Digital BW, The Print

Hello James,

>Then digital printing came in and screwed everything up :)

LOL!  It certainly has changed things a bit hasn't it.  


>...his method of exposing for the highlights just isn't 
>how b&w photography works...to expose for the highs and let the 
>shadows fall where they may doesn't make sense to me.  

You have just fallen into the same trap that most others who
criticized his methods fell into: to pick on one part of what he said
without actually putting his entire approach to work in actual
practice.  I see that theoretical statement as the most irrelevent
part of his approach (and the most unfortunate because it's the part
that got him into the most trouble with the theorists).  I think he
was just trying to find an easier way to explain how he percieved
things (and also his ego got him into trouble here, too, because I
think he took pleasure in popping other people's balloons and invited
even more criticism).

The most valuable part of his teaching for me was that we _must_ learn
how to properly test for exact exposure and development times for our
own particular combination of shutter, film, light meter, lens, paper,
chemistry, etc - all the factors, and then how to apply them in a way
to consistently get the results we want.  Hidden beneath the seemingly
relaxed approach and backwards rule of thumb about exposure theory,
was an entire system of precision and exactness based on a thorough
understanding of how the stuff works.  He had no patience for those
who weren't willing to do the work.

I actually set up and did the various tests he suggested in his book,
and learned an enormous amount of both the theory and how it actually
worked with my equipment and materials.  After I figured out what he
was really getting at and got a good spot meter (the Pentax digital
one with Zone dial), I enjoyed consistently excellent negs that
printed easily.  I grew to have a thorough working knowledge of my
materials and could get, with rare misses, exactly what I wanted. 
This gave me a confidence in the field that I had never had before.  I
could previsualize a print, meter the scene, and get what I wanted.
The knowledge he imparted freed me from technical bondage and allowed
me to concentrate on the artistic side and become a better
photographer.  For that I am very grateful.

I used to marvel that the folks who criticized his methods weren't
using them, while those who were went happily about their work.  You
are right that the statement doesn't make much sense from a
traditional ZS point of view, but you can't break the laws of physics
- the stuff only works one way.  FP understood it and just had a
different way of explaining it.  A technique will either work or not
work.  His did, as the many people who actually tried it found out to
their delight.

A good analogy is the city of Atlanta.  If you are traveling north out
of Florida you eventually come to Atlanta.  To get to the other side
you have two choices: go through it or around it.  Both will get you
to the other side, but the experiences will be quite different.  FP's
approach was to go around the maze and get on with the journey.  This
drove the theorists mad, those who's egos derived importance from the
mastery of difficult and complex formulas and calculations.  I'm sure
he loved it. He may even have made that statement knowing the effect
it would have - wouldn't surprise me.  

Bottom line is that regardless of approach (AA/MW/FP) we all
understand the basic principles of exposure/compression/expansion and
are all doing the same thing - exposing and developing film in such a
way as to get what we want.  This is a long way from a photographer
who doesn't understand the principles and exposes and develops
according to the instructions on the box.

Back to the digital present, I realized early on in learning PS and
inkjet printing that the knowledge I gained from the film/darkroom
days carries over into this technology.  The judgements I bring to
PS/printing decisions are based on all those years of Zonie work.  The
important stuff, the inner perceptions and values, hasn't changed at
all.  What has changed is that now I can do many things that I could
only dream about with an enlarger.  Digital is allowing me to get
prints that are closer to what my instincts want to produce.  I am
always aware that what FP showed us helped me get to a place way
beyond theories and techniques.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm