With both my Canon T90 and my Canon EOS 5, cameras from the 80s and 90s with built-in metering, I've found that for the vast majority of scenes will expose well just using the built in meter, box speed and manufacturer recommended development. It gives perfectly scannable and printable negatives. And all the major lines of B&W photographic paper these days are variable grade, which gives you quite a bit of leeway for small inaccuriaces. Personally it's only for very high contrast scenes (e.g. where the sun is in the frame) and night time photography I bother with more involved methods for 35mm.I just wanted to use my camera's built-in light meter and make nice prints.
Sorry. I called it that because John Finch titled his video series "EZ Zone System".
He may have said this for his audience, many of whom may have seen his first video on setting a personal ISO and film development time. His second method involves less and easier "testing"
Whether we purists like it or not most people and those from whom he draws his audience and income do associate the zone system with what he demonstrates in these videos
Sometimes we are in danger of forgetting that most users of film live in a different world from the Photrio one
dcy reflects this outside world in his statement quoted by Matt, namely "I just wanted to use my camera's built-in light meter and make nice prints."
pentaxuser
I find myself in the odd position of defending this EZ Zone System - not because it’s a good method (it isn’t), but because in principle setting yourself up to make great negatives whether using the Zone System or no system, is quite simple, and a lot simpler than the so-called “purists” would have themselves and others believe. It’s an easy thing with a lot of flowery language lumped on to it. In fact it is easier than this EZ method.
I had great results with my first camera Pentax with a averaging meter. Then (in 1973) I switched to a Nikon F2S, center weighted, I didn't know how to use it.
I believe sunny 16 and the old dataguides.
Nikon F5 matrix metering rocks
FWIW, the Pentax 17 with built in meter that my friend has seems to do a really good job producing well exposed negatives in a wide variety of lighting situations.
It seems to be a really good camera.
Dyed-in-the-wool Zone-System user here.My interest in film photography is at the lever where I have a budget enlarger and want to make prints, but not at the level where I want to use a manual camera, meter every scene, use a densitometer, and actually learn the zone system. I want to share my plan for how to tune my process. I was hoping someone could confirm that this is probably good enough for an amateur to get prints he'd be happy to put in the family photo album. I started with John Finch's "EZ Zone System" and dumbed it down by removing the light meter:
Step 0: Pick a film + film developer + paper combo [*].
Step 1: Go outside, find a scene with moderate contrast, and take several shots with a range of ISO settings.
Step 2: Use the enlarger to make a test strip through the film base and find the shortest exposure that makes the blackest black that your paper + paper developer can produce --- This is your enlarger setting for this combo [*].
Step 3: Enlarge the photos with that setting and find the ISO where you can first see shadow detail. --- This is your personal film ISO.
Step 4: Go back outside, shoot another roll at that ISO, cut it into strips. Develop each strip for a different time. Find the development time that allows you to see details in the highlights.
Done! Now you have your default development time + film ISO + enlarger settings. Some scenes still require adjusting EV and scenes with too much or too little contrast may require Grade filters at the enlarger. For roll film, don't mess with the film development time unless the entire roll is of very similar scenes.
Using a different film, developer, or paper would require doing a new test.
What do you think?
Are there 2 different methods to which you refer, both of which have a description of EZ? What is the Zone system to which you refer and which is the easier method. I may realise why it is easier that what I think is John Finch's EZ method in you last sentence but I am confused currently
Thanks
pentaxuser
Poor workmen tend to use poor tools; so it all goes hand in hand. Or ... even if someone gives them a good tool, they misuse it.
The main point with any metering system is to get thoroughly familiar with it through practice.
Poor workmen tend to use poor tools; so it all goes hand in hand. Or ... even if someone gives them a good tool, they misuse it.
The main point with any metering system is to get thoroughly familiar with it through practice.
Two things:...
For example if the ISO speed given is reliable (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) and the processing chemistry / procedures aren't complete garbage, the Zone System (or "personal EI") is 2/3 stop lower than the ISO speed. That effectively gives you a safety factor against underexposure. Round that to an even 1 stop and you're ok for mislabeled films (Foma etc.). Then there's the "minimum time to maximum black" printing time. Assuming you judge it properly, what is that telling you? And of what value is it?
Learn how your camera works by using it...
You'll get a mix of results..... try to figure out why. We all learn by doing & you won't get by without making miistakes.
FWIW, the Pentax 17 with built in meter that my friend has seems to do a really good job producing well exposed negatives in a wide variety of lighting situations.
It seems to be a really good camera.
Your friend must be quite experienced. The Pentax 17 appears to use either center-weighted or average metering with a single sensor, which may be not much different from the Pen D2/D3 from decades ago. In skilled hands, it can perform very well—but such users also have no problem in using separate light meters or rely on their own judgment.
I think the purpose of Matt's comment was to be encouraging and reassure me that I can learn to use my Pentax 17 to take good photos and make nice prints. At least, that's how I took it.
Your friend must be quite experienced. The Pentax 17 appears to use either center-weighted or average metering with a single sensor, which may be not much different from the Pen D2/D3 from decades ago. In skilled hands, it can perform very well—but such users also have no problem in using separate light meters or rely on their own judgment.
I am doing my best to follow the advice without going crazy or making my life miserable.
Well... It's not like I'm not using the camera. But during the work week I am at work. I shoot mostly on weekends. When I'm home at night and I'm bored I can't really do much more than plan what I want to do next.
Furthermore, I thought it would be a good idea to do a dedicated test and shoot the same handful of scenes over and over with different films and different developers. I suggested that idea in the forum, precisely in response to another comment about being willing to make mistakes. I received very positive responses for that idea. So I went ahead and spent over an hour in the hot New Mexico sun doing the shoot, then I started developing the films, and now the feedback I'm getting makes it sound like the whole thing was a huge mistake and a huge waste of my time because I shouldn't be trying out films and developers --- some of this from members that said the test was a great idea. And as I said in another thread, I didn't even start out looking for new developers. I had PC-TEA and was happy with it, and some members of this forum strongly nudged me toward D76 and D23, so I figured I'd follow that advice.
I understand that this forum isn't a single have mind and conflicting opinions are to be expected. That's just the nature of things. I'm just hoping for a little bit of understanding that I am receiving conflicting advice, sometimes from the same people, and I am doing my best to follow the advice without going crazy or making my life miserable.
Nikon's matrixmetering never dissappointed me. I gave up on the Zone System because of it.
I think the purpose of Matt's comment was to be encouraging and reassure me that I can learn to use my Pentax 17 to take good photos and make nice prints. At least, that's how I took it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?