On Sat, 12 Oct 1996, Peter Charles Fredrick wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Jun 1996 Judy Seigel wrote:
> >By seeing *and having
> printed one million times* this little strip[Stouffer step tablets]
> I have its values -- in transparency and in the print -- readily in mind,
> or my mind's eye. I see them in cyanotype, in different sorts and colours
> of gum, in platinum, etc.<
>
> I agree but why stop here, we don't really need the Stouffer wedge either,
> all that is necessary is to apply critical judgment of what does or does
> not constitute print quality, from the artists personal viewpoint,if it
> looks right it is right.
,> I can state absolutely positively definitely and unequivocally that the step
tablets tell you at a glance far more about what's happening, how
highlights are printing, what the precise range is, how shadows are
separating or not separating, smoothness of tone, etc. etc. etc. than even
a wizard, a long experienced, savvy, cleverly eagle-eyed printer can tell
from looking at a print from a negative. Printing my first 21-step it was
like seeing a light turned on, or the Rosetta Stone translated. <
Judy I cant honestly see why you can see more from a 21-step than you can
from critical observation of the print from the negative. BTW I
photographed the Rosetta stone on a whole plate negative when employed at
the BM in 1960 I have an old colleague still working there he told me
recently that they are still using the same neg if I could have got a
piece of that action I would be a very rich man now.
>That said, I must add that to judge a print aesthetically, you need to see
it as a print. And after establishing this or that "fact" by means of
tests with 21-steps, I have often had to change, modify, revise and
rethink choices made simply on basis of the tests.....<.
This is what I am trying to say, also I must state in fairness to this
discussion that I employ 21-step for the preliminary testing of one process
against another for instance in the recent Terry King photogravure
workshop it was invaluable, however normaly it is critical eyeballing of
the neg and print.
> but the precise placement of the exposure values of the subject, onto the
> characteristic curve the negative [ D /logE] as photographic density, in
> such a manner, that when printed the maximum in photographic print quality
> is obtained, it is the extraction of this quality that is the major benefit
> of the zone system.
>Peter, sorry, I still do not see zone system as a way to "extract maximum
print quality." It's much ado about ordinary developer controls is the way
I see it. <
There are two distinctly different statements here which must be separated,
firstly
I held exactly the same viewpoint as you do in respect of the print quality
claims for many years.
During the 1980's I ran a small photo gallery known as Mostly Photographic
in my native Southend -on- sea. after exhibitions etc we used to have many
heated discussions on this issue, amongst many others.
One of the group asked me to run a workshop to investigate this methodology,
which in due course we did, and followed a simplified system published by
Peter Goldfield. Proprietor at that time of Goldfinger which was to become
Silverprint as we now know it. Peter published a great little book called
Fingertips, within which was the simplified system geared towards the 35mm
user.I wont go into the fine detail but to simplify, you first had to find
the exposure index of the film , once it was found you had then to find
the correct development time to give a perfect negative, what happened
then was a series of negs were produced that looked very similar to the
naked eye. The next stage contact these negs paying attention to the rebate
of the film, do a test series of exposures along the rebate of the
negative, when the exposure equalled the the base film plus fog to give the
first maximum black, this was the basic exposure.Now look at the contact
prints from the negatives with a loop, and what was found one and only one
exposure and one development gave a full range of tones.this unique
concurrence literally shimmered although a number of the other negatives
could yield great prints.
It was at this point that I realised that there is more the zone system
than I had first thought. Offering a method of producing the ultimate in
conventional print quality. this methodology was eventually included in my
second year educational programme at South East College of Technology and
school of Art and Design as part of an assignment entitled the parameters
of print quality, which included other things such as the evaluation of
camera shake, acutence devlopment etc.
< And the business about "pre-visualizing," which is the keystone
of the process, I consider deadly, a sure way to preclude what might be
called (pardon the expression) "creativity." In my aesthetic, at least, you
have to see the *print* to visualise it. Pre-visualizing goes only for
what you already know.<
Right now to the second part , I totally agree, it is in essence a straight
jacket on creativity, but in personal defence I did not say except the
zonny philosophy in regard to the development of a photographic aesthetic,
what I did say was, that it is a very good start to understand the nature
of conventaul print quality from student point of view !
Now for FotoDave@aol Wed, 16 Oct 96 01:02:06 +1000 wrote.
>> Peter, sorry, I still do not see zone system as a way to "extract maximum
print quality." It's much ado about ordinary developer controls is the way
I see it. And the business about "pre-visualizing," which is the keystone
of the process, I consider deadly, a sure way to preclude what might be
called (pardon the expression) "creativity." >>
Dave
you have nothing to be sorry about ! I think I have answered your questions
in my reply to Judy
>I don't think zone system should be associated with print quality at all
(unfortunately since this term is used originally, it has continued to be
used). It should be more related with design and control.<
With all my respects mate the zone system is all about print quality, in
the traditional sense of the word, style is not the same as quality,
creativity is also not the same as quality, it quite possible to have
wonderful creativity and appalling print quality.
>hinders or precludes creativity.<
Nothing hinders or precludes creativity, Ansel Adams is not God, although
when I taught at ISU, there was a poster on the wall in the darkroom that
said, Cleanliness is next to Ansel Adams. :--)
pete