   |
1 - We all know what the Zone System is: so what do you think BTZS is? Is it a metering method, a testing procedure, a philosophy, a state of grace, or what??
BTZS differs from the traditional Zone System by replacing some of the trial and error aspects with a systematic approach incorporating measurement. In fact, comprehensive quantitative evaluation is at the core of BTZS. Without it, BTZS does not exist. I suppose you could explain the relationships between EV, SBR, film speed, DR, ES, bar G, paper grade, etc. in general terms without measurements but then it would really be something like an introduction or perhaps less. That might be enough for some and it would either satisfy, confuse, or whet the appetite.
BTZS is about understanding the quantitative relationships between materials and processes in B&W photography and printing. My impression is that there are no short cuts short of a point-and-shoot large or medium format camera programmed with a BTZS algorithm that adjusts exposure and produces instructions about what to do with the film after the photo is taken. (Don’t laugh – it could happen!) BTZS will not be accessible to all photographers because all photographers (most?) are not inclined to take the necessary time to absorb the wide range of connecting concepts. This is true of things not photographic as well. I say that not as a criticism but as an observation.
BTZS is about mastering the technical aspects of the craft in order to make knowledgeable aesthetic choices. BTZS is a comprehensive system with few if any details left undone. Not all photographers will choose to master their craft at this level and some who don’t will still produce remarkable work nonetheless.
While it is a worthwhile endeavor to find a more “pain free” version of BTZS, it is difficult to imagine that it could ever be completely “pain free” for the average photographer. A parody headline in The Onion last year declared: “Science is Hard”. Indeed, and for many that will remain the case.
For the photographer willing to dig in and do the work, the current BTZS is sufficiently accessible. Perhaps a mini-primer as described above would serve a niche but perhaps also a hardboiled version that is written for photographers already possessing sufficient math skills and a budget for a T/R densitometer. On second thought, the current BTZS book serves that reader too since only the hand-holding chapter on making a graph would seem like too much extra and cutting only that would not be worthwhile.
2 - Assuming a response to 1, what do you think is the core of BTZS? What parts of it can be stripped away without destroying it for practical use? Is the software (Plotter, Expo/Dev) part of this essential core?
I do not use your software. Excel is sufficient though I wouldn’t mind using your software. It, like the book, appears very well thought out and useful.
I am certain that you have wrestled with finding a way to simplify BTZS for those who are discouraged by the technical emphasis. Here is BTSZ in a nutshell:
Light, time, temperature, and chemicals act on various photosensitive materials to produce varying degrees of opacity.
Perhaps the realtionaships could be reduced to rules of thumb but then it would be like every other book that is less than BTSZ in its completeness. It is understanding the quantitative relationships between light, time, temperature, and chemicals that make the difference. Let’s face it. You’re teaching photographic science.
I noticed in Eddie Ephram’s book where he interviewed many photographers that the subject of being a “techie” often appeared. Some were, some weren’t. Some did their work entirely by intuition or had others handle the technical elements for them and produced great results. In a recent interview with Steven Spielberg, he mentioned that the DP for Raiders of the Lost Ark never used a light meter. He called out the f-stops he wanted and that was that. I could hardly believe it and neither could Spielberg but the results are hard to argue with.
I like BTZS. I speaks to me. It has given me access to choices I previously did not have and has been instrumental in improving the quality of my work. I could not have “gotten it” without the detailed explanations and data currently presented.
3 - If you're a BTZS convert, whether as a result of taking a workshop or simply studying the book, when did it finally make sense to you? Was it a sudden flash of insight and, if so, what triggered it?
For me, "getting it" from the book was due to the clear explanations in quantitative terms of the relationship between materials and processes. All the information is between the covers, in one place. Simply studying the book was sufficient to get started making my own measurements, knowing what to look for, and how to interpret the results.
Thank you for your work. I will give this matter more thought and submit again if I come up with anything more constructive.
David Poinsett
Traverse City, MI
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
