How do I learn the zone system

bonk · Mar 31, 2007

I am amazed by the pictures that where done using the Ansal Adams Zone System. What is the best way to learn to use it? I see there are some books out there but wich one of them is woth it? Or is a book not the right assistance for that? I currently mainly shoot b&w using Pentax 67.

clogz · Mar 31, 2007

This link may be of some help: http://www.zonesystem.com/

Sparky · Mar 31, 2007

Don't confuse the message with the messenger. Adams would have been doing nearly identical pictures had he NOT been developing the ZS. He'd probably have a lot MORE pictures, since he wouldn't have been spending so much time messing around in the darkroom! Don't get me wrong - I think the principles are a good thing to learn so you can understand the mechanics of the process of using film... but it seems a lethal distraction for many people.

Brian Jeffery · Mar 31, 2007

Hi, I found the Zone System for 35mm photographers very helpful. Ignore the 35mm in the title as it's useful for 120 film users as well. Takes you through the zone system in an easy to understand manor and then shows you some of the workarounds for using roll film.

Brian

jgjbowen · Mar 31, 2007

You might also want to pick up the Zone VI video on darkroom techniques. Fred Picker illustrates his Zone system methods on how to determine your personal film speed and proper developing time based on the paper you use. I think you will find it a worthwhile investment.

Roger Hicks · Mar 31, 2007

I'm with Sparky. Be very careful with the Zone System. If, when you read the books, you find that it suits you, great: if it doesn't, walk away from it without a backward glance. There have been at least as many great photographers who don't use it, as that do.

My own belief is that unless you already know a fair amount about basic sensitometry, the Zone System can be a morass of jargon and empty testing -- and by the time you are reasonably familiar with basic sensitimetry, the Zone System (which is a restatement of basic sensitometric principles going back to the late 19th century) is of limited use, except for the naming of Zones, which is a work of genius.

Some Zone aficionados will take this as a personal insult, because they treat the ZS more as a religion than as a tool. Tough. To those who treat it as a tool, I say 'The very best of luck, and if it suits you, that's great, but it doesn't suit everyone.'

You will find more than enough advocates of the System; if you want a slightly more reasoned argument about why it doesn't suit everyone,go to 'Why we don't use the Zone System' in the Photo School at www.rogerandfrances.com.

Cheers,

R.

Peter Schrager · Mar 31, 2007

Zone Dial

There is a spot on the web where you can download a free zone-dial for a light meter. That's basically how my system works. Place your shadows where they need to be and develop accordingly. Sometimes-and I do mean sometimes you should do the ASA test for film. If you use any of Sandy Kings developers for film
he has already done the work for you. Adjust accordingly-just like baking a cake!! All shutters-especially older ones can throw you off for speed.
Hey-some people swear by BTZS system. Me; I got lost on the first page. But I can make a print right up there with anyone.That's the goal. I did 100 ASA tests in my day and NEVER again will waste the time when I could be taking pictures. You MUST stick with one developer and film to get anywhere. Most modern films are true to speed and a great developer like XTOL will prove that true time and again....
Best, Peter

eddym · Mar 31, 2007

I never really "got" the Zone System until I read (and re-read) Kodak's publication F-5, "Kodak Professional Black & White Films." Once I understood how much light is out there, and how film reacts to it, I was able to understand the Zone system. Then reading Fred Picker's Zone VI newsletters, I learned how to apply what I had learned to my photography. Sadly, both these resources are out of print, but you might find a used F-5 on Amazon.com.

bonk · Mar 31, 2007

What would be a good light meter for this. I understand that it should be calibrated at 18% grey reflectance and it probaly should be a spot meter. Anything else I need to watch out for when buying one? Maybe you can suggest a particular model? One that is noot too expensive. (I am not a pro that makes his living from photography.)

Peter Schrager · Mar 31, 2007

meters

find an older WESTON meter on ebay which is already zoned. The Soligor spot meter is also a good one. will need the dial...all meters are stupid. all read 18% grey. It's you who must learn to use it. Get a copy of the ZoneVI book by Picker.
It will teach you in one day how to do it...Richard Ritter will test your negatives for you on a densitometer if so inclined. if you actually do all the tests and make the prints from the book you will know more about photography than 99% of the photographers out there!!!
Best, Peter

Peter Schrager · Mar 31, 2007

book

the Picker book is available from any of the book resellers. Go to ABES or another site to find it. You'll be happy you did
Peter

bonk · Mar 31, 2007

Peter Schrager said:
Get a copy of the ZoneVI book by Picker.

this one ?

Sparky · Mar 31, 2007

See? Look at all the responses. It really IS a cult. Prosetylization. Try scientology first though. The parties are more fun.

Monophoto · Mar 31, 2007

For me, photography is about making pictures. I learned the ZS, and I use it, and I find that it is a very helpful tool

But the ZS involves testing. The risk is that the ZS, and the activity of testing, can displace picture making. When that happens, the ZS becomes a problem. Sadly, there are photographers to are more into testing and sensitometry than they are picture making. Process takes precedence over product.

But there is another risk with the ZS. The ZS makes it possible to take advantage of the full range of capabilities of photographic material. The final photographic image should reflect the photographer's emotional reaction to the subject. It's too easy to fall into the trap of being more concerned about achieving the full range of tones possible in a print even though the subject doesn't require that dynamic level. Instead of producing expressive images, the result is production of examples of what the photographic process can do.

Fred Picker was one of the most influential photographers in the last part of the 20th century, and we can thank him for revitalizing large format photography. But my sense is that many of his images were exercises in ZS technique.

I've found myself falling into that trap also. I remember showing some prints to David Vestal many years ago, and getting his reaction - "technically perfect, pictorially empty". Ouch!

Chuck_P · Mar 31, 2007

Bonk,

I taught myself the ZS from reading AA's "The Negative" and Fred Picker's "Zone VI Workshop". Disregard any horror stories that you are being subjected to here regarding the ZS. I have found that, often, those that speak negatively about it, quite often don't understand it themselves.Just keep an open mind and consider it a journey. I can tell you that learning it has changed my whole photographic experience as my thought processes on the relationships between exposure, development, and the final print are drastically more fluid. The more difficult aspect of photography for me now is subject matter, composition, finding the best perspective, etc...

You may find that it is not for you and that's quite alright. But come to that realization on your own after you have attacked it with optimism and curiosity and not with a distracting anchor tied to your brain because of the negativism that you will read here.

Good Luck

Chuck

Jim Jones · Mar 31, 2007

Even blind adherence to the Zone System can't insure optimum prints. Sometimes it is better to deliberately overexpose or underexpose, and underdevelop or overdevelop, to adjust contrast in shadows or highlights. Other tools, such as flashing negatives or prints, or preoplanned reduction of negatives, upset the application of the Zone System. Creative photography is as much an art as an exercise in math.

Christopher Walrath · Mar 31, 2007

Chuck1 is dead on. I learned the Zone Systenm reading Mr. Adams' "The Negative" from his three part 'Basic Photography' Series. I had tried to grasp it from many sources over the years to see what it had to offer to my photography. I could never get it until I read it explained by the author of the Zone System himself. After reading chapter 4, everything else I had ever read came to me and made perfect sense.

Roger Hicks · Mar 31, 2007

Chuck1 said:
Disregard any horror stories that you are being subjected to here regarding the ZS. I have found that, often, those that speak negatively about it, quite often don't understand it themselves.

You may find that it is not for you and that's quite alright. But come to that realization on your own after you have attacked it with optimism and curiosity and not with a distracting anchor tied to your brain because of the negativism that you will read here.

Dear Chuck,

I don't see any horror stories here, and I have surprisingly often found that those who are most enthusiastic about the ZS don't understand much sensitometry either. I don't see any of what any of us has said as negativism. Those who have warned him that the ZS is not for everyone are saying exactly the same as you, in the above post: if it works for you, great.

My own reason for posting what I did was that when I first approached the ZS, and could not quite see the point, I thought that this was some fault in myself. When I came back to it years later, I knew a lot more and could see WHY it wasn't for me, even though it might suit others.

What I'm saying, in other words, is that he should by all means approach it as you suggest with optimism and curiosity, but that he should not waste any further time if, after giving it a fair try, he finds it doesn't suit him. He certainly shouldn't feel guilty or stupid, or imagine that it will make him any less of a photographer -- all of which I foolishly did, as a result of listening to too much preaching from committed Zonies.

Cheers,

R.

Chuck_P · Mar 31, 2007

Jim Jones said:
Even blind adherence to the Zone System can't insure optimum prints. Sometimes it is better to deliberately overexpose or underexpose, and underdevelop or overdevelop, to adjust contrast in shadows or highlights. Other tools, such as flashing negatives or prints, or preoplanned reduction of negatives, upset the application of the Zone System. Creative photography is as much an art as an exercise in math.

Bonk,

When (if) you begin to think in ZS processes, you will realize that the terms "underexposure" and "overexposure" are actually exposure errors in ZS phraseology. Whereas in ZS practice, intentionally giving "increased" or "decreased" exposure is something that you will do quite regularly and is a fundamental aspect of understanding the relationship between exposure and subsequent development considerations.

An error in underexposure can result in a loss of shadow detail that you may ultimately have desired in the final print and an error in overexposure can relinquish highlight detail that is unprintable. Knowing the ZS will teach you how to competantly (spelling?) predict when those errors can occur and how to successfully deal with them i.e., how to------------expose and develop to gain the optimum negative to produce your best print that is how you envisioned it to be.

Also, "pre-exposure" of the film is well within the framework of ZS thinking and does nothing to upset its application. The same can be said of "reduction" of the negative and "intensification" of the negative. I recently exposed a roll of 120 where the SBR was low, 4 zones. On one particular frame the important highlight "fell" on Zone VI of the exposure scale; I plan on providing n+1 development to bring that highlight up to about a Zone VII, then I plan on, possibly, "intensifying" the negative with selenium toner to bring that up to about a Zone VIII for an effective n+2 end result. I knew that intensification of the negative could really help the contrast in the final print if, indeed, the n+1 development was not going to be enough. I knew this possibility before I released the shutter, which is the beauty of the ZS, to confidently and predict the end result.

Sorry if I seem to rant a bit, but just trying to provide you with positive aspects of learning the ZS. Even if you don't like it you will be better off as a photographer for having learned it.

Chuck

Roger Hicks · Mar 31, 2007

Chuck1 said:
Sorry if I seem to rant a bit, but just trying to provide you with positive aspects of learning the ZS. Even if you don't like it you will be better off as a photographer for having learned it.
Chuck

Dear Chuck,

Yes, that or the basic theory behind it.

Cheers,

R.

Allen Friday · Mar 31, 2007

I recommend Chris Johnson's book, The Practical Zone System. It is written in straight forward language and is full of good examples. It is similar to the Picker book in approach, but it goes into more detail, especially on the effects of plus and minus development. Johnson teaches (or taught) photography, so his book answers the questions that his students came up with when learning the zone system. The testing approach does not rely on a densitometer, but on darkroom tests to match your film to specific paper scales. I found it much easier to learn from than the AA book. He just came out with a 4th edition of the book. I saw a copy in my local Boarders last time I was there, so it should be widely available.

Chuck_P · Mar 31, 2007

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Chuck,

I don't see any horror stories here, and I have surprisingly often found that those who are most enthusiastic about the ZS don't understand much sensitometry either. I don't see any of what any of us has said as negativism. Those who have warned him that the ZS is not for everyone are saying exactly the same as you, in the above post: if it works for you, great.

My own reason for posting what I did was that when I first approached the ZS, and could not quite see the point, I thought that this was some fault in myself. When I came back to it years later, I knew a lot more and could see WHY it wasn't for me, even though it might suit others.

What I'm saying, in other words, is that he should by all means approach it as you suggest with optimism and curiosity, but that he should not waste any further time if, after giving it a fair try, he finds it doesn't suit him. He certainly shouldn't feel guilty or stupid, or imagine that it will make him any less of a photographer -- all of which I foolishly did, as a result of listening to too much preaching from committed Zonies.

Cheers,

R.

Roger,

I hear what you are saying. In my time here, I have heard so many put downs to the ZS---one day, well after that big lightbulb went off over my head, it became abundantly clear to me that many of those put downs were coming from mouths that did not understand it at all. I'm so grateful that I did not listen to them. That's all I want the OP to realize. And he should realize as well, there's plenty of other awesome photographers who have been successful without using it, as I'm sure you are well aware.

Chuck

Sparky · Mar 31, 2007

Since I was probably the one being the most cynical about the ZS - I think I should make a few qualifying comments as well. I weaned myself - shortly after making my first photographs (on a 4x5 incidentally) - through the entire Adams series, and knew the material cold. This was about 1984. Shortly after, as soon as Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System came out, I eagerly absorbed that, did all the testing (and then some), I read Fred Picker. Then I started giving ZS workshops for students at the university I was at - at the time. I'm not saying that you shouldn't learn the material... but am referring more to the 'culture' of the zone system - I'm worried that new disciples will spend more time in the next five years staring through a spotmeter than the groundglass.

So - I should qualify. I DO think it's incredibly valuable material to learn - it helps you have a deeper understanding of the materials and the chemistry. But it's a very dangerous rut to get caught up in, and becomes easier to get obsessed with making the perfect negative than it does to really THINK hard about the kinds of images you're making and why. That's much more courageous, in my book. Much more.

So I'm with Roger on the issue. If you think you want to learn it. Please - do so - but only for the right reasons. But use it. Don't let it use you.

removed account4 · Mar 31, 2007

hi bonk

good luck learning the ZS!

it is best to have a good foundation
and a grasp of all the rules before you decide to ignore / break them.

john

bonk · Mar 31, 2007

what do you think about the Gossen Spot Master 2

What do you think about the Gossen Spot Master 2 ? Is it good? Can it do what I need ?

How do I learn the zone system

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency