
> ...



I am not a 'photographer'.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

maris said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Aragorncito said:
> ...



Oh really? 46 years isn't much? Learning the ins and outs of a single format isn't a good thing? What is this American obsession with Ansel Adams' work? Is there no-one else whose work merits attention? Who gives a damn about _rocks_? I'd like to see what he could do at a rugby game! He would be helpless!

I'd like to see what he could do with his view camera at a soccer match. A street festival. Anyplace at all, other than with static subject matter.

What he did was easy. What I do is _much_ harder.


----------



## Arch (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> What he did was easy. What I do is _much_ harder.



But even if this were true (which it isn't) what difference does it make?
No one... random member of the public or veteran photographer is going to praise you on the difficulty of your image. Photography is a visual art often involving purely aesthetics, this is what _matters_ when your images are viewed. Unless of course they fit a purpose, which yours do, to capture a rugby game, meaning to try and match it against an image which is more concerned with other things is futile.

I don't think you are quite appreciating landscape photography in the same way others do. I would consider it to be my main focus in my photography hobby, therefore when I see (maybe what you don't see) something about a landscape shot I really like, it connects with me.
If this doesn't happen to you, then fine. But you can't go ridiculing someone else's experience, you just have to deal with it.

Also to make a really good landscape shot, it isn't a matter of just going somewhere and taking the shot of non animated objects... its trying to find something that people will connect with, even if its just the way the light falls... it's actually much harder then people think. This is often why photographers get frustrated with landscape photography, as many simply cannot find images that connect with people in any way.

You prefer Culture Club to Eric Clapton?, fine... I for one don't and am more likely to leave the room if someone starts blasting out 'Do you really want to hurt me'.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Arch said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > What he did was easy. What I do is _much_ harder.
> ...



What difference does it make? A lot! There is actually some compositional merit in the one shot....

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

Study it carefully. Note the lower left to upper right diagonal 'movement'. (Note the arms and the ball in lower left, and arms in the faces of the gentlemen in the upper right.)

All of the raving about landscapes amuses me.  

No, I don't appreciate 'landscape photography'. It's banal and appeals to bourgeois tastes. It is a remnant of Romanticism, which I repudiate. You probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Oh well...

http://www.redbeansoup.net/nortonsimon/roman2.html

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

You misread the quote. Someone _*in*_ Culture Club said if he went to someone's house and saw an Eric Clapton record he would leave. When people start blathering on about landscape work or Ansel Adams to me, I leave...

I much prefer Salgado...


----------



## Arch (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> What difference does it make? A lot! There is actually some compositional merit in the one shot....
> 
> http://www.photographyboard.net/rugby-game-1087.html
> 
> Study it carefully. Note the lower left to upper right diagonal 'movement'.



You've missed the point here, it really doesn't make any difference, we are talking about two different things.
What I was saying is... to the viewer it doesn't make any difference what the technical settings where when capturing an image. Photography is (or should be) much more harsh than that.... it is visual and therefore people make up their minds if they like (or connect with) the shot within a few seconds.
How it is captured is largely irrelevant.




Petraio Prime said:


> No, I don't appreciate 'landscape photography'. It's banal and appeals to bourgeois tastes. It is a remnant of Romanticism, which I repudiate. You probably have no idea what I'm talking about. Oh well...



I know exactly what you are talking about, but in my opinion and the opinion of millions of others you are wrong. Landscape, certainly today, is not all about Romanticism, it is way beyond that.
Again this goes back to my point of what *you* see in photographs... what *you* look for and your own associations made to the elements of the scene.
For example, I look for light placement, colours + textures (in a purely aesthetic sense), and most importantly awe inspiring views of the natural earth. Sure, landscapes can convey the sense of nostalgia and/or fantasy which could be considered Romanticism, but to dismiss this style of photography as just that is really missing the point.




Petraio Prime said:


> You misread the quote. Someone _*in*_ Culture Club said if he went to someone's house and saw an Eric Clapton record he would leave. When people start blathering on about landscape work or Ansel Adams to me, I leave...



I dont know whats worse... the way I read it, or the fact that someone from Culture Club is knocking Eric Clapton


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Arch said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > What difference does it make? A lot! There is actually some compositional merit in the one shot....
> ...



Millions _can be_ wrong...it happens all the time...

Well some people take themselves _way_ too seriously. I think that's the point the Culture Club guy was making. And I have never owned any Eric Clapton albums (I did own a couple of Cream albums though).

And Meryl Streep can't act....


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Well some people take themselves _way_ too seriously.
> ...



Oh, the _critic _can't be the one taking himself too seriously. It's not allowed!



I'm the critic here...

LOL


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Arch said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > What difference does it make? A lot! There is actually some compositional merit in the one shot....
> ...



You may find this interesting (not saying I agree or disagree, just showing some other points of view):

Ansel Adams: But is it art?

"Throughout the affluent world, and above all in the United States, Adams's wilderness studies are the staple of the gift store rather than the cutting-edge art gallery, and for every person who has ever seen an Adams print at close range there will be umpteen who know his work only from coffee-table books, glossy calendars, postcards and other studiedly tasteful bric-a-brac.

 More than any other photographer, Adams has become established as the one you can take home to show the folks, with perfect confidence that he will ruffle no feathers, spoil no one's supper, so that the mass reproduction of images he made &#8211; mostly before 1949 &#8211; has grown into the kind of booming industry usually felt to be incompatible with photographic talents of the first rank."


"The escalating value of a Moonrise print is also a handy index of the sudden boom in the photographic collectors' market from the late 1970s onwards. In the late 1940s, Adams would sell a 16-by-20 print for just $50 (£32); in December 1979, an auction at Sotheby's in New York set three sales records when it brought in a successful bid of $22,000 (£14,000) for one of the same prints &#8211; the most ever paid up to that point for a work by a living photographer, the most ever paid for a 20th-century photograph, and the most for a work on paper. Since then, the Moonrise edition has gone on to make a vast sum in the resale market &#8211; a modest estimate being more than $25m (£16m).


All of which might point to little more than herd instinct and chronic poor taste among rich collectors, and a fortune made on the back of unfashionable inoffensiveness. There is something in this: considered cynically, Adams's photographs of the American West are spiritual cousins to those Impressionist studies of rural France so beloved of Japanese financiers. You don't need a higher degree in fine art to find them easy on the eye."

"The f/64 group was an avant-garde and, like all avant-gardes, its members were destined to be rejected by their juniors. Serious complaints about Adams's work became audible after the Second World War, and grew louder with the 1950s and 1960s, when the likes of Robert Frank, Diane Arbus, Garry Winogrand and William Klein came to the forefront of critical attention. Their work was variously rough-edged, jaundiced, improvised, harsh, neurotic, obsessive and unsettling: the polar opposite of everything Adams had accomplished, and, to the post-war sensibility, an exhilarating novelty. The task of photography, critics now tended to say, was more to shock and dismay than to celebrate and sooth, and if the ideal of "beauty" was to be evoked at all, it was more a question of discovering a fascination in the discarded or grotesque than in traditional canons of wholeness, harmony and radiance. It's a fair cop, as far as it goes. Klein, Frank and company are still very much critically OK, and will no doubt remain so as long as there is no such thing as a Diane Arbus wall calendar or desk diary, with freak-of-the-month displays. But there is, too, such a thing as the philistinism of the elite: a refusal to see the virtue of something popular simply because it is popular, or to take pleasure in a conventionally beautiful image simply because, like an Adams photograph, its beauty is conventional, "unchallenging", merely pretty.

At the very least, Adams deserves the tribute of open-mindedness and informed criticism; and one anecdote that should always be a small part of the whole story is that which tells how the critic Beaumont Newhall, idly flicking through a magazine, unexpectedly came across an Ansel Adams picture which made him literally fall back on the couch in surprise, murmuring that Adams must surely be the greatest photographer ever."


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 8, 2010)

tl;dr


----------



## pbelarge (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio
From what I read about the author of your "proof", he sells to the same crowd as Ansel did, the big difference is Ansel sold/still sells alot more than his measely work does - sounds like a person who got on the internet stage and ranted - just like you do.


I think this thread should be retitled:

_Petraio Prime's Forlornness_


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

Did you really just link something from Free Republic?! That's one of the most awesome things I've seen here. Many (especially me as a TotalFarker) think Freepers are a whole different (and probably un-evolved) species.

To all the other posters here:







To our newest troll:

Your stuff isn't even that good. The rugby stuff you posted are snapshots at best. Go look at some real sports photographers to see what happens when you actually isolate your subject from the background. 

JFC, if I wasn't an accomplished troll, I wouldn't even be posting in this thread.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 8, 2010)

erose86 said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > tl;dr
> ...


Link


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Why? OK, their work IS more _important _more _involving_, than Adams' is


 
Really? Prove it. Explain to me how this is. You made the claim, the burden of proof is on you. Or are you going to do what you've done this entire thread and simply cop out by making a claim with no substance?

Your arrogance is showing! Just because you say something is fact doesn't make it so. A claim without substance is still just an opinion. Keep trying.



> At the very least, Adams deserves the tribute of open-mindedness and informed criticism;


 
I agree! Now, the informed part is the part you're missing. You are still having trouble backing up ANY claim you've made beyond something being your opinion.

Adam's work hold sentimental value to me, so I will admit my bias. However, if I were to look at his work objectively, I could honestly tell you I've seen work better than his. However, he still is the most recognized photographer ever, his work still sells, and his methods are still taught (quite a lot, even in photography school!). Let's not forget that those photographers you mentioned sold to the same circles as Adams, so your bourgeoisie argument holds as much water as a sieve. But becuase Petraio Prime says that Adams is a hack, and his zone system (which you're right, he didn't create, but he worked on, helped develop, and advocated it) is flawed, that I should automatically believe you?

Again, get over yourself. I'll take 70+ years of popular opinion on photography over the innane rantings of an anonymous Internet user any day of the year.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Why? OK, their work IS more _important _more _involving_, than Adams' is
> ...



Well you must admit that the British reviewer does make many of the same points I do. 

Proof? This can never be anything but a matter of taste and opinion, but mine is at least an _informed _opinion.

Even though I am on the internet, I do have 46 years of experience in 35mm B&W photography, and have tried many, many films, papers, developers, etc. I am no novice. I can make a pretty darn good 35mm B&W print. 

Why is it so difficult to accept that anyone can be a critic of Adams, his disciples, his aesthetics, and his 'system'? Do you think for an instant that Salgado owes anything to the zone system? Of course not. He has a lab guy do most of his work (to the best of my knowledge). He's out there taking photographs...of things that _matter _(not 'pretty scenes'). I am sure he doesn't even think about _exactly _what shade of grey mud-covered skin will be. 












Do you get it now?


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

Also, troll, why are you posting copyrighted images you don't have the rights to?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> Also, troll, why are you posting copyrighted images you don't have the rights to?



They are merely links to published work. How else am I supposed to show you his work?

And why not address the _arguments_, instead of calling me 'troll'?

Do you or does anyone else notice the burning and dodging on Salgado's prints?


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > Also, troll, why are you posting copyrighted images you don't have the rights to?
> ...



Because I troll trolls. And your arguments are too dumb to address directly. 

You link copyrighted work, you post your own. That's how it works here. You're doing it exactly backwards. Although keep doing it, maybe it'll get you banned.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > benlonghair said:
> ...



You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not making 'copies' by linking to images that are already visible on the internet. No copyright is being violated.

Note how nice I am being to you...you might try it some time.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 8, 2010)

Because his work is terribly amateurish.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Because his work is terribly amateurish.




Whose work, and what is the question?


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not making 'copies' by linking to images that are already visible on the internet. No copyright is being violated.
> 
> Note how nice I am being to you...you might try it some time.



You have no idea what I'm talking about because you obviously haven't read the forum rules.

Photos that you do not hold copyright on you are required to post a link to a website that DOES hold the copyright, not post the image. 

I'm not nice to trolls, I try to insult them to the point where they start crying and leave permanently.



DennyCrane said:


> Because his work is terribly amateurish.



Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not making 'copies' by linking to images that are already visible on the internet. No copyright is being violated.
> ...



I am doubtful there is any issue of copyright here.

Do you always go around calling those people who disagree with bourgeois mentality 'trolls'?


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

erose86 said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not nice to trolls, I try to insult them to the point where they start crying and leave permanently.
> ...



If I troll him out in the first 4 posts in the thread, what am I going to do for the rest of my work day?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > benlonghair said:
> ...



Well anyone who posts pro-Adams zone stuff is a troll.

:greenpbl:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Salgado's images:

salgado - Google Search


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



First of all, if you didn't take the photo, you don't have rights to it, therefore are not allowed to post it directly at TPF. If you don't like it, leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. 

TROLL: _In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response

_


Petraio Prime said:


> This is useless without knowing what lighting conditions you are in, what speed film you have, etc.
> 
> On an unrelated point, every copy of that book should be burned. It's full of nonsense and lies.
> 
> Adams has done more to _*destroy *_any understanding of B&W photography than anyone ever. His books and ideas are total hogwash.




YOU'RE A TROLL BY DEFINITION.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > benlonghair said:
> ...



Somehow I think this is off-topic.

I stand by what I said. Adams' zone system is a disaster. Almost everything he says is wrong. The thread was loosely about the zone system. I am permitted to criticize it, am I not?


----------



## Lipoly (Jul 8, 2010)

Not trying to fan the flames, but it really seems like benlonghair is doing the trolling.  I was interested while reading this thread until his rants started.  

Petraio may be a bit harsh in his criticism of AA, but at least he is keeping his cool and not namecalling even when everyone keeps trying to trash his photos.


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Somehow I think this is off-topic.
> 
> I stand by what I said. Adams' zone system is a disaster. Almost everything he says is wrong. The thread was loosely about the zone system. I am permitted to criticize it, am I not?



It's amazing how somebody so wrong can be one of the most famous photographers that ever lived. That's like saying Roger Federer is wrong about every aspect of his game. It's simply not true, and even if it was, he'd have forgotten more about the game than most people would ever know.

You can criticize when you can produce images that rival his quality (and critical acclaim) and publishing success, and if your examples posted here are any indication, you've got a looooooooooong way to go.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Lipoly said:


> benlonghair, it really seems you are doing the trolling.  I was interested while reading this thread until you showed up.



Calling someone a troll seems to be a stock response from some people who simply don't want to engage on the level of reasoned argument. Blind acceptance of anything is not good, and the extent to which the zone system dogma has penetrated educational institutions is appalling.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Somehow I think this is off-topic.
> ...



It's interesting you brought up Federer. He's a moron. He tries to play from the baseline on grass against _better _baseliners (Nadal and others). And _loses_. You need to play serve and volley on grass, like Sampras and McEnroe. If Federer had a brain he'd do it. He's just stubborn and stupid. (I have been playing tennis for 35 years, in case you are wondering, and I am a student of the game. I also occasionally teach tennis.)

Secondly, I have no interest in competing with anyone, and no interest in making photographs such as Adams did. I repudiate his whole aesthetic. Don't you get that? How many times do I have to say it? I do what I want to do, not what you want me to do.


----------



## rusty9 (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



yeah. federer is just terrible. he is ranked #3 nationally. he previously held the #1 spot for 237 consecutive weeks. he has made it to 22 grand slam finals. yeah. he just sucks. 

gtfo troll


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

rusty9 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > benlonghair said:
> ...




Hmmm. You didn't read what I said, obviously. If you lose trying to play the other guy's game (at which you are not as proficient), you're not very bright. I didn't say he was not a good player, I said he was a moron. The two are not incompatible.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 8, 2010)

Let's revisit the early stages of this train wreck.



Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > So you keep saying - yet thus far you seem to offer little proof upfront unless people prompt you for it. Might be an idea to start your own thread on the topic and outline your thoughts and reasonings for why you consider AA to have theories that are not as "correct" (in your view) as others belive them to be.
> ...


Imagine if he weren't so busy!


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Let's revisit the early stages of this train wreck.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's because I already discussed it in another thread.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I stand by what I said. Adams' zone system is a disaster. Almost everything he says is wrong. The thread was loosely about the zone system. I am permitted to criticize it, am I not?



If you were criticizing it, I would be ok with that. Unfortunately, you have not done that sir. You have said things like "Adams zone system is a disaster" without ANY backup of your claim. Look at this from the perspective of everyone but you for a second (which, I'm sure is difficult for someone who has to talk about how great they are, and how much experience they have every other post). I have never heard anyone criticize the zone system beyond something like, "It worked back in Adams days, but it's mostly irrelevant in the digital age." I'm sure there are critiques out there, but I've never heard of them. From what I gather from this thread, a lot of the people here haven't heard of it either. If experience is such an important thing to you, I'll go ahead and guess that the combined experience of those that disagree with you in this thread is many times greater than your "...46 years of shooting 35mm B&W."

When you make a claim that challenges popular belief, the burden of proof is on you. Please, tell me why the zone system is a disaster as you say. I would actually love to hear it. An honest critique of the system would be nice to read, actually. But bashing without substance is not criticism, it's opinion. You say there's another thread about this. I'm going to take a line from you and say I don't have the time to look it up. Again, burden of proof is not on me.

Now, let me backtrack to show you what I really think your purpose for posting here is.



> Bear in mind that I do not use auto-focus, auto-exposure, or a motor  drive. My camera is 100% manual.


My 12ish years experience in photography tells me that when someone mentions they take photographs "100% manual" it's code for, "I do things the hard way, because even if my work sucks rocks, I'm a better photographer, because it's harder!" 

Guess what, the skateboard pictures were out of focus. Oh right, 100% manual, you have an excuse.

Guess what, your rugby pictures are amateurish at best, and really aren't as great as you seem to think they are. Oh right, 100% manual, you have an excuse.

I don't know the first thing about the photography culture back in 1964, but today in 2010, 46 years later (see what I did there?), the only thing that really matters is the final image. Very few people care anymore if you used the latest 10fps, digital machine gun, or a Kodak brownie. If your image sucks, it sucks. The fact that you insist on shooting 100% manual shows that you only care about photographic innovation up to a certain point, because after that, it must be too easy. Your photographic style is barely relevant anymore. Considering what's possible today, your images (at least the ones you've shown) are mediocre at best. Yet, Ansel Adams work (which was completed 20+ years before you started shooting, with equipment less sophisticated than yours) is still considered by most photographers to be timeless, and as a standard to strive for.

You mentioned how Sports Illustrated photographers have it easy because there's a bunch of them, they can focus on one player, and they can shoot 1000's of frames (or something like that, not wading through 9 pages to look for your exact quote). The thing is, that doesn't matter, because when I see one of their published photos, I think, "Wow, that's an amazing shot!" When I see your rugby photos, I think, "How cute, mommy taking a picture of her son playing his game!" There's nothing wrong with that of course, because I think it's great that a mother would want to record her son playing a game he loves. But when it's someone who seems to think he's this absolutely amazing photographer, it's actually quite sad to me. The fact is, I don't care that there's 1000 (probably more like 10,000 or more, actually) deleted photos for every 1 that makes it into Sports Illustrated. All I care is that they published an amazing shot. I would find it hard to believe too many people, besides yourself, disagree with me here. I will gladly eat my hat if this isn't true.



			
				erose86 said:
			
		

> Okay.  I'm bored now.:waiting:



Hope this helps.


----------



## smokinphoto (Jul 8, 2010)

I love this guy and his tips. I have to pick up some of his books.

The History Place - Best of Ansel Adams  here is good place to see best of Adam's 25 shots.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 8, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I think their work is more _important _more _involving_, than Adams' is. The photographs of Adams are all about 'spectacle'. There's no human warmth in them. He's not a _humanist_.



I just had to add one thing, while reading through this again. Go here:

Ansel Adams?s Photographs of Japanese-American Internment at Manzanar - Collection Highlights (American Memory from the Library of Congress)

Guess what. Adams, the guy you seem to revile, and who can only take pictures of rocks took those. You understand that Adams was one of the people that brought the whole issue of how wrong the Japanese Internment camps were, right? He helped people to understand the historical significance of these camps, and how what we were doing was nearly as bad as what the enemy was doing. You knew that, right?

No human warmth? Not important or involving? Maybe research before you make blanket statements. And please, don't even try to bring up the fact that he couldn't take those with his view camera. That is absolutely irrelevant, unless you want to start adding caveat's to your argument, such as "All of Adams work sucks, oh, except when he was shooting 35mm, and not doing landscapes, and...blah blah blah." These pictures pretty much take care of most of the arguments you have about Adams and his art. I understand you don't like the guy and his work, fine, but I think it's for reasons you don't even fully understand and you haven't researched enough to form an opinion on ALL of his work.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 8, 2010)

"The medium is the message" - Marshall McLuhan

I believe that Ansel Adams used his "Zone System" as a tool he used to understand how his images will behave tonally, and a procedure on how to manipulate it.

I do not think that the Zone System should be considered the bible for Photographers.

I can see that Ansel considered the visual interpretation of the scene the most important aspect of his photographs ... and if this tool (Zone System) assisted him in doing so, then all the power to him (and any others that want to do it).

I do not think Ansel Adams is the greatest photographer that ever lived.

This thread started with a post of very specific exposure settings for each of the Zones ... and a question about adapting it to digital ... then moved on after an "unrelated" comment was made.

It appears that there are two things points that have kept this thread alive:
- the Zone System is not correct
- Landscape photography is bourgeois

... maybe this thread will continue ...


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 8, 2010)

dxqcanada said:


> ... maybe this thread will continue ...



We can only hope.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 8, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > I stand by what I said. Adams' zone system is a disaster. Almost everything he says is wrong. The thread was loosely about the zone system. I am permitted to criticize it, am I not?
> ...



1) The zone system is a disaster because it completely ignores the fact that mid-tone gradation is the most important of all. See the thread 'zone system' on this site. I'm not going to repeat it.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/200441-zone-system.html

2) I don't think the rugby shot is 'great'; I'd rate it as a B+. The point is that the SI guys shooting thousands of frames per game are the only ones who can do better on a regular basis. _*You couldn't,*_ and 99% of the photographers on the planet couldn't. It's that hard to get such a shot. It tales skill, timing, and luck. You fail to perceive the statistical element. Four or five photographers at a Giants-Steelers game each shooting nonstop...on a single position...of course they're going to get some good stuff. By oneself, one is not going to be able to get anywhere near that quantity. You'd be lucky to get one or two good shots. The SI photo _looks_ like an amazing shot, but statistically it's not that hard. You aren't seeing the 99.999% that are _not_ amazing.

Why do you think it doesn't matter? We don't all have the luxury of having such relatively easy pickings. You have to evaluate what is achieved _under the circumstances_. You cannot compare the results to what they get.

I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the skateboard photo is out of focus. There may be a problem with the site or the scan. The print is fine. I was shooting with a wide angle lens and the DOF was more than sufficient. 

http://www.photographyboard.net/racing.jpg-847.html

Does that one look sharp to you?

I don't think I am some 'amazing photographer'. But I do believe I have some skills that not all possess. And one other thing is that I have no interest in others' opinions of my work, either positive or negative. My photos are made for my own enjoyment and nothing else. I don't 'show' my work or anything like that.

I don't socialize or hang  out with photographers. We have little in common.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I have no interest in others' opinions of my work, either positive or negative. My photos are made for my own enjoyment and nothing else. I don't 'show' my work or anything like that.
> 
> I don't socialize or hang out with photographers. We have little in common.


 
Why are you here then? :lmao:


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> 1) The zone system is a disaster because it completely ignores the fact that mid-tone gradation is the most important of all. See the thread 'zone system' on this site. I'm not going to repeat it.
> 
> http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/film-discussion-q/200441-zone-system.html



Thank you. It only took me three times asking for you to either support your argument or at least link to this thread. I'll take a look at it. I'm very skeptical, however that someone who took some of the most iconic landscape photos in American history was using this disaster of a system for exposure, but I'll look at your argument with an open mind. I'm guessing, however, that your dislike of the zone system has more to do with your dislike of Adams and of landscape photography in general than an actual 'disaster' of a flaw.



> 2) I don't think the rugby shot is 'great'; I'd rate it as a B+. The point is that the SI guys shooting thousands of frames per game are the only ones who can do better on a regular basis. _*You couldn't,*_ and 99% of the photographers on the planet couldn't. It's that hard to get such a shot. It tales skill, timing, and luck. You fail to perceive the statistical element. Four or five photographers at a Giants-Steelers game each shooting nonstop...on a single position...of course they're going to get some good stuff. By oneself, one is not going to be able to get anywhere near that quantity. You'd be lucky to get one or two good shots. The SI photo _looks_ like an amazing shot, but statistically it's not that hard. You aren't seeing the 99.999% that are _not_ amazing.




This proves you didn't even read, or at the very least failed to comprehend my post. I'm well aware of the statistics of getting a good sports shot. No where In this thread have I actually claimed to be a good photographer, so I'm not sure why my skill had to be brought in (and boldfaced and italicized for that matter). I have little interest in sports photography and haven't really done much, but I'm certain I could get shots at least as good as your rugby shots. You keep talking about how hard sports photography is. Bottom line is, I don't care that it's hard. You post a mediocre shot and try to use it to show why you're better than Adams. If you're such a great photographer, to be able to compare your work with Adams why don't you try his style. Taking pictures of rocks, as you say, is hard.



> Why do you think it doesn't matter? We don't all have the luxury of having such relatively easy pickings. You have to evaluate what is achieved _under the circumstances_. You cannot compare the results to what they get.



I do not have to evaluate what is achieved under the circumstances. Where would you ever get a ludicrous idea like that? I evaluate the photo based on what is presented. If you post a blurry picture of a gorilla and tell me it's a great shot because you were hanging upside down in a tree, blindfolded, one hand behind your back in hurricane force winds, I'm going to tell you that you posted a blurry picture of a gorilla and to try again. Difficulty of the shot has nothing to do with how good it is. This isn't competitive gymnastics where you get extra points for a difficult stunt. This is photography where everyone has seen a great shot of a gorilla, and doesn't want to see a blurry one, just because the situation was difficult.



> I have no idea what you are talking about when you say the skateboard photo is out of focus. There may be a problem with the site or the scan. The print is fine. I was shooting with a wide angle lens and the DOF was more than sufficient.
> 
> http://www.photographyboard.net/racing.jpg-847.html
> 
> Does that one look sharp to you?



Maybe it was the site, maybe your 46+ (no idea your real age) year old eyes are failing you. Its out of focus, from what I can see. Sorry. As for the bike shot here, it's sharp enough. Still not a terribly great shot to me. No emotional impact to me at all, but technically correct.



> I don't think I am some 'amazing photographer'. But I do believe I have some skills that not all possess.



Then stop posting photos and talking about how an iconic, 20th century photographer that is widely considered to be one of the greatest ever can't take shots like yours. By doing that, you are saying you are better than Adams. I have yet to see any real skill besides making due with the handicaps you've imposed on yourself. Doing that doesn't somehow make you a *real* photographer. 



> And one other thing is that I have no interest in others' opinions of my work, either positive or negative. My photos are made for my own enjoyment and nothing else. I don't 'show' my work or anything like that.



Err, ok, then see above. Stop posting your pics, because now you're contradicting yourself. I'm not sure how you can not show your work, yet you've shown all matter of work samples on this thread.



> I don't socialize or hang  out with photographers. We have little in common.



Really now? Then how come you've joined a photo forum and have racked up 434 posts in under 3 months? That sounds a lot like socializing with other photographers. Stop lying to save face. Everyone sees through it, and we can all tell who the real hack in this thread is.

Hint: It's not Ansel Adams


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Ok, I just finished reading the zone system thread and I can say that it is almost as amusing to me as this one! I will admit that my knowledge of the zone system is fairly limited, so I must go off of the arguments provided, and frankly PP, you lost, big time. Let me give a run down of that thread from my perspective. I ask others to compare this thread to what I'm about to post.

1. Someone asks a legitimate question about the zone system.
2. Others post good answers to his question.
3. The thread, having fulfilled it's purpose is left alone.
4. A month and a half later, our pal PP decides to bump the thread with a criticism of the zone system without one iota of substance.
5. Posters call him on it, and he posts a couple more posts, with no substance.
6. He posts a wall of text from the bible, err, I mean the Kodak manual to show that scientists somehow make better artists than artists
7. Finally, he posts his crappy rugby photo and uses it as an example of why the zone system/Ansel Adams sucks.
8. He posts the rugby photo no less than two more times.
9. He goes on to say that his rugby photo is 'very good' and explains the reason is because it's properly exposed and uses a very basic compositional rule of thumb (diagonals!)
10. Other posters make sound arguments that completely destroy PP's arguments.
11. He then compares himself to Henri Cartier-Bresson and says that his rugby photo is better than _Behind the Gare St. Lazare_

Thank you Petraio Prime for the amusement today. I thought I had all my laughs for the day with this thread, but you've given me even more with your link. :lmao:


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Ok, I just finished reading the zone system thread and I can say that it is almost as amusing to me as this one! I will admit that my knowledge of the zone system is fairly limited, so I must go off of the arguments provided, and frankly PP, you lost, big time. Let me give a run down of that thread from my perspective. I ask others to compare this thread to what I'm about to post.
> 
> 1. Someone asks a legitimate question about the zone system.
> 2. Others post good answers to his question.
> ...



Apparently you didn't read and understand the Kodak quote. Try it again.

The zs relies on varying film development based on subject brightness range. _Kodak specifically states this should not be done. _Why? Because it messes up the gradation of the mid-tones, and maintaining 'normal' mid-tone gradation is most important of all.

I have no interest in your opinion of _my_ work. I don't 'compare' myself to Ansel Adams one way or another. I don't give a damn about photos of rocks and trees.

If you honestly think it is easy to come up with a shot as good as the rugby photo, try it yourself.

The puddle-jumper shot is a piece of crap. I always thought so.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 9, 2010)

You're really not very good.


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 9, 2010)

And people wonder why I was trolling this thread.


----------



## sleist (Jul 9, 2010)

Hi,

I've been away.  Did I miss anything?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> You're really not very good.



At what? LOL

You do realize, if you're talking about photographs, that I have been doing photography for quite a few decades, don't you? The few I have shown here are not necessarily the 'best ever' and are not intended to be anything other than a small sampling, because I have so many photos that have never been scanned. I have neither the time nor the interest in 'showing off'. 

Also, I don't usually try to photograph a lot of the subject matter that most 'amateurs' go in for: flowers, landscapes, sunsets, etc. For the most part there is simply no challenge there for me. These are relatively easy, 'safe' subjects. I prefer people and dynamic situations, usually, but I also have an interest in documenting old abandoned places. 

Here's a fellow I found interesting:

http://www.photographyboard.net/kid-with-big-shirt-4344.html

This kid had been playing in the street or playground and was quite dirty. His shirt was several sizes too big. His head was shaved, too.

I found the contrast in texture and form between these two building to be curious:

http://www.photographyboard.net/garage-next-to-old-building-1091.html

These are the sorts of things that I find interesting and worth the trouble to photograph. I'm not saying they are 'good' or 'bad', but I think they're not the sorts of photographs many here would take.


----------



## PJL (Jul 9, 2010)

So, in a nutshell, we've come to the conclusion that landscape photography is easy and only appeals to bourgeois people who know nothing of photography, photographs only matter if the actual process of taking the picture was difficult, Ansel Adams was a talentless hack, 90% of what National Geographic has ever published is a waste of paper, and you can spend lots of time on a photography forum without being a photographer or liking to associate with photographers.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

PJL said:


> So, in a nutshell, we've come to the conclusion that landscape photography is easy and only appeals to bourgeois people who know nothing of photography, photographs only matter if the actual process of taking the picture was difficult, Ansel Adams was a talentless hack, 90% of what National Geographic has ever published is a waste of paper, and you can spend lots of time on a photography forum without being a photographer or liking to associate with photographers.



Oh no, I have always liked and admired National Geographic.

I never said "photographs only matter if the actual process of taking the picture was difficult". What I believe is that many people settle for what is 'easy' photographically: 'the path of least resistance'. I'm sure that hiking over rough terrain to get the right spot for your vista shot is not without effort. The point is that _once you're there_, it's relatively un-challenging in what can be called the _photographic_ skills that are required. It's much harder to get the ball right out of the shooter's stick in a lacrosse game, or the ball right out of the fullback's hands in a rugby match.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> I don't know the first thing about the photography culture back in 1964, but today in 2010, 46 years later (see what I did there?),


 
You did Maths there!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > You're really not very good.
> ...


 
Ever hear of a kid named Joey Lawerence? This kid is not even old enough to legally buy beer in the US, iirc.

Joey Lawrence Fine Art

He does amazing work. You could build guitars for all your life and still suck at it.


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > You're really not very good.
> ...




Then put up or shut up. Show us your awesome stuff. Prove you're good enough to be considered something other than a troll. 

So far, judging from your photos, the only thing you're good at is trolling.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > DennyCrane said:
> ...



I have no interest in doing so. Not worth my time and trouble.


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 9, 2010)

So you're admitting you're a troll. 

We're making progress here.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> So you're admitting you're a troll.
> 
> We're making progress here.



No, a troll would clog up the discussion in the way you are asking me to, and I am refusing your request.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

benlonghair said:


> So you're admitting you're a troll.
> 
> We're making progress here.



No I'm just _not _a mindless, Ansel-Adams-worshipping drone.

You apparently call anyone who disagrees with popular culture a troll.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 9, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > You apparently call anyone who disagrees with popular culture a troll.
> ...


I don't even know who any of those people are.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

O|||||||O said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



I think I know who Rhianna is...not sure though...


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > You apparently call anyone who disagrees with popular culture a troll.
> ...


 
I'd bang Rhianna.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> benlonghair said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
Or you don't have anything worth showing.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > benlonghair said:
> ...



Why am I not surprised at your immediate resort to negativity, to putting someone else down? Not everyone has the same interests in photography that you do. I am not interested in showing, OK? Can't you accept that not everyone is? _*I'm not like you.*_ Is that clear enough?


----------



## benlonghair (Jul 9, 2010)

There's no discussion here. There's only some guy talking out his ass post after post, trolling as hard as he possibly can. Everyone on the forum disagrees with him. Then there's another guy trolling him back. 

That's not a discussion. That's a troll.

This is really a stupid thread.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

erose86 said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...


 
Excuse me. I do have very high standards (when I'm sober) and I've never (that I remember) slept with a female that wasn't incredibly hot. And Although I can't stand stupid people, I love dumb girls for some odd reason.



Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
So you're saying you're *not a photographer*?


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> erose86 said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



In the way you understand the term, that is correct. I'm not a 'photographer'.

I'm beyond that.



'Photographers' as a group tend to have certain attitudes and characteristics, many (if not most) of which I do not share. So, it would be a mistake to include me in that group.

Here is a friend's daughter (#14) scoring a goal in a lacrosse game:







The photo os no great shakes, but at least I got the ball in the air. It wasn't in the air long.
Taken with Leitz 560mm f/6.8 Telyt-R. Scanned color neg film.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > erose86 said:
> ...


 
Some one that uses a camera to photograph a scene? So do you just take "mind pictures" Is that why you don't have anything to actually show us? Because you actually don't take pictures.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Yes, I do, but not to show to other people and brag about them, like most 'photographers' do. 

See post #164 in this thread.

It seems you have a hard time believing that I don't have this tremendous urge to show thousands of photos. I don't.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
I have a hard time believing you have any good photos to show.


----------



## Overread (Jul 9, 2010)

Wait so 12 pages on and we still don't really have any proof to support claims made about AA's methods being fraudulent? 

So far this is rather like the "is photography art" thread and like the discussions I have with some geeks who try to argue that Starwars is not a scifi but a fantasy film!


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Overread said:


> Wait so 12 pages on and we still don't really have any proof to support claims made about AA's methods being fraudulent?
> 
> So far this is rather like the "is photography art" thread and like the discussions I have with some geeks who try to argue that Starwars is not a scifi but a fantasy film!


 
It's an opera.

From space.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



I don't care what you think. I have no interest in what you believe or don't believe.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
I believe *the world is flat*.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Village Idiot said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



Well isn't that nice.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


 
too *nice*


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, I just finished reading the zone system thread and I can say that it is almost as amusing to me as this one! I will admit that my knowledge of the zone system is fairly limited, so I must go off of the arguments provided, and frankly PP, you lost, big time. Let me give a run down of that thread from my perspective. I ask others to compare this thread to what I'm about to post.
> ...



Let me explain this to you in simple terms. You are completely missing the point of what I'm saying. When you say that the zone system 'messes up the gradation of the mid-tones' and 'maintaining "normal" mid-tone gradation is most important of all' are you stating a fact, or an opinion? I only ask because every single argument you have so far about the zone system comes down to your own personal aesthetic that it produces. I like the aesthetic it produces. Most people like the aesthetic it produces. If this is your opinion, I'm totally fine with that. But _please_ stop posting opinion as fact. It makes your arrogance and elitist attitude about photography stick out like a sore thumb. 

Please give me a good explanation of why mid-tone gradation is so important. While you're working on answering that, make sure not to use the words 'I' or 'me' and make sure you cite your source. The Kodak book tells that you need to not mess with the mid-tones without explaining why. I don't think you'll be able to answer this without your own personal aesthetic getting in the way, but this is my challenge. Remember who has the burden of proof still.

Whether you believe it or not, you continually compare yourself to Adams and HCB. When you post one of your own mediocre photos and then say AA and HCB couldn't take those photos, you *are* comparing yourself to them. Quit posting your shots, comparing them to others work then saying your aren't comparing your work to theirs.

Lastly, I'm going to take another page from your book. I have no interest in taking pictures of grown men playing games. It's childish and a way for someone with no athletic ability to try to re-create (unsuccessfully) their own youth. I'll say it again, I don't care how hard it is. I'll continue to take pictures of rocks and trees. I enjoy it. I have fun with it. This is my opinion, *not* fact.

Remember, your opinion and personal aesthetic are not fact. Please keep that in mind next time you post.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Gaerek said:
> ...



OK, I'll make it simple.

Kodak _researchers _took thousands of photographs and made all sorts of adjustments in exposure and contrast and showed them to observers. They asked them what looked best. They said, _*overwhelmingly*_, that: 'normal mid-tone gradation looked best'. This is a _scientific _approach, you see, not what Adams did. Adams pulled the zone system out of his ass. If you significantly alter the development of the negative to try to expand or contract the scale to fit the Scene Brightness Range, you end up with a cure that is worse than the disease. Read the quote until this sinks in.

I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jul 9, 2010)

Is there any popcorn left, or have we depleted our supply?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 9, 2010)

OrionsByte said:


> Is there any popcorn left, or have we depleted our supply?


----------



## Overread (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.



Clearly though AA must have got something right since most of the rest of the world at least likes the photos he was able to produce with his method of approach. Still we are on the subject that its not the method, but simply the fact that you dislike the effect of his method on photography and that you prefer something else.

Anyone is entitled to a view like that and no one is disagreeing with it - but its different to saying that AA's methods are "false" or "misleading" or out and out lies.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> OK, I'll make it simple.
> 
> Kodak _researchers _took thousands of photographs and made all sorts of adjustments in exposure and contrast and showed them to observers. They asked them what looked best. They said, _*overwhelmingly*_, that: 'normal mid-tone gradation looked best'. This is a _scientific _approach, you see, not what Adams did. Adams pulled the zone system out of his ass. If you significantly alter the development of the negative to try to expand or contract the scale to fit the Scene Brightness Range, you end up with a cure that is worse than the disease. Read the quote until this sinks in.



Scientific eh? What was their sample size? How many observers? How did they select their observers? Were they all company men? Were they photographers in a specific genre? Were they laymen? These are questions that an informed person must ask if we are to believe a study done by a company that has product to sell. Or do you believe the tobacco industry scientists that _*proved *_smoking cigarettes are good for you? It's amazing the power of corporations to make people believe what they want them to in an effort to sell product. 



> I can always tell when someone has used N+1 or N-1. The photos look awful.


Couldn't help to get your elitist opinion in there again, could you? It comes down to your own personal aesthetic. Why do you have such a difficult time admitting you don't like the zone system and Ansel Adams because you don't like the aesthetic? Why do you have to try to prove that you are right? You have all the hallmarks of an elitist who _*knows *_that his minority _opinion_ is right and will do whatever it takes to prove it.

I've admitted that AA's photos hold sentimental value to me. I've admitted that it's my opinion that he takes great photos. I have admitted my bias. I have nothing against someone who has a differing opinion. I do have something against people who believe that their opinion is fact, and simply can't admit that their opinion is just that, an opinion.

I wore out my welcome to this thread last night. I realize that what I'm doing now is tantamount to banging my head on a brick wall. Petraio Prime _obviously_ knows what he's talking about. Reply if you'd like, but I've proven my point.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > OK, I'll make it simple.
> ...



I don't know the details of the study. It was part of the research into establishing a film-speed measurement system. 

Why would would the fact that they have a product to sell influence their outcome? The publication is entitled _Negative Making for Professional Photographers_. Why wouldn't Kodak want pros to have good advice? They specifically mentioned that what they were saying is _contrary _to the practices of "some professional photographers". What they said was that the overwhelming preference for viewers in the study was for mid-tones that approach a 1:1 contrast with the scene brightness values, "even if gradation in the highlight areas or shadows has to be sacrificed". That is absolutely unambiguous. What happens if you don't do this? The prints don't look good. The cure is worse than the disease. It has nothing to do with 'artistic intentions'. Adams was no scientist, and the zs is not based on any such study. He pulled the whole thing out of his ass. 

This fellow Richard Knoppow may have some information:

Film Speed Tests - rec.photo.darkroom | Google Groups

The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false.

I found a discussion of this issue from him:

"First of all, if your negatives are consistently too contrasty you should reduce your development time. The time of development is what controls contrast. Exposure is adjusted to get the most of the exposure on the straight line portion of the film curve. For high contrast scenes the exposure must be sufficient to result in some detail in the shadows, the development is then reduced to keep the range of densities in reason. Modern films like T-Max do not shoulder off as older ones did.* They do not compress the highlights, so a scene with very bright areas will produce very high densities on the negative. The problem with printing such an image is that the range of brightness which printing paper can reproduce is very limited compared to both the brightness range of the original scene and to the range which the film will record. With roll film you cannot change the exposure and development to match every scene, you have to find a compromise for development and thus average negative contrast and use various paper grades to get normal contrast prints.* The use of fill lighting, flash or otherwise is actually a better way of controlling the contrast if you can do it*. The folks with difficulty are those photographing landscapes or cityscapes or other kinds of subjects where control of lighting is impossible. *As I mentioned in another post, the control of overall contrast by employment of the Zone system or simply by adjusting exposure and development will not guarantee satisfactory reproduction. It can give you detail in both shadow and highlight areas of the negative but if a very high contrast scene is compressed in contrast in the photographic process it may look very flat and unnatural. The human eye compensates continuously for changes in average brightness of what we are observing. *It is also seeing detail in only a very small area of the overall field of vision. *For that reason we have the perception of seeing into the shadows and also seeing details of quite bright highlights (those not bright enough to be painful to look at) of the same scene. No photograph is going to reproduce that.* What is needed is to adjust various parts of the image for brightness and contrast in printing. This is done by burning in and holding back parts of the image and by using selective contrast filtering with VC paper. Ansel Adams, one of the developers of the Zone System often did a great amount of manipulation of his prints. He writes about this extensively in his various books. *The Zone System is useful in insuring that you have something to work with on the negative but it isn't a complete method by itself of generating acceptable prints.* I see the Zone System discussed in great detail but don't often see references to Adams' writing on how to print. David Vestal is another who has written extensively on how to control the results in printing. This is an especially important skill for those who use roll film where individual control of negatives is impossible unless a whole roll is shot under exactly the same conditions. (Now leaving lecture mode) --- Richard Knoppow"

* This is why they're not good for outdoor work in uncontrolled lighting--Petraio Prime


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false.



Funny, considering I never said your theory was false. I simply asked you to back up your claim. 

I've read through that, and although I don't think it totally supports the zone system, it's definitely not saying it's a 'disaster' of a system that the great Petraio Prime says it is. You even boldfaced a very important quote that proves that. Once again, everything fall on what your particular aesthetic is. It's obvious by the work Adams has produced that he didn't just use the Zone System and nothing else. It was a tool. Just like dodging and burning. Just like using different developers and papers. Just like using color filters, and flash. Just like any other dark room/in camera manipulation. You forgot to boldface an incredibly important part of that quote (though I'm surprised you left it in, because it kinda undermines your argument a bit).



> This is done by burning in and holding back parts of the image and by  using selective contrast filtering with VC paper. Ansel Adams, one of  the developers of the Zone System often did a great amount of  manipulation of his prints. He writes about this extensively in his  various books.


This was brought up in the other thread, and you ignored it there too. The fact is that the zone system, by itself, is pretty useless. But it's a tool, just like anything else. It's a tool, just like the light meter in my camera. It doesn't always tell me what the proper exposure is, but it helps me to find it. I rarely go 100% off what my meter says. The ZS cannot be used by itself, and Adams never said you should do this. 

I go back to my previous post. Why is it so difficult for you to admit that it is an opinion that the ZS and Adams work is terrible, and not fact? It's obvious to everyone here, besides you, that this is the case. Please stop trying to say that you are right and 70+ years of photographic theory is completely wrong. Adams obviously did something right. Adams' aesthetic was obviously well loved and adored. The fact that it wasn't loved and adored by you isn't a big deal. It's your opinion, and an opinion can't be wrong. However, if you're making it out to be fact, then it can be wrong because this is something that isn't factual. Just because Petraio Prime says something is bad, doesn't make it so.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you don't know something doesn't make it false.
> ...



You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in ugly photos. I used to do a lot of burning and dodging (and I never denied that this sometimes is necessary) but, (and this is the point!) it is *not *part of zone system dogma. *The zs is about global contrast manipulation through negative development. Adams did use other methods of print manipulation, but they're not part of the 'system'.

*I hardly ever do much in the way of burning and dodging any more. Maybe I have evolved in my shooting so that I instinctively avoid 'problem' scenes, I don't know.I find that zs prints made with expansion or contraction are often ugly. (If only 'N' development is used, that's fine, I have no issue with that, because the prints look 'normal').* In other words, it's not the use of the zs itself, rather expansion or contraction that is the problem.* If you go through a lot of zs mumbo-jumbo and end up developing the negative normally and printing  it normally, I would say simply that you're inefficient. If, on the other hand, you do a lot of expansion and contraction, your prints will show it. Read Richard's explanation of why trying to do that is a fundamental error. *You can't make a print that encompasses an extreme brightness range yet maintains good contrast in the middle tones. It doesn't work. *Trying to do it is just stubborn stupidity. 

I am less polite than Richard but we're saying the same thing. So is Kodak.

I never said Adams' *work *was terrible, just overrated and for bourgeois tastes. It's the *zs* itself that is the target of my criticism. *It (the zs) reflects a complete lack of understanding of the basis of human perception that Richard discussed.

*Someone earlier mentioned the skateboard photo was out of focus. It isn't. (The focus is on the board, with normal fall-off behind the plane of his feet...)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/12905

The photo may appear a little dark, but there is highlight detail in his shirt and shadow detail in the seat of his pants. His face is turned away from the sun, and he looks perhaps to have a good tan...


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > You're really not very good.
> ...


Nothing you've posted really gives me any impression of a talent beyond what a parent with a p&s camera is capable of.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > DennyCrane said:
> ...



You forget I don't respond to such taunts, nor do I have the slightest interest in your opinions.


----------



## DennyCrane (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> DennyCrane said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...


Of course you do. You're hanging on every word posted here. You tried to impress people, failed, and now feign aloofness. The timing of your activities on this forum in general and this thread in particular are clear giveaways.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

DennyCrane said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > DennyCrane said:
> ...



.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in _*ugly photos*_.



Finally! Some meat. I don't even need to read past this.

Ugly photos, to whom?

Now you see my point. I couldn't care less about why the zone system is supposedly bad. I couldn't care less that it ignores the mid-tone contrast. You keep hammering in that point, but I get it. The fact remains that the aesthetic is in the eye of the beholder.

Let me disprove your above quote with a simple statement of opinion:

_I do not think the zone system, by itself results in ugly photos._

My opinion contradicts what you keep treating as a fact. This makes your "fact" false since you insist on treating subjective language as fact.

If you, or Kodak, or Richard Knoppow think that the zone system results in ugly photos. That's great. But the vast majority of people out there absolutely adore the photos AA did using the zone system. If the zone system truly did result in ugly photos, no one would know who Ansel Adams was. No one would still be teaching the zone system today (which it's obvious they are, because of the OP's post). You are totally entitled to your opinion. And I will respect that opinion...if you'd just admit that's what it was.

It is your opinion that the zone system creates ugly photos. You can quote as many people as you want, but saying it is ugly is extremely subjective. It's amazing how you quote scientific studies that somehow prove that the zone system makes for ugly photos, since science is about objective thought. In reality, all those studies really prove is that the zone system ignores mid-tone contrast. They cannot confirm the zone system makes ugly photos, because that would be a subjective statement.

Answer me this question. Is it an opinion or is it a fact that the zone system results in ugly photos. You don't need to explain yourself, it's a simple "It's an opinion" or "It's a fact." Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > You missed the point I was making, which was that extreme global contrast manipulation (which is what the zone system is all about) results in _*ugly photos*_.
> ...



Extreme global contrast manipulation results in ugly photos.This is a _fact _of human perception. The 'use' of the zone system is not the issue. The problem is the result of extreme global contrast manipulation (which is the *method *embedded in the zone system). Do you understand the distinction? If you're using the zone system and don't end up either compressing or expanding, you're simply wasting time. You end up with a 'normal' print. *You don't need to use the zone system to produce a normal print. 
*
If you don't end up with a 'normal' print (i.e., you expanded or contracted), you end up with an ugly photo.

Get it?

*It's expansion and contraction that produce ugly prints, not the zone system itself. 

*But of course the zone system is predicated on expansion and contraction, that's what it uses as its *method*.

"*It can give you detail in both shadow and highlight areas of the negative but if a very high contrast scene is compressed in contrast in the photographic process it may look very flat and unnatural."*


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > Petraio Prime said:
> ...



Guess I'm not human then.

And I do understand the distinction. Keep your elitist attitude away from here.

Ugly is a subjective word. Subjective means that it's up to the viewers interpretation.

A fact, but it's nature, must be objective. Objective means that it is statement of fact, that cannot be refuted through opinion.

I do not think that Global Manipulation of contrast necessarily results in ugly photos.

If you say that it does, then that is your opinion. IT CANNOT BE A FACT. DO YOU GET IT? This is so incredibly simple that my friends 7 year old son understands.

:banghead:

You're obviously the greatest photographer in the world, and I cannot argue with you. Continue believing that because you think a photo is ugly, no one else can think it's beautiful. Keep that elitist, arrogant mindset, it's really working well for you. I now bow out.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Gaerek said:
> ...



This is undeniably the truth, whether you like it or not:

"*It can give you detail in both shadow and highlight areas of the negative but if a very high contrast scene is compressed in contrast in the photographic process it may look very flat and unnatural. The human eye compensates continuously for changes in average brightness of what we are observing."

*When I say 'ugly', I mean what Richard calls "very flat and unnatural".

In other words, when we 'view' a scene of extreme brightness our vision adapts to the different brightness of the parts of the scene. Film can't do that. When we compress the negative to include more range than it can when developed normally, we lose overall contrast. The result is a flat, unnatural-looking print. In my terminology, 'ugly'.

When Adams came up with a good print, it was not necessarily because he used the zone system. It may have been* in spite of it*. In other words, through print manipulation using techniques totally unrelated to zs dogma (i.e., *not *through negative expansion and contraction).

Oh, and by the way, I'm *not *a photographer.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Hmm Richard said it 'may' look flat and unnatural, not it 'will' look flat and unnatural. Flat and unnatural doesn't mean ugly. It simply means flat and unnatural. If you believe flat and unnatural photos are ugly, that is your opinion, not fact.

Reading comprehension is your friend.

By the way, quit with the elitist title of 'I'm not a photographer." Do you make photographs? If so, that makes you a photographer. Go away troll. You're no longer amusing.


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Hmm Richard said it 'may' look flat and unnatural, not it 'will' look flat and unnatural. Flat and unnatural doesn't mean ugly. It simply means flat and unnatural. If you believe flat and unnatural photos are ugly, that is your opinion, not fact.
> 
> Reading comprehension is your friend.
> 
> By the way, quit with the elitist title of 'I'm not a photographer." Do you make photographs? If so, that makes you a photographer. Go away troll. You're no longer amusing.



He was being conservative. It too may depend on other factors. In some extreme cases the compression may not be as noticeable as in others. I can almost always tell though. 

Here is an example of a typical zs compressed photograph:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images/cw-mn.jpg


----------



## Lipoly (Jul 9, 2010)

I wish people would stop using the word troll for PP...he may be annoying to you, but he is clearly not being a troll...trolls spit out one-liner posts only meant to instigate a fight (everyone has done that from time-to-time).  He is spitting out several paragraphs (or more) which may end up doing the same, but is not trolly.  Just because someone's opinion is wholly different than yours (and vast majority of people) does not make them a troll.


----------



## altair005 (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Overread said:
> 
> 
> > So you offer no proof to prove that he is wrong and yet you expect us to believe you over a guy who has international respect and adoration for his works and teachings?
> ...



I must say this thread is a lot of fun to read.


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 9, 2010)

Petraio Prime said:


> Gaerek said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm Richard said it 'may' look flat and unnatural, not it 'will' look flat and unnatural. Flat and unnatural doesn't mean ugly. It simply means flat and unnatural. If you believe flat and unnatural photos are ugly, that is your opinion, not fact.
> ...



He was being conservative? You know this how? Are you a mind reader now? Since when did Richard become the authority on zs? Again, I care not about what the zs does to a photo. All I care about is the finished product. By the way, except for the horribly small resolution of that picture, I find it to be very serene and beautiful. That's my opinion. You're still not getting that. 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You cannot categorize all zs images as ugly for everyone. When will you get that?

I await your next post trying to explain that zs makes photos ugly, without realizing it's just your opinion...


----------



## Petraio Prime (Jul 9, 2010)

Gaerek said:


> Petraio Prime said:
> 
> 
> > Gaerek said:
> ...



No, expansion and contraction makes them ugly. It's not just my opinion, it's the judgement of a whole bunch of people. Read the Kodak quote again until you get it and don't write a word until you do. Got it?

Also, bear in mind most of Adams' more famous photos were made _before_ he got involved with the zone system.


----------

