'Study in Grays'

This is a 'Study in Grays'. Whereas some photographers (and critics)

prefer lots of contrast and a full range of gray scale in photographs,

noted photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson told the man who was to

become his biographer that his photographs often were a range of

grays, and indeed that is true, often with no true absolute blacks and

true absolute whites in many photos. This photo, taken in the shadow

of a building and partly underneath and 'awning-like structure' has side

lighting and an extended gray scale. Your ratings and critiques are

invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very critically, please

submit a helpful and constructive comment; please share your superior

photographic knowledge to help improve my photography. Thanks!

Enjoy! John

And there may be only one or two on this service.

 

Amidst all this 'gray' there is a small amount of true white and a small amount of true black, just to fill out the 'zones of the 'zone system', but that never has been my intent.

 

I could care squat about the zone system, instead caring about what one member did with blacks -- she filled her photos with blacks, eschewed Nikon (or other) matrix metering, and used blacks (and whites) to suit her artistic purposes.

 

That's my idea of what a photographer should do.

 

Things like the 'zone system' are useful but 'rules' are made to be broken and too often are crutches that those who lack artistic sensibility to lean on when they criticize.

 

That is not to say the zone system is bankrupt -- far from it. It just is limited in its scope and applicability.

 

It just should not apply to every photo without regard to subject matter, unless one is demonstrating tonal range of paper or developer or some such, in which case then it would be vital.

 

Think, for instance, of photos which are 'high key' -- that is mostly whites or brightness.

 

They do not use the zone system or fill in all the XII (?) zones that Ansel Adams proposed.

 

I have one such in a bird folder.

 

It's hard to see a little, but in my view it's beautiful.

 

It's a wading bird photo, all in whites and lightness. I wouldn't put dark or black in that photo for anything.

 

Now that's my idea of good photography and good reproduction.

 

If you are photographing Moonrise over Hernandez, some waterfall at Yosemite, or other scenic and are a member of the f64 club, then the Ansel Adams 'Zone System' has considerable importance, and indeed may be the ultimate goal in reproduction.

 

Its use in photographing a grove of aspen (or is it birch) is legendary, but Henri Cartier-Bresson's famous photo of the Seine with the Cathedral Notre-Dame is a historic study in grays -- all grays -- from light grays to dark grays, showing morning mist and how the Ile de la Cite (City Island) arises from the early morning Seine mists.

 

It's masterful and would be thrown out by any Zone System f64 devotee, yet it is as wonderful as anything Adams produced (or reproduced).

 

And, don't forget, as his relatives have told others whom I know, including gallery owners who have had a close connection with him, that 'Moonrise Over Hernandez' is one of the most manipulated (chemically manipulated) photos ever reproduced from a standard film negative.

 

It is Adams' most reproduced and most famous, but it is heavily 'manipulated' -- even in the days before Photoshop.

 

Source, gallery owners and sales people several years back at a gallery in Carmel who were selling copies of that photo, and who knew Adams, according to them.

 

They also knew the Weston family, including Cole Weston.

 

In fact, I have run across many West Coasters, including Central Coasters and San Franciscans who personally knew Adams - he did commercial work as well as his 'nature' work.

 

In fact, Edward Weston may have been the greater artist, no matter what Stieglitz said, but Adams had the Eco-movement and the Sierra Club's rise push him into ascendancy.

 

A good word from Stieglitz didn't hurt, however, of course.

 

But I'm no member of the f64 club. I'm maybe a member of the ISO 800 club with wide open aperture and shooting past sundown in many instances.

 

I could and might have shot at f64 if I were trying to shoot those subjects, but I seldom do, and I think shooting landscapes is a little boring and slow-paced.

 

I am much more attracted to the more mercurial tempered Cartier-Bresson who seemed to find 'art' ('plastic art' as he termed it) anywhere.

 

I seem more and more to be able to find it anywhere as well, though I do NOT believe anything I do can hold a candle to anything 'le maitre' did -- he was the 'diamond standard' for this sort of photography -- and portraiture as well.

 

Seeing his work exhibited (I didn't even know who he was when I saw it), literally drove me from my aspirations to great photography.

 

Now, I learn from the master.

 

Long live Cartier-Bresson, (though he could have used better manners).

 

John (Crosley)

I've red somewhere that b/g/w are the colours of our dreams; looking at your photo and having in mind hundreds other's photos, including my own, I am thinking that b/g/w is a part of process of producing ideas in our brain, somehow I think that our brain works in b/g/w and that adding colours is next step....Very good work my friend, superb compo, great moment to pull a trigger..

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

 

I always look for the perfect moment to release the shutter.

 

I hope for a moment that transcends.

 

It happened yesterday eight times, minimum if one does not count repeats with the same actors.

 

That's pretty good timing, and it's getting better each day - day by day.

 

Thanks again.

 

John (Crosley)

it is a fine study,I wished there is a moving car to be a study of shutter as well,6/6.with regards.

'If wishes were horses. . . . ', goes the once common saying (You can go to Google.com to finish it out.)

 

I take what I see and let others worry about 'what might have been'.

 

I saw a wonderfully textured building side, sidewalk with wonderful texture, water and an overhang/awning, and used the skateboard for punctuation.

 

Most people would have focused on the skateboarder and placed him center.

 

I placed him left, as punctuation. He only made one pass, then decided perhaps I was too loony parked there in the street's center, waiting for a second pass, and he and his friend took off.

 

(A second group of skateboarders invited me over, at a different site; they were more certain of themselves, and less worried about me.

 

Just a word about my intentions -- entirely honorable.

 

I have no interest in 'young men' other than 'the photograph' or just exchanging a jest as males do sometime, but only in the context of photographing.

 

And if their parents should happen by while I'm photographing, I will often invite mom and pop over to share the fun.

 

I think that by placing the skateboarder left and letting the 'scene' dominate with the skate boarder's crazy gyrations functioning as punctuation works better, at least for me, in making an 'entire' composition.

 

That's the goal, for me, these days, not just placing the action front and center, as that's pretty easy, but in making it part of a greater composition.

 

Thanks for the good word.

 

John (Crosley)

I like that. Maybe I never heard it I think. In Hebrew "אם רצונים היו םוםים אז קבצנין היו רוכבים

transliterated "eem ratzoneem ha'you suseem, az kabtzaneem ha'you rokveem.. :-) Hebrew is like music. So, where is the horse (or the car)

I have tried to use the principal's of the "Zone System" in adobe fotoshop it was not to me success and gave up because the data got lost in adobe and I did not find a way to standardize. The method provides for the best control and most creativity of a photograhy and removes "chance". The matrix meter tries to do this and most of the time succeeds if the lighting is correct. This photo only needed matrix meter.

re; digital/foshop in the above..I am not a fan of digital. When jet planes first came out I had never seen one before and I did not like them. Mustangs were planes, jets were not REAL planes. I feel that way today about digital cameras. Maybe I'll get used to them -I got used to jets.

Hi John...Without getting into the philosophy of zones...I would like to say that I like this shot for what it is...a well composed action shot with great tones (including the black broken windows.) The man looks as if he is etched against the light grey wall...I like it alot...Marjorie

Thank you so much for your comment. It is so thorough, it bears little or no discussion.

 

The more and more I look at this, the more I like it.

 

I tried to take something 'good' and had only a minute or so, then the guy and his friend, feeling self-conscious, took off.

 

He shouldn't have.

 

He's the star of this photo, along with the building.

 

Thanks so much for the kind comment also in my portfolio; it has endured (which means none since, for the longest drought ever -- ;~)) Looks like you said it all, and no one has felt the urge since Dec. 21.

 

I always appreciate a kind word or any word from you Marjorie.

 

John (Crosley)

 

Addendum: Now, after posting, I've looked at your rating, and I am glad to see how High you have rated this (see, I don't peek before I respond -- gives every commenter equal dignity, regardless of ratings. jc)

 

Hi John, I'm back after a few months of experimenting in the darkroom. I agree with you about the Zone System, it is a useful thing to know but is also very limited because it is the photographer's job to decide whether a print should have more contrast or more grays. Some shots don't work if there is too much contrast and vice versa. In this shot your taste judged very well and decided to stay away from extremes. I would say that you kept the print as close as possible to the original lighting conditions (in the shade). The timing on the skater is perfect and the white wall increases the contrast on him very naturally. The mildness of tones in the background also focuses the attention on the subject. You truly did a great great job here.

I have posted a few new ones, would love to have your impressions.

Take care

Antonio; you seem to not know aabout the the zone system and you contridictaed yourself. What you wrote makes no sense. in this photo john's taste did not 'judge' the matrix meter was the judge. Besides all of that you can't do "zone system" with 35mm format.

I looked at your new posts. The bar room is excellent.

 

I don't know what meter he used for the shot, I supposed a spot one. I was speaking in terms of range of tones, just like John did in the first comment. In this image there are no extreme whites or blacks, that usually are included in the zone system. Of course you cannot use the ZS with the 35mm but you can still refer to it mentally when you study the scene and meter light and shadows. I often try to figure out with the naked eye the different zones of the area I am about to photograph even if I am using 35mm with the camera's meter and sometimes it helps me to get a decently balanced negative so that I don't have to spend too much time with graduated papers or multigrade filters in the darkroom. The meter is the judge but the photographer has to decide what's going to be light and what's going to be dark... I'm sorry, I didn't read the tech details and I thought this image was shot with a 35mm camera and B&W film. Thanks for your comment by the way, I appreciate it.

The Zone System, while being famous for nature photography and the product of Ansel Adams (and the f64 club) does not extend to various kinds of photos such as those that are mostly white or mostly black (for instance, the so-called high-key, and low-key photos) at all.

 

The zone system does have its place, but although many are hidebound by rules, I am not. You can use the zone system with 35 mm and also digital photography just as with any other photographic medium. No problem, but it's not too rewarding or too easy to follow.

 

And it can often be achieved in post-processing.

 

I remember that Henri Cartier-Bresson produced many photos that were the anti-thesis of the zone system -- he was the master of grays. And he was proud of it.

 

I am proud of this photo just as it is, without adherence to 'zones'.

 

I like it for its aesthetics, or I would have post-processed it differently.

 

That's just the case -- I do what I do until I 'see' what I like then I stop.

 

I care less about the 'zone system' unless it gives results I like. For nature photography, it would be important to use, for sure.

 

For this scene, probably not, though one could make an argument of course.

 

I sometimes like grays merging into grays, and not clear delineations; I am not an adherent of rules and feel rules are categories for those who are looking for guidance, but I don't look for guidance many places; I am sui generis, who is aware of rules but not hidebound.

 

I think many viewers like my 'free spirit' with relationship to 'rules' and the outcome.

 

I do appreciate the discussion above, but reject any notion that a photo has to fit in Adams's zone system: otherwise there'd be no 'high-key' photos at all, or 'low key' photos either, or at least fewer of them.

 

My best to you, and thanks.

 

John (Crosley)

I agree with your last comment (about nothing on your first one) on about everthing except that John did not use a spot meter. It is not Johns style. Nor do I with 35mm.

I am not critizising this photo or it is not good or saying do not be a "free spirit". Just saying that zone removes the "chance" out of a shot and give you full control not your matrix meter. Matrix meters are programmed to strive for Ansel kind of photos without thought and just the click of a shutter.A great topic amen

I pulled most of my comment. Was not necessary. I orphaned nothing.

I probably don't use my English the right way, and I'm sorry for that. I never said that a photo should fit in the ZS, otherwise any work by any photographer before him would just have to be trashed... He invented nothing, he just created some rules that helped him have a better control over the full range of tones. I personally think he was more a "scientist" of photography than a photographer. I think that every photograph has its own and unique tonal range, no more no less, according to what the aim of the photographer is. There is no interpretation, certain aesthetic values are immutable (after it took centuries, even millennia to establish them) and the sensitive artist can understand them and reproduce them, just the way you did here.

From everything has to fit into the zone system, according to at least one critic, now to your conclusion - which is the way I have felt all along.

 

The zone system, as you have noted, is merely an adjunct -- a device for helping those with limited sensors (film in the instance of Adams) to zero in on the precise best and optimal range if they are to take advantage of the entire range of the various 'zones' and tonal range of that film.

 

Not every photo needs or necessitates that.

 

And sports photography/action photography is best served as noted finally, by matrix metering (here Nikon's).

 

It works very well in most circumstances, although it requires some adjustments, which I am only too happy to make, some before the capture even is attempted and others in reliance on 'errors' in the initial capture (trial and error).

 

Ultimately, you and I (and others even surprisingly) agree.

 

The photo's the thing, and all else is mere surplusage.

 

I've always felt that way and have always been wary of doctrinaire adherents to 'this device' or 'that device' as being 'the only device' to achieve an end.

 

I break their rules all the time and do OK.

 

I will continue breaking doctrinaire rules in seeking to make my photos. I am guided by my own rule:

 

Make interesting photos.

 

Everything else falls short.

 

Best to you, Antonio.

 

(and belatedly)

 

John (Crosley)