Of course he hasn't read the book. It would go against his previsualized conception
of what the zone system is all about. After all if he read the book he would have
to come around to admiting he was wrong.

I've read all the books, cover to cover. Maybe 20-30 years ago. At the
same time, I was reading Geoffrey Crawley's stuff about compensating
film development and specifically as applied to 35mm practice, in the
British Journal of Photography annuals from the late 60's and early
70's. This information proved much more valuable and practical for
35mm reportage work and was put into practice by me, though not
systematically, as I did not have the time to do it. I just shot for
the yearbook and had the lab process and print the film for routine
pictures. For special section pics, beginning in 1971, I processed and
printed the stuff myself, sometimes with UFG and sometimes with
Acutol. I was always experimenting, though after a while I settled on
using Tri-X and FP4, developed in UFG, mostly because they took the
same developing time, and could be processed together in the tank at
the same time, which was quick at 3.5 minutes, I believe.

Remember, I was in school, and working part time, and did not have the
luxury of time you may think.

Andreas Feininger's books were an immense help, much more than
Adams's.

So, yes I have read them. I have a complete understanding of the ZS,
and have read White's Zone System Manual too. I do not use it, do not
want to use it, and do not previsualize. I see.

I'm self-taught, though I did take a view camera course at OSU, but it
did not affect my 35mm technique at all.

For a while I quit photography altogether in disgust, as I could not
get away from people who kept asking me questions and bugging me
wherever I went. Do you have ay idea what that's like? Now I
understand why celebrities hate being bugged wherever they go, not
that I was a celebrity, but I was known around town as somewhat of a
photographic expert. People who came into the shop where I worked
would see me on the sidelines at OSU games and when you're walking
around with a 560mm Leitz Telyt around your neck you tend to stand
out. Remember that's about 90,000 people, a lot of them prominent in
the Central Ohio community. Doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. Many of
these people could afford good equipment, and they came into the shop,
where they bought stuff from me. They told their friends, and I got
lots of referral business that way. When you do a good job for people,
word spreads. After a while, though, I got sick of it.

As far as the ZS is concerned, it's neither necessary nor desirable
for 35mm work, and not even necessary for LF. The ZS was formulated
when contrast control in printing was severly limited, and perhaps
changing negative contrast made more sense than changing print
contrast. It certainly does not now. Compensating developers and films
with S-shaped curves will do all that is needed for outdoor
photography, whether LF, RF, or MF (35mm).

The second problem with ZS as it is taught is the idea of
previsualization, which must be someone's idea of a sick joke. It has
caused more boring, useless, inept, pointless photographs than
anything else in history. What needs to be cultivated, friends, is the
ability to 'see' in the first place. It stifles emotional reaction in
its practioners, and leads them down the garden path. They never learn
to see. I've witnessed this first-hand. I've seen photo students being
taught ZS and their photos are INVARIABLY dull, lifeless, and utterly
without redeeming value. The work of people like Sexton benfits from
some nice scenery, but that's all. 've seen it all, way too mnay times
before. It's all so precious and smug.

I was lucky enough to have studied the work of photojornalist types
from the very beginning. I knew that making myself, my body, as
sensitive and fine-tuned as possible was the key, much like an athlete
does. My photographic skills are esentially athleticism. I've seen
zoneheads taking pictures who are so incapable of even conceiving
something like the 'decisive moment' as to be basically blind, deaf,
and dumb. To extend the athleticism analogy further, these people are
basically crippled. Their work lacks what is called 'impact'
(photographic interest). My best work has lots of impact.

When looking at these old Makios for pictures to scan, I noticed many
of the football pictures taken by others on the staff were late: they
had waited for the 'decisive moment' to happen, and then tried to
capture it. That won't work. You have to anticipate, almost in a 'zen'
mode, what will happen. You don't 'think' about taking the picture,
any more than you think about steering your car to go left or right. I
worked on developing just this skill, and it is this skill that so
many zoneheads utterly lack. If you don't make the effort to learn it,
you won't, and if your head is being filled with Roman numerals, you
never will understand what you're missing or why you're missing it.

Another thing I'd like to say is that the general standard of
photography in the US in the period after about 1960 has slipped
immensely. If you go back and look at photography magazines and books
published between about 1930 and 1965 or so, you'll be astonished at
the quality of the work, even by amateurs. Look at a typical 1955
Popular or Modern Photography at the pictures section and you'll se
what I mean.

That's the easy part. Carrying the four car batteries to run the motor
drive is the problem.