.backwards system zone the Working

[Stephen Benskin]

Any system will work most of the time. Because 68% of outdoor scenes falls within a +/- 1 1/4 stop range from the average, it's hard for a system not to work most of the time. Think of disposable cameras. It's the extreme conditions that matter. And even so, 95% of scenes fall within +/- 2 1/2 stop range of the average, and graded paper can handle most of those situations.

The one thing about any system is that it tends to limited the choices by attempting to simplify the methodology. Why not use the best parts from the different systems depending on the situation? Pegging the key tone or exposure weighting based on a critical tone are valid approaches depending on the situation. Picker was fine pegging the highlight most of the time. He assumed the average luminance range would have the shadow fall around its proper place. This isn't much different than exposing for the middle, like off a gray card or incident meter. Both assume a relationship between the mid-exposure and the shadow exposure. Most of the time, it works. In truth, it's hard for an exposure to fail more than 20-25% of the time with outdoor scenes no matter what you do. That's why there are so many different exposure systems out there.

 

[markbarendt]

Stephan,

Thanks, negatives are very flexible that way.

I've actually played with that idea some too. The sunny rule for me at home is F11 for front lit subjects literally using say ISO400, 1/500th, F5.6 for any outdoor shot with people in any shadow (hat, tree, clouds, back lit, whatever) and stopping down to F8 for no shadow shots makes lots of sense.

Break out the meter for oddball stuff.

Shot that way a couple weekends ago film and digital at the same settings. The faces and shadows were great on digital but the highlights were totally blown. My C-41 chems are a couple weeks away because of a small mix-up so we'll see the difference then.

Any system will work most of the time. Because 68% of outdoor scenes falls within a +/- 1 1/4 stop range from the average, it's hard for a system not to work most of the time. Think of disposable cameras. It's the extreme conditions that matter. And even so, 95% of scenes fall within +/- 2 1/2 stop range of the average, and graded paper can handle most of those situations.

The one thing about any system is that it tends to limited the choices by attempting to simplify the methodology. Why not use the best parts from the different systems depending on the situation? Pegging the key tone or exposure weighting based on a critical tone are valid approaches depending on the situation. Picker was fine pegging the highlight most of the time. He assumed the average luminance range would have the shadow fall around its proper place. This isn't much different than exposing for the middle, like off a gray card or incident meter. Both assume a relationship between the mid-exposure and the shadow exposure. Most of the time, it works. In truth, it's hard for an exposure to fail more than 20-25% of the time with outdoor scenes no matter what you do. That's why there are so many different exposure systems out there.

 

[Bill Burk]

Reviving this thread because... Believe it or not it works!

Just last weekend I took some extremely important photos in a restaurant that was really dark. I took one meter reading of my palm and meant to (but forgot to) open a stop. Then I switched from an f/1.4 to an f/2 lens. Talk about two mistakes in the wrong direction! Fortunately I had the meter set at 250 for a 400 speed film so I got back 2/3 stop. Still I knew when I got home that I would have a serious under exposure to contend with.

I graphed out and planned my expected Zone VI density to be desirably 0.88 and the contrast index which might get that for me.

I aimed for 0.9 CI and achieved 0.8 CI. I actually cut the first roll in half because I had taken some outdoor shots in full sun and wanted good negatives for them too.

Now, analyzing the negatives reveals by working backwards that I had underexposed 1 stop more than my narrative so far!

But because I developed to 0.8 CI the negatives look great and are all printable.

By my graph here I believe it can be said that 0.8 CI (17:30 in small tank D-76 1:1 at 68 degrees F)... can result in an EI between 1600-2000 for TMAX-400... if you meter for Zone VI placement in a low-contrast lighting condition.

 

[Bill Burk]

The orange-circled densities are readings of my friend’s faces. Working backwards I could say if I had taken individual meter readings and adjusted exposure per shot ... each should have been “placed” on Zone VI. They clustered around -2.05 log mcs exposure and one stop less would be the theoretical meter reading... -2.35 log mcs. Which is ten times the speed point.... -3.35 log mcs .

This means effectively I pushed this film to EI 1600-2000

And I hate pushing. It was never my plan. But I guess the photos are better for having been taken at 1/8 second versus the half second to whole second which might have been required if I thought this through when I took the shots.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

This is a thought for roll film, and I'm sure it would take some testing to be workable, I also bet that it has significant limits, but here's my premises.

P1 - In general, development controls the shoulder, exposure controls the toe, nothing new there.

P2 - For a given film in a fixed development process in any given developer a defined contrast index in the finished negative is achieved.

P3 - You would decide where to place the highlights first, then for any given shot you would measure the subject brightness range and decide where to place the shadows in relation to the highlights."

P4 - In practice overexposure would expand the usable printable contrast range and underexposure would contract it. (I'm not claiming easily printable)

Is there a practical benefit here?

Does shooting to the shadows do the same thing?

Technically correct me if I'm off the field.

The zone system is applied sensitometry; a quantification of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights". You laid it out in a basic sense above.

 

[markbarendt]

Giggle, when this first popped back up I was wondering why I was getting notified.

 

[silveror0]

The orange-circled densities are readings of my friend’s faces...

So your one friend is two-faced?
Sorry, Bill. Can't help myself sometimes.

 

[Bill Burk]

You probably know the song, "Word Crimes"? Well you got me. Guilty.

I took density readings of my friends' faces. (plural possessive)...

His face reads 0.81 density...

 

[juan]

Minor White advocated a system where the exposure was for the mid tones (Zone VI is close enough) development time is adjusted for the shadows, and agitation is used to control the highlights. I think it depends on your light. Fred said he never made a minus development. In my light, I have to make them all the time.