The Zone System

[Petraio Prime]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal arts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

3) You will never need a densitometer to make good prints. All that matters is that you develop the film in such a way that you get good results in printing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[epatsellis]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Day Sir!!!
[/FONT]

 

[Mike_E]

Thanks Erie!

You may be the most patient person on this forum.

p.s. the ignore function works pretty well.

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

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

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Day Sir!!!
[/FONT]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Willy Ronis" - Google Search

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

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

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

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

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

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

More from the Kodak publication:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[guitstik]

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

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

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

And it is 'adieu'...

 

[pbelarge]

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

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

Art is created. Photographs are created.



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

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

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

Art is created. Photographs are created.

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

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

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

or this:

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

In other words, the difference between 'art' and 'non-art' is a technical one (by which I mean "made by the hand of man), not a matter of virtue or beauty.

Understand now?

Thus, even though Adams's Moonrise is not 'art', that does not mean it isn't very cool. I do like it; and it is not art.

Consider this analogy:

Fiction and non-fiction. 'Fiction' is like 'art'; 'non-fiction' is like 'photography'. Neither is superior to the other. No matter how well-done non-fiction is, it's still not fiction. Understand now?

 

[epo]

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

<Lots of waffle snipped>

Congratulations, I have just joined this site so I can ignore your postings. I have tried to follow this thread and your lengthy, pompous, self-important ramblings are too much to endure.

You lack basic forum etiquette, and worse you have nothing interesting to say, I suspect that like other people who have these characteristics, you will be shunned.

I thought long and hard about this being my first post but some people simply don't get it and need to have it spelt out for them. I look forward to reading more thoughtful posts from other photoforum members in the future.

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

<Lots of waffle snipped>

Congratulations, I have just joined this site so I can ignore your postings. I have tried to follow this thread and your lengthy, pompous, self-important ramblings are too much to endure.

You lack basic forum etiquette, and worse you have nothing interesting to say, I suspect that like other people who have these characteristics, you will be shunned.

I thought long and hard about this being my first post but some people simply don't get it and need to have it spelt out for them. I look forward to reading more thoughtful posts from other photoforum members in the future.

So, just because you don't understand what I'm talking about, you call me pompous? Etiquette? In what way have I offended etiquette? We are talking about things that are perhaps unfamiliar to you. To be blunt, it seems that if you don't understand, the first thing to do is study those things in appropriate sources (philosophy texts, theory of art texts, etc.). You'll note I have not called anyone here names, yet you do, and say I offend etiquette....? Furthermore I have no fear of being 'shunned'. It really makes no difference to me.

Yes, some people "just don't get it" and you can see how they react when their lack of knowledge is brought to their attention.

Read my posts carefully. You will see I have called no-one here names. Yet you do. I have merely stated that:

1) The zone system is a mistake and a fraud
2) Photography is not one of the "fine arts"; photographs are not "works of art".

If the topics we are discussing don't interest you, why do you respond to this thread?

A photograph is a 'record', causally connected to some other thing of which it is a record and upon whose existence it depends. You cannot photograph a 'fiction', only something real. A work of art (such as a painting) is a representation, not a record, and not causally connected to anything; it is, in a sense, a 'fiction'. 'Art' is 'of' the 'unreal'. A photograph is always a photograph of something, something that exists already. It is in a sense merely 'derivative of reality'. Art is something apart from reality and is not dependent upon it in any causal chain.

In the 'arts' proper, there are decorative arts and fine arts. Photography, of course, is neither.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decorative_arts#Distinction_from_fine_arts

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

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

Art is created. Photographs are created.



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

Not sure there's an argument here.

 

[christopher walrath]

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

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

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

 

[Derrel]

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

 

[Petraio Prime]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[guitstik]

Petraio, I thought we had you in rehab?