How Long for a 'Fine Print'?

Aaron, I hope you're reading this exchange, as it relates to your

question: what is meant by personal vision?

<p>

Since I print in gum bichromate, my answer to the present question

wouldn't be of much use to the group, but I am enjoying reading this

thread.

Mr. Smith,

<p>

Perhaps just as you advise that we shouldn�t judge you because we

weren�t there, so should you take that same advice when judging Mr.

Sexton?

<p>

You say we don�t know the extent to which you change tonalities,

doesn�t Mr. Sexton also do this? As did Mr. Adams? And yet you

criticize them for doing so. This seems to suggest that there is some

arbitrary point that you seem to have that no one else is to go

beyond? You say there is no right or wrong in these methods, yet you

continue to talk of as if these people are making "mistakes", such as,

<p>

"overlooked when photographers are exposing their negatives--so they

need to do extensive manipulation later to get what they want. "

<p>

Adams wasn�t interested in showing only what existed, but wanted to

show, in print, the result of the combination of what he saw and what

he felt. Adams was very expressive, Nature moved him, and he wanted to

show how in a visual sense, is there something wrong with that?

Perhaps you should explore the lesser known works of Adams, I think

that you would be suprised.

<p>

One way is more "respectful" than another? Please explain how that is

possible�.

<p>

<p>

I have no problem with your preference for Weston over Adams or your

preference for how you do your darkroom work, but please, please do

not tell me that the rest of us are wrong and are going down the wrong

path.

Hi Keith,

<p>

When I print, I usually find that I have better results when I print a

negative that I have a "passion" for on that particular day. If

someone asks me to make a particular print, I usually have trouble if

I am not in the mood for it - it can seem forced or unmotivated. But

if I feel that a negative may contain a possible gem, and I have a

desire to tackle it head on, then I think there is a good chance for

making something "fine". As to time, when I am loving the process, 6

hours can seem like 6 minutes, and time can kiss my ass during those

magic moments. The only thing on my mind is that negative and the

magic that is appearing on the paper. At the end of the session, if I

can get a print that seems like a jewel in its appearance - luminous,

mysterious, deep, filled with beauty, well, hey, then I feel like

somebody had just placed a million dollars into my Paypal account.

<p>

Good luck with your printing!

Mr. Lindsay,

<p>

First, I thank you for your comments. This is a wonderful forum for me

to put down some things I have been meaning to put down for a long time

and I thank you, and everyone else for providing the excuse for me to

get to it. Second, I ask you to read more carefully. Where have I told

anyone they are doing anything wrong? And I don't believe I criticized

anyone. Nor have I judged anyone. What I said was, "I'm curious about

something. I assume that John Sexton uses the Zone System to calculate

exposure and development of his negatives. And that his determination

of exposure and development is a function of how he previsualizes the

final print. That being the case, why would it take so long to get a

proper straight print, and then so many more hours to dodge, burn,

mask, etc. to get a proper print? And then, since the print was

previsualized and supposedly exposed and developed properly, why would

he first have to live with it for some period of time before figuring

out how he wants to print it? That just doesn't make sense to me."

<p>

And it doesn't make sense to me. With all Adams's and Sexton's talk of

previsualizing and calibrating the Zone System precisely, I cannot

understand that they need to do all of that post-exposure manipulation.

There is nothing wrong with doing it. No viewer of a photograph,

including me, cares how the finished print comes about. To the viewer

it is the object--the photograph itself--that matters. To the maker,

however, it is never the thing finished that is important but the

process of doing the work--the process of getting there. It is the

making that counts, not the things made. I don't care how anyone does

their work and I certainly don't begrudge anyone their own pleasure in

the process of making their photographs. If some prefer to spend those

long hours in the darkroom on each print, I can only say that I hope

they get deep pleasure from the process. But to me it still doesn't

make sense, given the degree of precision that goes into their making

of all the decisions (exposure and development) prior to getting down

to make the print, that Sexton and Adams would need to spend all of

that time getting what they want. Based on my own experience, I can

only assume that something was overlooked when the ground glass was

looked at. I make that assumption because I assume they have the

technical stuff down pat. If I am wrong, I will happily stand

corrected. But I don't know how else to explain the need for the

extensive darkroom work.

<p>

I believe, by definition, all photographic artists, and I consider

Adams, Weston, Sexton, and myself in that category, are not interested

in "copying" their subject. Any commercial photographer can do that.

What we all are interested in is making something--a photograph--which

goes beyond mere recording. Many years ago I wrote in a statement for a

book, "These photographs are really records--records of the interaction

between myself and the things recorded." I then went on to say, "It is

my hope that the end result of this interaction--the picture--will

create an exciting new interaction between itself and the viewer."

<p>

Sexton and Adams both have made many beautiful photographs. I can

recognize them as beautiful, but can also recognize that most of them

don't do a whole lot for me. And I've thought about why that was so.

And I stated why that was so in my previous post.

<p>

Weston's approach ("the thing itself") seems indeed more respectful

than Adams's. Given that we all are imposing ourselves when we make a

photograph (just the act of photographing does that), it seems to me

that the attitude of going humbly before nature (and the rest of the

world) is more respectful of it than the attitude of going to nature

with the idea that "I want to show what I saw and felt." To repeat in

other words: we are all showing what we saw and felt. The difference is

in the attitude toward achieving that end. To repeat myself again,

"There is no right or wrong in this. It ultimately is a question of who

one is."

<p>

There is also a sense of discovery at work with Weston that often

wasn't there with Adams. Adams wrote repeatedly about knowing what the

light would be like at a particular place and time and then making sure

that he was there when the light was "right." He even goes so far in

his book, "My Camera in Yosemite Valley," published in 1949, to have a

section of recommendations telling other, would-be, photographers what

time of day, what time of year, what vantage point, and what filter to

use, to get the best results. Weston, on the other hand, stated that he

never waited for the light to be right--that the light would always be

fine somewhere else if he just looked. Weston didn't know what he would

be photographing until he saw it and connected with it, whereas Adams

often "knew" ahead of time (not with his best work, though). That's one

consequence of Adams's and Weston's different approaches.

<p>

Finally, you should know that I am quite conversant with Adams's

photographs--his little known works as well as his better known ones. I

have seen many exhibitions of his photographs and have spent countless

hours in many museums looking at every print of his they had. I've also

done that with Weston's photographs, and with many other photographers

work. How could I not have done that? Doesn't everyone who is serious

about our beloved medium?

So Keith, you were asking for an example of how long it might take to

get from first draft to final print and I just this last weekend came

upon a situation that might illustrate my earlier point about

rediscovering an abanodoned image. In the fall of 2000, I made a trip

to New England and one of the negatives I came back with was made

inside a covered bridge. I was aimed toward the end of the bridge at a

farm lane flanked by trees and lit by a late afternoon sun. Despite

careful exposure calculations and the requisite contraction of

development time, which did help a bit, the negative was simply too

contrasty to print without manipulation. I attempted to make a simple

burning tool which I held under the enlarger, but despite all efforts a

year ago, I could not get a print I was satisfied with. The burning

was too obvious. I recently discovered some articles in ViewCamera and

Photo Techniques on selective dodging and burning masks and with some

helpful suggestions from my friend Howard Bond, made a masking fixture

for my enlarger and a set of three very simple masks for my covered

bridge negative. The initial time needed to fabricate the negative

holder aside, the masks took only ten or fifteen minutes to make. I

now am able to print this image in one continuous exposure without any

manual manipulation whatsoever! But, it did take a little over a year

to come upon a solution. I'm now sorting through many other negatives,

long abandoned, to see if there are any prospective candidates for

selective masking. Even if I only find a handful, or even if I only

make some simple masks for negatives that were okay but now might be

improved a bit, it will be worth the effort in my view.

Mr. Smith,

<p>

I must apologize first for not specifying what I alluded to when I

talked of your criticism of others. This was a comment based on your

overall attitude toward those of us who use the Zone system that you

have expressed throughout the collective forums here. Maybe you don�t

realize you are doing it, or maybe I am over reacting, but I always

get the distinct feeling that I am one of those "silly little people"

who just don�t get it because I use the zone system rather than

d.b.i..

<p>

I guess the thing that bothers me most is the myth you continue to

spread that Zone system users are constantly testing and have no time

for shooting�.very untrue. I am sure however that there are plenty of

people out there who do this, zone system or not, but I assure you, I,

and many like me, do not. Once my testing is done, one day or two at

the most, I am good to go. Nor do I have to retest any of my equipment

every time something goes slightly out of calibration. I simply tweak

or nudge my e.i. or development times to compensate as I notice slight

variations in my negatives/prints. I�ve tested twice in the last 10-15

years, I think I have plenty of time to shoot otherwise.

<p>

I think that the difference between yourself and someone like Sexton

is that, although you both strive for a negative that departs from the

"literal", I think that (correct me if I�m wrong) you then print a

"literal" print from the negative. Sexton, and others like him,

perhaps don�t see the negative as the end result of the creative

process, rather they see it as the first of two parts. This doesn�t

mean that they are unable to get the appropriate amount of information

on film just like anyone else, it just means that they are going to

take the image, in printing, to a place that the negative is not able

to get to regardless of development techniques. Its all about vision,

and if your vision allows you to stop the creative step at the

completion of the negative, then that�s fine, however some

interpretations require not only the manipulation of the negative, but

also the print. "The negative is the score and the print the

performance", I strongly believe that for my own work and how I see

things.

<p>

You stated that there is no right or wrong when it comes to ones own

vision, and yet you say that one vision is more honest than another.

How can there be no right or wrong in your mind and at the same time

have one be more honest than the other?

<p>

I don�t see how knowing that a general area will have interesting

light makes any difference in the discovery of images within that

area, and I can�t believe that Weston never made a mental note of an

area that he passed through.

<p>

Didn�t you say that only the print on the wall matters? Then why would

how Adams went about getting his images make any difference? How then

could it be considered more or less dishonest?

<p>

I understand that you are very passionate about the way that you

practice the craft of photography, but I don�t think it is necessary

to criticize another way of doing things to legitimize your own, is

it?

<p>

good talking to you, and forgive me if I ever get a little excited (as

many here can attest) I am trying to get better, really.

<p>

Mark

Mr. Lindsay,

<p>

Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

<p>

However, again, I must ask that you read more carefully. Nowhere have I

ever said, or implied, that Adams's or Sexton's or anyone else's

approach was dishonest. I did say that I found Weston's approach more

respectful than Adams's.

<p>

Perhaps I overdo my comments about Zone System users, although I have

heard that there are even whole workshops devoted to it. Last year, one

fellow took our workshop after spending a full year(!) doing Zone

System tests under the guidance (workshop?--not sure) of a

photographer/teacher. And until very recently, when there have been a

few threads on this forum that have dealt with non-technical things

(sparked perhaps by Aaron's questions), most threads have dealt with

technical matters, although, I'll admit, not the zone system. And I've

been told by the owner of the largest photography book store that the

only really big sellers he has are technical books. I guess I think of

the Zone System as a metaphor for the overly technical concerns that

people have.

<p>

I look at it this way: There are times when one's technique needs to

keep up with one's vision. At those times a concern for technical

matters is warranted. There are other times, however, when the reverse

is true: one's vision needs to keep up with one's technical facility.

At those times one should just use the technique one has and learn to

make better pictures (visually).

<p>

Unfortunately, few people know how to do that (make better pictures

visually). Let's face it, most photographs made with a view camera (or

other cameras, too) are uninteresting and repetitive (note I have not

said imitative). They are repetitive of ones own work. And generally

people haven't the foggiest idea, despite being serious, diligent, and

well-intentioned, of how to get out of their own ruts. And not knowing

which way to turn, they look for something technical--"better"

developer, paper, film, method of exposure, etc. Of course they never

find their way clear to what they really want--better pictures.

<p>

Regarding printing: you have it wrong here in your inference as to how

I print. I also agree with Adams that the negative is the score and the

print is the performance. No one could print my negatives like I do

(which is why they will all be destroyed some day). I don't necessarily

make a literal print from my negatives. Rarely do I make straight

prints without dodging or burning or both. (Wish there were more of the

straight one.) Of course it�s a two-part process. I guess it comes down

to the fact that I am able to make prints fairly easily, as was Weston,

and some others are not. I'm into doing it easily--leaves more energy

to concentrate on the most important thing--photographic seeing--

vision. Certainly the creative part of the work process does not stop

at making the negative. I'm puzzled that you, after having read what I

have written (here and perhaps elsewhere), could think I was so stupid

as to think making prints was a merely mechanical process and that the

creative process didn't include that. Ya gotta read more carefully,

Mark.

<p>

I am posting this to you directly as well as posting a response to the

forum, but I am not posting this paragraph to the forum. It is for you

only. I have been called by curators (not all certainly, but by many

more than one), collectors, and by other photographers, "the best

printer of my generation." Another comment made to Paula and me last

year (twice, by a curator and by a very knowledgeable collector) was,

"you two make the most beautiful prints I have ever seen." Quite

frankly, I would disagree with them. My comment to Paula was that

cannot possibly have seen great prints by the previous generation. But

in any case, trust me, Paula and I do make very fine prints. Each one

very carefully, obsessively, considered. (That's each one from each

negative. If five prints are made from one negative they each get the

same excessive, obsessive, consideration.

<p>

As far as the business about the light. Damn it, Mark, read more

carefully. I was referring to very specific instances. Adams often

scoped out his photographs ahead of time. Weston never did.

<p>

In closing, I happen to believe that Adams's influence on view camera

photographers has had negative consequences as well as positive ones. I

am trying to counter that. The "St. Ansel" appellation, whether said

tongue-in-cheek or not, is an indication of the reverence with which

every utterance and photograph of his (and often of his most visible

followers) is held. For me, there's a problem with that, I don't

believe Adams was of the stature of Weston or of a number of other

photographers. That too many view camera photographers have, to one

degree or another, have emulated him, or tried to, has been, I believe,

a hindrance to the development of our medium.

Keith chek this:http://www.apogeephoto.com/mag1-6/mag2-5js.shtml

maybe you get yuor answer

happy holiday.

Mr. Smith,

<p>

First let me apologize, I did say "dishonest" and actually meant

"respectful".

<p>

I didn�t intend to insult you with the quote about creativity as it

referred to negative dev./exposure or printing. I certainly don�t

think of you as "stupid". I personally think it would be great if I

could do everything on the negative without requiring any additional

manipulation when printing, it certainly would make things easier. But

film just can�t handle that amount of manipulation. I read you

perfectly well, but took my interpretation of it to an extreme in

trying to get my point across.

<p>

Everybody sees the subject differently, and therefore each person will

require a different amount of manipulation (exposure, development or

printing). You and I could print from the same negative and both of us

would come up with a different interpretation, and not all

interpretations take the same amount of time. Some are longer, some

shorter, and neither is better than the other�.simply different. So to

sum it up, I think it is each persons own vision that dictates why

they need more or less time in the darkroom. I personally have some

negatives that I feel meet my expectations with minimal darkroom

manipulation, still others need much more�.not because the negative

was incorrectly exposed or developed, only because my idea of what the

image should be is beyond what the film and minimal printing

techniques can accomplish, again, not better or worse, just different.

<p>

What�s wrong with workshops devoted to the zone system? Is that any

different than workshops devoted to specific printing or developing

techniques? They are all tools for the photographer. Yes I agree, the

guy who spent a whole year testing wasted at least 363 days that he

could have been out shooting or at least seeing the light of day.

That�s not me, it wasn�t Adams and I am sure that isn�t the case for

many more people besides.

<p>

I agree that photographers tend to become obsessed with the technical

aspects, hell as much as I admire Adams he was still a bit too

technical for me, I just don�t have that kind of energy for that kind

of organization. But on the other hand I think Weston�s obsessive

avoidance of technology was much more of a detriment than an

advantage. It goes both ways.

<p>

I agree totally with you on your next point, craft and vision must

keep up with each other. If not, then what�s the point? And yes, most

pictures made with ANY camera are uninteresting and repetitive. I

agree wholeheartedly.

<p>

I don�t see anything wrong with planning ahead for a future image, and

you didn�t mention specific instances, only that he knew when the

light was optimal for a particular place, so this tells me nothing of

a specific instance. Is this any worse than the shell shots on the

beach that Weston set up to look natural, they certainly weren�t the

found object. Neither bothers me, although the set up shell shots

were greatly lacking I thought. I still cannot believe that Weston

never scoped out shots. He was human you know!

<p>

Actually the "St Ansel" title has been used on this and other forums

just as much or more as a denigration of Adams than as a title of

dignity, in fact, I cannot recall a comment made with this connotation

at any time in the forums that was positive. Certainly there are those

who put him on an unobtainable pedestal, this happens with many famous

people/photographers. There are many people who contribute to the

forums who emulate Weston amongst many other photographers who have

celebrity or "cult" status.

<p>

You yourself claim that Weston greatly influenced your work, technique

and choice of materials, should I say that the influence Weston had on

you is a hindrance to our medium? What is the actual count of how many

photographers are influenced by Weston, is there some magical number

between him and Adams that is ok and then not ok? Everyone has their

preferences for which photographers they admire, emulate or simply

agree with when it comes to their own belief systems.

<p>

I like many images made by both men, they also made images that I

don�t care for. It just doesn�t have to be that black and white�.

<p>

its Lindsey by the way, not Lindsay...

In my last post, the paragraph about how fine Paula's and my prints

have been said to be was not supposed to be posted. But I forgot to

delete it. I want to add that whether or not it is true, our fine

prints are not due to our skills as printers being better than many

other photographer's skills. We're all pretty much equal in that

regard. I attribute the fineness of our prints to the materials we use:

the Super XX film, but more importantly, the Azo paper. I feel a bit

like Frederick Evans who stopped photographing when platinum paper

stopped being manufactured. If Azo were no longer manufactured, I might

have the same reaction he did.

Mr. Lindsey,

<p>

Apologies for not getting your name right.

<p>

Thank you for your thoughtful response. This discussion is coming to a

close, for me at least. I've enjoyed the excuse to write some things I

have thought and spoken about, but never put down on paper. So your

comments are very much appreciated. To get a reaction, I often do state

things somewhat extremely and I truly hope I have not offended you or

anyone else.

<p>

After your last comments I realize that the ease with which I am able

to print may be due to nothing more than the materials I use--mainly

Azo, the contact printing paper I print on. Why everyone cannot see,

that all things being equal, Azo yields finer prints (that are easier

to print than the same negatives printed on enlarging paper) is a

mystery to me. But what if one wants bigger prints? Then you must use

bigger negatives, a choice I made years ago. An extreme position? Sure

it is. I believe in a life of balance--achieved through excess in all

things--either do whatever you are doing fully and all the way--or

don't do it at all. Seems to work for me, although I would be hesitant

about recommending that way of living to others.

<p>

What's wrong with planning ahead for a future image? Nothing if you are

a studio photographer. And nothing if you are doing an assignment. But

if you are just going out to make pictures I think there is a lot wrong

with it. The photographer's paradox is this: One can only recognize, or

see, things one already knows. That's true by definition. If somewhere

inside you don't know something, you won't see it. (That's an

assumption that, for the sake of the point I am making you have to

accept as true.) Most photographers go along until they see something

that catches their eye, makes their heart beat a little faster, makes

them say, "Wow." Then they photograph that which caught their eye,

mind, or heart, and then they move on to the next thing. Now, because,

by definition, one can only respond to what one already knows, by

making photographs of what captured your attention, you are merely

confirming what you already know. And the work becomes repetitive. So

what to do? You have to photograph what you don't know. But how can you

do that if by definition you can only respond to what you already know?

I have an answer for that, and it is the core of our workshop. It is

too difficult to describe in words and needs to be demonstrated. So,

having only posed the problem, I'll leave you there. To get back to the

beginning of this paragraph. By planning ahead for those photographs

you make when"going out to make pictures" you are not even giving

yourself the opportunity to say, "Wow," that having already been

determined. For the maker it is never the thing made that is important,

it is the making that is. For the maker, the photographer, consider the

photograph to be a bonus--the point is to have a full, genuine

experience, one in which something is learned, not just confirmed. And

if something is learned there will be personal growth and as a

consequence one's photographs will not be repetitive. As e.e. cummings

said, "An artist, whose every agony is to grow."

<p>

The Zone System is simply one way of understanding exposure and

development relationships. If a photographer doesn't understand those

relationships so thoroughly that it is like counting to 10 or saying

the ABCs, then they can't possibly figure out what to do if everything

is not perfect. You would think that everyone would know this. But they

don't, and sadly we see many people unable to instantly identify over

or under exposed negatives and over and under developed negatives, even

after they have taken Zone System workshops. There is nothing wrong

with Zone System or other workshops. But if the basic understanding is

not there, these workshops can be essentially a waste of time. A

thorough understanding of exposure/development relationships should

enable one to fine-tune one's negatives in a few pictures without any

testing at all. Instead of testing, one could use that time to make new

pictures. And if they don't come out? That's okay. (Remember that the

photograph is only a bonus.) At least you would have had the pleasure

of the experience of making the picture as opposed to photographing a

gray card. My position here is extreme, I know. There is nothing wrong

with testing. And, hey, some people might like making photographs of

gray cards.

<p>

Re: Adams often knowing ahead of time what, and the conditions under

which he wanted to photograph versus Weston's sense of discovery.

You'll just have to read what they wrote to find that to be true. Adams

best pictures occurred through a discovery process, but he did not

always allow himself that. One example only: He knew what time the sun

rose and what time of year the light was "best" at the Alabama Hills

(Lone Pine with white horse). He got a good one there, however. An

exception. Lucky that the horse was there, but then, luck favors those

who are prepared, doesn't it?

<p>

That's it. Thanks again, Mark.

Hi Michael, I don't want to prolong this discussion but something you

alluded to puzzles me. You find that too many photographers labor to

calibrate their systems using zone system workshops but come away not

knowing how to use the information they gained. If you take a zone

system workshop from a qualified individual, pay attention and

practice what was taught, then you should come away with enough

information that you can spot the over/under exposed and over/under

developed negative although if you practiced what was taught you won't

have the problem in the first place. If you can't then you weren't

paying attention. That is what the zone system and it's teaching is

about. Using a system that allows you to fully capture what is in

front of you using the knowlege of exposure/development relationships.

This endless testing you talk about isn't inherent to zone system

practitioners alone but to the technically obsessed. I tried DBI and

gave it up as an unsatisfactory method of development. Without lots

and lots of practice, wasting film and time, it is an unreliable

method of processing. Not to say it can't be done but I found that the

zone system of exposure/development was a much more reliable method.

Meters don't lie if you listen to them and

time/temp/developer/materials don't lie if you understand what to do

with them. You said in a thread that you were puzzled as to why Sexton

and others who supposedly had extensive knowlege of the zone system

had to labor so much to get a print. The prints usually aren't literal

representations of scenes as they existed. Adams print of "Clearing

Winter Storm" is one example. The tonal relationships that existed

were on the negative. That is not how he wanted the image to look as a

print so he used other controls to make a print that represented the

scene as he wanted it to look. Sexton's work on "Places of Power" is

another example of prints that are not literal interpretations of a

scene. They are prints that represent what he wanted the scene to look

like. Hard to make a dirty dusty power station beautiful using the

zone system alone. No amount of DBI alone would have produced this

print the way it was presented. The method isn't designed to do that

anyway. DBI and the zone system are two different methods used to come

to the same result. And both are valid. But for my money the zone

system as taught, if used properly, is the easier method yeilding the

most consistent results. There is no judgement to be made with the

zone system as far as how the materials will react. With the DBI it is

a subjective method of coming to a conclusion. Every eye is different.

DBI is a useful tool and is used by some to make beautiful prints.

Anyone who has seen your prints would have to agree. They are superb.

But look at your materials and format too. Hard to go wrong with an

8x10 and larger format. And contact printing is hard to beat. But the

larger format is also fraught with problems. Versatility and

portability. Just not a handy format for many photographers. You and

Paula are masters at these formats. And these formats are limited as

to the scenes photographed by their very nature. They are good formats

for what they were intended to be used for. As to f8 and being there

as you espouse was Westons photographic values, I disagree. He many

times would be someplace at a certian time and certain time of the

year to capture something that he had seen before. Pt. Lobos is a good

example. That's why he lived there. He knew the tides and the time of

year that would make an image he thought would be there. He shot his

nudes at a certain time of day knowing the light would be at a certain

value. He controlled closely when he would photograph knowing that the

materials he used would give the best results under certain

conditions. And he and Adams and other contemporaries shot different

subjects. Most people identify Adams as a grand landscape photographer

only. Having seen most of his images including his vast negative

collection in Arizona I can say that he was much more than the master

of the grand landscape. Trailer Park Children and his image of Orville

Cox bantering with Georgia O'Keffe are two that come to mind. As are a

lot of his FSA images. Each photographer has their own vision. I hear

to much about how too many photographers are redundant or sterile. You

yourself have alluded to this in this thread. I disaggree with this

view. Too many photographers hold this view while seeing themselves as

having a unique and valid view point in their photography. Street

photographers are always dismissing landscape photographers as dead

visions and landscapers are always lambasting street shooters as

worthless waste of film. These may be exagerations but you know where

this is conming from. I think we all have our unique perspectives and

we should value each others points of view. There are few fresh

perspectives. Robert Parke Harrioson is one of the few truly unique

creative photographers today. Your landscapes are derivative of many

whom have come before you. And Paula's farmstead images are too. That

doesn't diminish their relavence one bit. They are as valid as

Sexton's powerplants or Evans Appalacian work. When I started out in

photography I took sides in this argument. I have come to the

conclusion I was wrong. It is all valid. We are all individuals and

our different perspectives are what make our work unique. See you in

Santa Monica on Friday. James aka Lumberjack

James,

<p>

Quickly. Regarding the Zone System: if it works for you, great. No one

way is better than any other. Whatever works. I sure hope I am wrong

with my perception that many who have "studied" the Zone System still

cannot instantly recognize in what way bad negatives are bad. My

experience leads me to another conclusion but, as I said somewhere

else, perhaps I haven't met the right people.

<p>

I have to respectfully disagree with you regarding Weston's/Adams's way

of working. In general terms, sure, Weston knew that Point Lobos would

be good at certain seasons at certain times of day, but he never had a

specific photograph in mind to make at say 5:45 P.M. on June 21, the

way Adams not infrequently did. Adams could tell you the "best" time to

photograph Half Dome and other landmarks in Yosemite. Not generally the

best time, but exactly the best time of day, year, etc. And he would

have his camera ready then, tripod legs planted. I went photographing

years ago with one of his acolytes (a very well-known photographer, by

the way). This fellow got to his location three hours ahead of time,

set up his tripod, and waited for the light to be exactly as he knew it

would be. He knew because he had been to that spot a dozen times

previously just to learn when the light would be right. In the three

hours that he was waiting, I was making photographs--one of them just

at sunset when I made a mad dash of about 100 yards with camera on

shoulder--set up and "got it" all in about two minutes (about 3 seconds

before the light went). Needless to say, this fellow and I did not get

along with each other. Among other things he said that he had never

seen a photographer carry his camera around the landscape on his

shoulder on the tripod. He wouldn't do that with his camera because he

was afraid of getting dust on it. A camera is a tool for god's sake; it

is not a piece of furniture.

Our photographs derivative? Influenced by what has come before,

certainly. But not derivative. And I can point out exactly how they are

different--perhaps in Santa Monica if we have the time. In general

people are incapable of making fine discriminations. The more you know

about a field, the finer the discriminations you can make. The

difference between each of the Baroque composers is immense if one

really knows music. There is a negligible difference, if there is any

at all, for those who are not musicians who are just beginning to

listen to that music.

<p>

We're all unique. Although there is such a thing as personal vision

(and not everyone has it even though they are unique) work that is

derivative is work that never evinces a personal vision.

<p>

See you in Santa Monica.

What a delightful education this thread has provided. I wonder how

much of the technical differences expressed here is due to one group

(Weston/Smith) making prints by contact, and the other (Adams/Sexton)

by projection. By the way, Happy New Year Michael and Paula.

Hello Again,

<p>

I know this has gone on and on, and I wouldn't feel hurt if you don't

have time to reply, but I did have a few things to bring up......

<p>

I am sure that Azo is the best paper for you and gives your prints

the look that you desire, whether its best paper or not is not really

the issue, its just a matter of taste. If a paper existed that loaded

itself into stinky chemicals and developed itself I still wouldn't

purchase it if I preferred something else! Like you said, what's on

the wall is what counts, we all must go with the look that pleases us.

<p>

Fine-tuning with or without the Zone system is identical. I don't

doubt for a minute that when working with a never before used

developer and/or film, I can attain working times/temps much faster

with zone style testing than without. The fine-tuning however is

identical to what you describe. Adams himself said that regardless of

what the tests show, you must go out and shoot to really see if what

your getting is what's right for you.

<p>

I still feel that you are exaggerating a bit when discussing the

Adams "pre-planning" of shots, I don't really think that he did it as

often as you suggest. I think that the manual you were talking about

was probably a guide for the amateur, whom I am sure you know would

be written in an entirely different mindset altogether. The person

you spoke of who sat for three hours...that would drive me crazy to

do that too! again, that's this one person, not all zone users. and

yes, I do put my camera over my shoulder on the tripod. I agree, the

camera is just a tool. I also can't understand people who will not

sacrifice a piece of equipment if it means getting the "ultimate"

shot, the image is once in a lifetime, there are whole rows of

lenses, etc. stacked up that I can replace mine with.

<p>

I have no problem with Adams knowledge of the Alabama hill lighting

situation, how could you drive by such places and not notice. Yes the

horse being there to give a size perspective was indeed lucky, even

luckier was the fact that the horse turned sideways to the camera

just in time to take the picture and not lose the light,(Adams said

otherwise that the horse would have looked like a stump) A beautiful

image I think.

<p>

I also find it hard to believe that Adams did too much waiting around

due to the fact that 40,000 plus negative wouldn't allow for much

waiting around!

<p>

I've had fun, hope to hear more from you in the forum in the future,

<p>

thanks,

<p>

Mark Lindsey

Quickly, while the dry mount press heats up. Adams: "My Camera in

Yosemite Valley" is not a how-to book for amateurs, but is a very

elegant superbly reproduced book of Adams Yosemite photographs. Re:

pre-planning. It wasn't a question of driving by the Alabama Hills and

noticing or not. He wrote that he had a chart that told him that

sunrise would be at 5:36 A. M., or whatever, and he knew what he would

be getting. He did make a great photograph there. But other times that

approach got in his way, I believe, and led him to repeat himself, as I

discussed in general terms above.

<p>

40,000 negatives is not that many when you consider that for the last

many years of his working life he mostly used a Hasselblad and that at

times he used a 35mm. (I'm not being critical here, just pointing it

out.). In proportion to the whole of his work, he used an 8x10

relatively little. Curious, isn't it, that his finest work for the most

part was done during the period that he was closest to Weston, when

they occasionally even went photographing together--late 30s to mid-

40s. I find that fact not insignificant.

<p>

We'll be away for a while, so there will be whole periods when I do not

access this forum. A pity. Although Paula keeps telling me I don't have

time for this now, that we have work to do. But I have enjoyed it and

will contribute again when I can.

<p>

Happy New Year to all.

Well, That was the BEST group of answers to a very simple question.

Thanks to all and to all a Happy New Year. KB