QOTD: Elliott Erwitt - DPChallenge Forums

10/12/2002 02:18:44 PM · #51

Adams most famous work are made in the 1930's the decade after Erwitt was born, so they don't peak at the same time. I think Adams reached his peak in 1940 with that famous work of the yosemite valley in "Winter Clearing".

Erwitt's style seems to me like the style of photography in the 1960's, where there is a war on and most high impact photos are journalistic ones (snapshots, candids whatever you want to call it). Just because a photograph is B&W doesn't mean they are shot in the same period. I know photographers today that are only shooting in B&W in things they love to do, they'd only shoot color to "earn a living" as a wedding photographer or photograph for magazines or fashion.

I read his quote and thought "Oh, man, this guy is really jealous at Adams". He could've easily said the same thing that seeing is the most important than the technique, but without using the Zone system or Ansel Adams name in the quote. The fact that he specifically picked out the Zone system and as he puts it 'other Ansel Adams NONSENSE' shows that he probably doesn't like the guy all that much. Like I said, they are in different periods and so Erwitt isn't really qualified to say negative things about the Zone system. In the 1920's and 30's the photographic movement has just begun and that's when the F64 group got started and their focus was maximum depth of field, in a large format, with great details in the photographs. Erwitt's style from the photographs i have browsed through, seems to be from the 60's photojournalistic period, and that's a completely different style and different technique. For him, depth of field is probably not as important as the underlining "moment" he hopes to see and capture, as with any snapshots out there because you want to capture that fleeting point in time and save it for memoirs.

It'd be like Van Gogh making a comment on Rembrandt's painting, not that Erwitt can be compared to Van Gogh OR Rembrandt. :) far from it.

Originally posted by sanandan:
Well I think it may be interesting to find out when he made this comment ( early in his career or much later ) and how well it was taken at that time.
Both Ansal Adams and Erwitt shot black and white and were at their best at almost the same time. There may be reasons other than a personal philosophy in making such comments.

10/12/2002 03:52:34 PM · #52

I agree.

What he is really saying, I feel, is that technique is irrelevant.

There are photographers that can make great images, and not know the first thing about exposure, developemnt, or printing - Adams had a friend like this, I can't remember the name, but he had a good story about the person just pointing a light meter in random directions, and then ignoring the reading completely. There are others that are techincally great, but my take unispired images.

Erwitt also seems to be dismissing an entire segment of photography. Pretty arogant, but most good artists are.

10/12/2002 04:24:16 PM · #53

Let me see if I can give a little zone system application primer. The zones of course, refer to the 0-10 brightness scale.

1. Understand the brightness range of the scene to be photographed.
2. Visualize the final image.
2. Exposre the film to capture the shadow detail of the scene and place it in the desired brightness zone.
3. Determine the proper development to place the highlights of the image in the desired brightness zone.

The zone system does not tell what zone is "right" or how a picture must be exposed. It is a tool to allow the photographer to achieve the desired outcome.

Ansel used many printing techniques to alter the brightness/constrast of the image and place various details in the zone he desired, but his biggest breakthough was coming up with a technique to capture the highlight and shadow detail of an image where he wanted them through exposure and development. And creating the zone map, to understand how to place them there.

Exposure is a very important part of taking the photograph. Ansel developed a repeatable technique, to capture on film, the scene he saw in his mind. It really only worked on B&W, becuase development and and exposure changes cause color shifts in color film, and it is best applied to sheet film, as each image will most likely have to be custom developed.

There are also techniques like pre-exposing, that can be used with roll film. Althought most of the techniques do not apply to digital, anyone that has an interst in B&W, or controlling brightness/contrast, could learn from studying the system. It may even spur so creativity.

I have never used the zone system in deciding how to expose an image. I have always been to lazy for that, but I always keep it in mind when I am adjusting the brightness and contrast of my imange (using levels of course).

I hope I did not make too many technical mistakes, as I have only read on book on the subject.

Doesn't ignore tools that can help us achieve what we see in our minds limit our creativity?

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/12/2002 4:39:21 PM.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

10/12/2002 04:52:12 PM · #54

The beautiful thing about using a digital darkroom is that many techniques such as improving exposure along with dodging and burning are greatly simplified and less time consuming then traditional methods. However, you still need to know what you are doing and what you are trying to achieve or else you will mess it up. I recently had an opportunity to photograph some incredible mountainous scenes where there was a good amount of snow and white rock mixed in with dark blue water and green grass. Having recently refreshed my memory regarding the zone system (in big part to this site) I realized that the white areas in these scenes had a high probability of being overexposed and losing detail. I underexposed them slightly to preserve all of the detail and then properly exposed them in Photoshop. It would have been very easy for me to neglect that all important step thus making a critical error in my photography. Moral of this story. If you are not utilising all of the resources and techniques available you just might be shortchanging yourself.

T

10/12/2002 05:52:38 PM · #55

This is true, but if you overexpose the image, it'll be impossible to recover details that are washed out.

Thus, it's better to underexpose by a bit than over expose. Similar for NEGATIVES, it's better to over expose than under expose (during printing you can decrease/increase light intensities).

The Zone system is a guideline to "proper" exposure as Adams see it, which is for OUTDOOR photographs and it works well there. For studio shots where lighting is controlled, this is not as important because all you ahve to do, is get a MIDDLE GRAY card, put it where the subject is, spot meter it and that's it. You can't do that with landscapes when the mountain is 2 miles away :) Thus, you will have to meter it and place the exposure where you think it is, since all meters returns middle gray readings. So if you are out in the snow country, point at patch of snow in bright sun light, get the reading, adjust it 2 F stop above where you read it and that is the proper exposure. If photographers use their 3D matrix segmented meteering, point it at a snow patch field, it will often underexpose it and turning the snow GRAY. Understanding and applying the zone system is important when the lighting condition and the field causes imbalance so that the average isn't middle gray. 3D matrix system works pretty well when in an outdoor scene the photograph average is middle gray, if not, then it'll be under or over exposed.

I just set my exposure compensation to -1/3. Just a personal preference, but i found that if i slightly underexpose it, i can still get it back to proper exposure with photoshop's contrast/level and the noise it introduces is minimal, but if I overexpose the photo, i can't ever recover details that are washed out.

Originally posted by timj351:
The beautiful thing about using a digital darkroom is that many techniques such as improving exposure along with dodging and burning are greatly simplified and less time consuming then traditional methods. However, you still need to know what you are doing and what you are trying to achieve or else you will mess it up. I recently had an opportunity to photograph some incredible mountainous scenes where there was a good amount of snow and white rock mixed in with dark blue water and green grass. Having recently refreshed my memory regarding the zone system (in big part to this site) I realized that the white areas in these scenes had a high probability of being overexposed and losing detail. I underexposed them slightly to preserve all of the detail and then properly exposed them in Photoshop. It would have been very easy for me to neglect that all important step thus making a critical error in my photography. Moral of this story. If you are not utilising all of the resources and techniques available you just might be shortchanging yourself.

T

10/12/2002 05:54:56 PM · #56

I agree Tim.

I think there is a myth, that if people study the techinical side of art, it will ruin their creativity. I mostly disagree with this. Studying composition, lighting, depth of field, etc. Can improve creativity. It can open a persons eyes to the importance of these elements and spur experimentation. Why spend years learning through trail and error when you can learn from what others have done?

Also, why leave all the decisions to your camera, software, film, or photofinisher/printer? If you really want to create, don't you need to be in control?

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/12/2002 8:14:55 PM.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/12/2002 8:15:33 PM.

10/12/2002 08:36:07 PM · #57

Originally posted by paganini:
This is true, but if you overexpose the image, it'll be impossible to recover details that are washed out.

This is where the custom developing comes in, the final negative is controlled both by the exposure, and development. Film is exposed for shadow detail, and the developed for the highlights, a short development time will reduce the contrast, and keep the highlights from being developed away. A longer developement time will give a scene more contrast, make the highlights brighter. So, for a bright scene, high contrast scene, Ansel would expose to ensure shadow detail, and then reduce development time to ensure that there was still detail in the highlights.

Thus, it's better to underexpose by a bit than over expose. Similar for NEGATIVES, it's better to over expose than under expose (during printing you can decrease/increase light intensities).

This is, in general true for roll film, since each frame cannot be custom developed. But there is a method of pre-exposing a shot, to help reduce contrast also.

The Zone system is a guideline to "proper" exposure as Adams see it, which is for OUTDOOR photographs and it works well there. For studio shots where lighting is controlled, this is not as important because all you ahve to do, is get a MIDDLE GRAY card, put it where the subject is, spot meter it and that's it.

This is really, not the case. The zone system describes the tones that can be caputred in print, in exposure increments. From pure black, to pure white, and in-between. Knowing how the film will respond, will respond, will allow us to capture what we want. It can also be used in studio situations. It comes in quite handy when figuring out ratios of lighting for foreground and backgound objects.

For example, a background be rendered from pure black, to pure white, by adjusting the light the background recieves, in relation to the light on the subject.

* This message has been edited by the author on 10/12/2002 8:34:47 PM.

10/12/2002 08:38:06 PM · #58

I rename this, since is what it really is.

timj351

Sony DSC-F707

10/12/2002 09:30:17 PM · #59

Paganini, I did say that I underexposed my scene slightly. Anywhere from -1/3 to -1 stop. It always amazes me just how much detail you can still find in the shadows.

T

10/12/2002 10:30:23 PM · #60

For studio shots, you can be a bit lax about exposure because the lighting, etc. between light and shadow is usually controlled well enough to fit into 3 F stops, well within the B&W film's tolerance of details (which usually can only take 4 F stops between lightness and darkness). Sure, Zone system will help but it is primarily designed (originally) for outdoor photography when even if you are 1/3 under or overexposed, it could ruin the photograph because the details in the shadows or the highlights will be gone, unless it's a nice and cloudy day :)

Originally posted by Zeissman:

The Zone system is a guideline to "proper" exposure as Adams see it, which is for OUTDOOR photographs and it works well there. For studio shots where lighting is controlled, this is not as important because all you ahve to do, is get a MIDDLE GRAY card, put it where the subject is, spot meter it and that's it.

This is really, not the case. The zone system describes the tones that can be caputred in print, in exposure increments. From pure black, to pure white, and in-between. Knowing how the film will respond, will respond, will allow us to capture what we want. It can also be used in studio situations. It comes in quite handy when figuring out ratios of lighting for foreground and backgound objects.

For example, a background be rendered from pure black, to pure white, by adjusting the light the background recieves, in relation to the light on the subject.
[/i]

10/12/2002 11:11:45 PM · #61

I agree that as Ansel Adams applied it, it is most useful for naturally light scenes, were the photographer cannot control the lighting and constrast.

I wanted to point out though, that understanding it, is usefull for any kind of photography.

I do not really agree with the 1/3 stop comment, as the zone system only comprehends full stop differences. Things like meter acuracy, shutter and lense accuracy, as well as the age of the film and developer can create differences in exposure within this range. But that is an arguable point.

I think we both agree that is a very useful tool.

Originally posted by paganini:
For studio shots, you can be a bit lax about exposure because the lighting, etc. between light and shadow is usually controlled well enough to fit into 3 F stops, well within the B&W film's tolerance of details (which usually can only take 4 F stops between lightness and darkness). Sure, Zone system will help but it is primarily designed (originally) for outdoor photography when even if you are 1/3 under or overexposed, it could ruin the photograph because the details in the shadows or the highlights will be gone, unless it's a nice and cloudy day :)

Originally posted by Zeissman:

[i]The Zone system is a guideline to "proper" exposure as Adams see it, which is for OUTDOOR photographs and it works well there. For studio shots where lighting is controlled, this is not as important because all you ahve to do, is get a MIDDLE GRAY card, put it where the subject is, spot meter it and that's it.

This is really, not the case. The zone system describes the tones that can be caputred in print, in exposure increments. From pure black, to pure white, and in-between. Knowing how the film will respond, will respond, will allow us to capture what we want. It can also be used in studio situations. It comes in quite handy when figuring out ratios of lighting for foreground and backgound objects.

For example, a background be rendered from pure black, to pure white, by adjusting the light the background recieves, in relation to the light on the subject.
[/i]

[/i]

Journey

Canon PowerShot G3

10/12/2002 11:57:15 PM · #62

Originally posted by JohnSetzler :
"Good photography is not about Zone Printing or any other Ansel Adams nonsense. It's just about seeing. You either see or you don't see. The rest is academic. Photography is simply a function of noticing things. Nothing more."

- Elliott Erwitt (b. 1928)

Learn more about Elliott Erwitt HERE.

First of, to refer to the vision and work of a great artist as Ansel Adams as "nonsense" is plainly offensive. Since Ansel is much better known and respected than EE, it might be just a case of penis envy.

What I believe EE meant to convey with his bombastic quote is that photography is more a matter of creativity and vision than of technique. That's nothing special: all art is that way. But you must have the technique down pat to the point that it is second nature and you can just "forget" about it. To make it art, you must have something to "say" or, as EE puts, to "see".

His quote reminds me a little of Picasso saying "at age 17 I could paint expertly in any style that had ever existed but then I spent the rest of my life learning to paint like a child again". Here, Picasso, is also saying that technique isn't THE important thing (well, it is important but it cannot be the ONLY thing); it is to find the art in yourself, assuming you have it in you, find your own style. Picasso was a genius and he wasn't putting another artist down when making his statement. Perhaps, EE's quote is pulled out of a context. The way it is shown here, it sounds rather arrogant.

Had a look at some of the pictures of EE under the link offered. Am not at all impressed.

10/13/2002 12:15:50 AM · #63

I think Journey has some very valid point. I would like to get back to the Zone System discusion though if anyone would like to input.

10/13/2002 01:21:55 AM · #64

just keeping it alive.