   |
About a year ago, a novice photographer posted an innocent question about BTZS processes in the Photo.net large format forum. The thread rapidly degenerated into BTZS bashing. I thought all the negative comments were both uninformed and unfair, and I responded to the thread and corresponded privately with two gentlemen in order to defend BTZS and to see if I couldn't determine the source of this convulsively negative reaction to what had always struck me as a useful and sensible updating of the original Zone System. I discovered, as I had suspected, that none of those offering negative comment had done any more than glance at the book. Their criticisms established beyond any doubt that they had not actually read it.
One of the two photographers with whom I corresponded was particularly indignant about Phil's advocacy of the incident system of metering. He kept insisting that SBR could not be determined except by measuring the luminance values of actual objects in the scene with a spot meter. The other seemed to feel that the very idea of anything BEYOND the zone system was a threat to his manhood, and possibly that of Ansel Adams himself.
To photographers who insist that the ZS needs no updating or improving, I usually ask how they accurately compensate for the speed loss introduced by minus development. It appears that most traditional ZS people make no systematic effort of any kind to deal with this problem. Usually, they simply rate the film so conservatively that they build in a bit of a cushion, without necessarily even realizing why they are doing it. The same goes for the increasingly common recommendation to put shadows in IV rather than III. It fascintes me that people would care enough about making good negatives to take up the ZS, and then not be concerned about establishing an accurate set of working film speeds.
My observation is that the B&W large format world outside our gates splits into two groups: The first feels that they are making wonderful negatives according to the scriptures as set down by St. Ansel, and they don't need any of this sensitometry nonsense, thank you very much! The second is intrigued and fascinated by BTZS, and mean to find a weekend or two to work through the book ... but they never get to it. BTZS is another big project they always mean to undertake, and never do, like ballroom dance or piano lessons.
So, fellow BTZS'ers, does anyone have any ideas about how we might improve the (if you will forgive the expression) "market penetration" of BTZS?
BTZS should be the ZS of the 21st century. There should be a lot more of us than there are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
