Weston

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

What fantastic forum exchange!

 

I think Ed Weston underexposed his film a lot. What do you guys think?

Was it because the zone system wasn't really invented yet, or was he

just winging it, or did he just want his blacks really blank?

[david_rose3]

Actually, I have read several references in the daybooks and by Cole Weston about his habit of making "bullet proof" negatives (very overexposed).

[art_haykin]

What makes you think he "underexposed a lot?" And the Zone System wasn't "invented," it was used intuitively long before Adams and others codified it. It's a bit like saying "Newton discovered gravity."

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

I just think his shadows were way too dark for my taste--often without any defining texture. Seems like underexposure to me.

 

I don't agree with the gentleman who said that the zone system was all intuitive, then. I think if it weren't for Ansel, most people would have blank shadows. The science created the art. Period!

 

I admit that I prefer a good solid zone III over anything, (except a good gin and tonic), but would I have had this opinion without the example of Ansel? Don't know...

[ellis_vener_photography]

You are entitled to your opinion and punctuate it however you like

but are you making your judgement based on Weston's prints or

from reproductions of those prints? if you are looking at books,

which ones/ there can be immense variations in books

depending on the printing quality of getting ink on the page ..

and of course there can be and usually is, a huge difference

between what a print really looks like and how it is reproduced.

Finally, as far as I know Weston, unlike Ansel Adams, did not

make prints tailored for the printing process so in the real prints

there might be details that don't transfer to the printed page.

[kevin_kolosky]

I have viewed many of Mr. Weston's prints, and I disagree that his negatives were underexposed "a lot" as you put it. The common characteristics of underexposed film just are not there (i.e. muddy tones). I think Mr. Weston was very aware of what he wanted to say, and he said it the way he wanted to say it.

 

Kevin

[david_goldfarb]

As far as I know, Weston developed by inspection. His blacks are really black, but not without detail. I would also ask whether you are judging from prints or from books. Except for some earlier prints, they generally have a full range of tones. If you haven't seen original Weston prints, they are a real revelation.

[ken_lee11]

I agree with Kevin.

 

<p>Some of his images <i>were</i> dramatic and strongly toned, but there were many others that were subtle and lyrical.

[jeff_buckels]

Actually, it appears that Weston did underexpose a lot, at least by "modern" Zoney standards. A friend of mine who has frequented this forum (but not lately) viewed a major archive of Weston's negatives at Rochester in the last year or so and reported to me that the negatives were surpisingly thin. On the other hand, my friend suggested that they were pretty consistently so. It's hard to believe that EW was inadvertently producing what we would think of as underexposed or underdeveloped negatives. Don't you guys think he knew he was doing what he was doing and liked it that way? As for the judgment that his blacks were too black or whatever -- well, who's to say? It's subjective. Interestingly, one would think that AA, if anybody, would have thought EW's blacks too black, but I've read about everything AA ever wrote and I don't recall him saying anything like that. And I don't think he was just being kind to his buddy either; rather, he really seemed to think EW was a great shooter/printer.... -JB

[jim_galli4]

Had the privilege of looking at many of Edwards prints at the Los Angeles Central library around Christmas time last year. I can assure you the detail is all there and yes his style does lend itself to velvety dark prints. I'm not sure why the displayers insist on showing them with lighting like the inside of a cave.

 

As for bullet-proof negs; I've got some things on Ortho film that were made for Pt/Pd and are shall we say VERY DENSE. I've got one I print on AZO by flipping the overhead lamp on and going and taking a shower for 26 minutes. Blacks are inky black and detail like Edwards is full range. Perhaps that's similar to what he was doing since those materials have transcended from his generation to mine.

 

As for the zone system; The real invention was something to measure the light with. Ansel was just the right guy in the right place at the right time. That first SEI spotmeter dates almost exactly to Ansel's zone system.

[bruce_wehman]

Shadow values must be seen in relation to where the entire image falls on the curve. Over-exposing will put the darker values into the straight line portion of the response curve. Without the influence of a toe, shadow values tend to drop like a rock.

[brian_ellis3]

I spent this afternoon at the Weston exhibit at the Phillips Museum here in Washington, D.C. The prints, shown in good lighting fir a change, were beautiful. I can't imagine that the neegatives from which prints like those were made could have been significantly underexposed or overexposed.

[doug_theall2]

You are all hinting around the answer to the orginal question. He used the zone system and as such rated his film based on the that system. If you take the time to run the tests that he did you will find that film is rated about half what the manufacturer Iso says. (b&w). He however, did not underexpose the film just compensated for the true speed of the film to get the most out of the negative.

Doug Theall

[kcrisp]

Weston running film speed tests to use the Zone System? My impression from a lot of reading was that he did try a meter every now and then, setting it at half the film's official ASA but that most of the time he knew from experience what he wanted and set the camera without aid of a meter.

[jonathan brewer]

Jim Galli.........I saw the same Weston exhibit at the Los Angeles central library, maybe I ran into you without knowing it, that was the first time I saw Weston in person, you can certainly call him an artist with a vision.

 

I got the impression from his Portraits, Nudes, and his Chicago image, that regardless of the conventions, the rules, he did what he wanted, and made it work.

[will_ewing]

I am facinated with your comments about Weston. Ansel would (if you read his stuff enough)tell you that Weston had his own system of exposure and that while not as technical as the formal zone system, it worked for him. In fact, he did use a light meter, he did tend to give a full exposure and he developed for a long scale negative which by todays standards is difficult to print on standard grade papers. I think Cole said he used Ilford #1 a lot. Like anyone who is human, he occasionaly underexposed negatives.

There is a huge difference between Edward's printing and Cole's or Brett's (and I think Kim has done some of his Grandfathers stuff in the past.) Exhibit prints tend to be darker than everyday portraits and I know the lighting I have seen Edward's prints in was really dark (MFA, Boston.) I have two Cole prints which I have seen the Edward equivalents of. I (forgive me) actually like Cole's prints a little better because of the way he interprets them.

Another point..Edward did use PYRO and it is a staining developer. It does not look as dense as it really is for printing. He liked Haloid papers and I think mostly liked Chloride contact printing papers which have really different characteristics than almost anything you can get today.

On the other hand, there a lot of people who don't "like" Weston stuff...like anything else. But I never have felt he did not know what he was doing...and I think the references to him knowing the zone system more follow the VERY old rule: expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Mortensen taught that and I have a book from 1900 called Photographic Instruction Text which pushes that as well. To say Ansel gave full shadow detail to the photographer is just plain ignorant. His contribution was to make the exposure/development combination a bit more scientific. Important stuff, but not a real first..

Ansel admired Weston and his skill. His name pops up a lot in his original books. They approached photography quite differently. Ansel really did not want to be a starving artist and in some people's view ended up over selling his work. I like the photos they each took..but they are different and without question Ansel was more commercial than Edward.

[merg_ross]

I hesitate to jump in here being not only very familiar with but also somewhat biased regarding the work of Edward Weston.

First, Ellis makes a good point. If your opinion is based on viewing reproductions then you are not familiar with Weston prints.

If, however, you have viewed original EW prints I do not understand how you could not have seen the beautiful detail in the blacks.

[john_flavell]

I'm wondering if the only way to really judge Weston's exposure method is to view the negatives and see if all the tones are there. Didn't he have a Zone of his Own to which Adams et al then developed into numbers?

 

I have to say I agree with those who posted responses about how different the world of photography was during and throughout Weston's career.

We wonder if we could take his early negatives and print his 'view' on modern materials. Everything was different, except that he helped lead the way to what we are today.

 

ps: I kinda like the dark shadows.

[michael_phlin_jahapne]

ok points well taken

 

I just think that the prevailing style at the time was to create negatives that would tend toward dark shadows (less exposure). Compare that to a modern master, like say, Sexton, and you will notice an obvious difference. He seems to place shadows more in a iv, and most of the "action" is in zones VI-VIII. Very different printing style, me thinks

[james_chinn]

I was able to see the Weston exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago this past spring, and even in the worst lighting I had ever seen for a photo exhibit, the amount of detail contained in the shadows of his prints is amazing. The man had a tremendous gift and his ability to use the medium and evoke emotion and thought are unsurpassed in the history of phtography.

 

Yet, I get the impression that some people consider Weston some sort of a hick or photographic neanderthal because he did not use the zone system. The man probably knew his materials, methods and equipment better than even Adams. The impression I have of Weston is that he did not care that much about the technical aspects of photography, that he understood the underlying science and principles and knew what he needed for predictable results. This was a man who contact printed most of his work and used a bare light bulb raised and lowered on a stand to control the light intensity on the paper. He was little concerned about lenses, and chemistry and paper. His approach was pure and simple and his interest was in the final image.

 

Someone had a previous suggestion that if we could look at his negatives we could better understand his methods. We know the paper he used, the developers, film, the enlarger and with a densitometer we could even determine how he exposed the film. But to what end? So we can duplicate it with today's materials? If it is important go digital. They will proabably have a "Weston filter" in the next version of photoshop.

[michael_alpert1]

Thurston,

 

Have you seen Weston's original prints or reproductions only? I do not understand your comment about "winging it" in reference to a photographer with decades of experience. You seem to be asking very general questions on a forum that is quite specific in scope. It's okay, but I for one do not find this sort of bantering very informative. Do you work with a large format camera?

[jim_shanesy]

Weston was one of the greatest artists of the 20th Century. He always knew exactly what he was doing and used only the materials which would give him exactly what he wanted. The prints in the "Edward Weston: Photography and Modernism" exhibition (currently at the Phillips Collection in Washington, D.C. until 8/18/02) are utterly breathtaking. His vision was transcendent and his technique served only to capture it in tangible form, so there can be no such thing as "underexposed" in reference to Weston because such a term implies an external standard.

 

I can't overemphasize the fact that the glory of an Edward Weston print just doesn't come across in books. Not ever. Ansel Adams prints reproduce very well on the printed page, so a lot of people mistakenly assume that Westons do too. They don't. Not ever. You must see the prints in the flesh.

[fpa]

As others have said, you have to see the original prints, and I would add, you have to see Edward's prints. In undergrad the campus gallery hung a show of Weston, which as one of the hangers I got to view up close, and occasionally without their cover glass. His blacks are simply luminous; dark, but with detail everywhere. When I saw the Art Institute exhibit, I was somewhat disappointed, as most of the prints were by Brett on modern paper. Brett's prints, while vivid in the high and mid-tones, made the blacks just go to ink, and since many of Edward's prints had large dark areas, it made them look heavy and empty. After the first couple you could walk around the gallery, look at the blacks, and start counting off, "Edward, Brett, Brett, Brett", without looking at the plaque.

 

Since others are specultating on his technique, I would add that he used Amidol, and probably a processing methodology similar to water-bath. This would help bring up the densities in the blacks, relative to a modern paper/developer combination.

[bruce watson]

I've done a little research into Edward Weston (and many of the other greats). Everyone practices the process in their own way. Adams wanted to be very scientific. As much as possible, he wanted to make every negative count. This attitude of knowing his craft in great detail allowed him to capture his "Moonrise" image. He got one chance at the image, and he captured it, like many others before and after that day.

 

Weston didn't wander the countryside nearly as much as Adams. He was always pretty destitute too. And he lacked the scientific bent. What he had in abundance was vision and persistence. In some ways he was a hacker - he would estimate an exposure, take a picture, process the negative. He would decide that it wasn't quite right and start over, making adjustments. Where else do you think all those peppers come from? Still, in the end, he got exactly the picture he had in mind.

 

Their methods were as different as night and day. Does that make one better than the other?

 

As for me, I'm more fond of Adams' vision and his methods. But, if I ever produce a print that I could put on the same wall as either of them, it will be a happy day indeed!

[Troll]

Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee use similar techniques to EW; Film developed in Pyro by inspection, and contact printed on Azo developed in Amidol. Nothing fancy in the darkroom, just plain superb craftsmanship. Their prints are absolutely stunning!