How do YOU "Expose for the Shadows" (without a spot meter)

Geez,

It seems that the poor Zone System isn't faring too well in public opinion here.

I'll offer a contrary viewpoint:

The Zone System is nothing more than a simplified approach to the sciences of sensitometry and tone reproduction, and therefore, more practical and less complicated for the working photographer.

Ansel Adam's Zone System was primarily developed for the black-and-white materials and science of his time. It worked well then and works well with similar materials still. However, with color materials and the advent of different black-and-white materials and approaches (VC papers, films that have much greater dynamic/density ranges, digital/hybrid workflows, etc.,) the Zone System has changed and been modified to work well with the newer and different parameters these materials provide.

The crux of the system, however (and its most important feature IM-HO), the visualization of the image that happens before exposure, remains. Knowing what the possibilities of how an image will and can be rendered given the scene at hand together with the variables in exposure, development, printing and its attendant manipulations allows the photographer to better achieve the results desired.

If you have no desires or goals for your results, or are not interested in how tonalities will be rendered relative to one another in your final product, but just use the Zone System for determining exposure and making sure your negative isn't completely unprintable, then you're not really using it for what it was designed to do.

All that stuff about exposure and development is dependent on the materials being employed and the creative possibilities presented by the myriad combination available from them. Different materials need different approaches.

Are you contact printing black-and-white film on one grade of silver-chloride paper and have to make sure your negatives are tailored for that contrast grade? Well, you'd better learn to expose carefully and then develop the negative so its density range matches the paper you use. Edward Weston did this superbly by experience and development by inspection. But there is no inherent visualization aspect to his approach except his intimate knowledge of his materials and processes. The Zone System provides a practical framework to both visualize the final result and to expose and develop the negatives correctly. We can argue about which approach is better, but I think we all agree that the Zone System is a viable and successful approach.

With today's quality VC papers and high-dynamic-range films, we often don't need all the development controls that were conceived in the original version of the Zone System. We can often dispense with development controls altogether, relying instead on the exposure latitude of the film and the contrast control available from VC paper to do the job (hence the adaptation of the ZS maxim to "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights" instead of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights").

Nor do we now need to do all of the testing that was originally conceived as an integral part of the Zone System. Finding one's personal E.I. is a lot easier, since with today's film speed ratings and more accurate meters, we can simply start at a bit slower than box speed and be in the ballpark. Keeping good field notes allows us to refine from there.

Still, if we take time to figure out which film speed setting is best for our purposes, find a developing time that works well for our printing style (even if it is just the manufacturers' recommendations) and use our meters wisely to measure luminances in the scene and, from that information, decide what you want the final print to look and feel like, we're using the main features of the Zone System.

If you don't want to do anything more than make sure your film is correctly exposed, you don't need the Zone System at all. If you see in your mind's eye what you want from a scene and wish to know, before releasing the shutter, if your image has a good chance of realizing that vision, then the Zone System offers a way to zero in on that visualization.

Exposing your film properly (for the shadows!) is just a small part of that.

Best,

Doremus

Sorry about my part in that, sir. For sure, the visualization is most important and, if I were to read St Ansels mind, most important to him too. A friend of mine visited with him for a portfolio review and she told me that his only real interest at that time was the images. No interest in her camera, film, etc, etc. He was very old and for me that recollection affected my photography methods profoundly.

Doremus and Brian -- both excellent thoughts.

Knowing what the possibilities of how an image will and can be rendered given the scene at hand together with the variables in exposure, development, printing and its attendant manipulations allows the photographer to better achieve the results desired.

Click to expand...

This is the power of the Zone System...or any other system, method, or way of working (or just experience) that allows one to understand the relationship between what one sees or is trying to construct, and the final image that the viewer will see/experience. That way, one can move forward with one's imagery if that is desired.

BrianShaw said:

Sorry about my part in that, sir. For sure, the visualization is most important and, if I were to read St Ansels mind, most important to him too. A friend of mine visited with him for a portfolio review and she told me that his only real interest at that time was the images. No interest in her camera, film, etc, etc. He was very old and for me that recollection affected my photography methods profoundly.

Click to expand...

Why would Ansel Adams be interested in her camera, film, etc.? At a portfolio review, the reviewer should be interested in what is in your portfolio, not what is in your camera bag. Why else would you be going to a portfolio review?

Doremus Scudder said:

It seems that the poor Zone System isn't faring too well in public opinion here.

Click to expand...

I have come to expect it. Mention the Zone System and it's detractors come out of the woodwork. Thank you for your summary.

Philippe-Georges said:

If you'r talking about colour slide film (Ektachrome and alike) the you are absolutely right!
But, when it's about B&W slide, like the AGFA's wonderful SCALA (now made by ADOX), well processed, then, to my experience, it has a wider tonal range than the most 'traditionally' treated B&W negative film (Tri-X at box speed in D-76 to name one).

What we did, for colour images, at the time when digital kamera's were still in their infancy, was some kind of exposure blending.
We toke 3 exposures, according to the circumstances and the properties of the subject, with increments of 1 to 2 stops: -1à2, 0, +1à2.
Then all 3 colour slides got scanned without density compensation and then blended into one 'wider' latitude image, by this it was ready to withstand the pre-press and the off-set printing 'calvary' (and a true calvary it was!)...
We used colour slide film (had to) as this gave us a sturdy leg to stand on when discussions arose with those who used and manipulated our photo's...
A colour slide didn't lie, put the zero exposed slide on a calibrated Normlight light table and there it is, then, next to it, open the scanned file on a calibrated computer screen and analyse and (try to-) compare for colour correction and density.

And at the time, everyone was horrified by scanned color negative film as it always generated endless disagreements!

A software plugin like Photomatix Pro was very helpful as PhotoShop wasn't that flexible at the time (early 2000's).

Click to expand...

We completely agree.

Alan Edward Klein said:

That works if the ground is in bright light. But if the ground is darker especially due to shadows, the sky will blow out especially if it's a sunny sky. Then you either need a graduated ND filter or expose for the sky and let the ground go dark.

Click to expand...

Or, as I always do and did let the sky fall where it wants. No Chicken Little nor are graduated ND filters needed.

Vaughn said:

Doremus and Brian -- both excellent thoughts.

This is the power of the Zone System...or any other system, method, or way of working (or just experience) that allows one to understand the relationship between what one sees or is trying to construct, and the final image that the viewer will see/experience. That way, one can move forward with one's imagery if that is desired.

Click to expand...

The Zone System an be a methodology used as needed or a religion.

In my opinion, the existence of a 'religious' aspect of the Zone System is totally overblown at this time in photographic history -- old worn-out ill-informed news, perhaps still clasped to the chest of a few old men in dark little rooms and facebook photo 'forums', but one that is still tiredly brought up everytime someone mentions AA's name.

It begins to sound like someone complaining about a bully that use to beat them up 50 years ago.

Well, if both sides of a discussion isn’t welcomed then discussion forums and the like are quite useless, wouldn’t you agree?

Grumpy old men yack-yacking at other grumpy old men sometimes will lead to some new learning… for someone.

Sometimes those who claim that they hold the absolute truth and wisdom need to relax a bit and look past their egos. Perhaps those grumpy old men should start wearing pearls to clutch while blowing off steam. Clutching pearls seems very soothing. LOL

Doremus Scudder said:

Geez,

It seems that the poor Zone System isn't faring too well in public opinion here.

I'll offer a contrary viewpoint:

The Zone System is nothing more than a simplified approach to the sciences of sensitometry and tone reproduction, and therefore, more practical and less complicated for the working photographer.

Ansel Adam's Zone System was primarily developed for the black-and-white materials and science of his time. It worked well then and works well with similar materials still. However, with color materials and the advent of different black-and-white materials and approaches (VC papers, films that have much greater dynamic/density ranges, digital/hybrid workflows, etc.,) the Zone System has changed and been modified to work well with the newer and different parameters these materials provide.

The crux of the system, however (and its most important feature IM-HO), the visualization of the image that happens before exposure, remains. Knowing what the possibilities of how an image will and can be rendered given the scene at hand together with the variables in exposure, development, printing and its attendant manipulations allows the photographer to better achieve the results desired.

If you have no desires or goals for your results, or are not interested in how tonalities will be rendered relative to one another in your final product, but just use the Zone System for determining exposure and making sure your negative isn't completely unprintable, then you're not really using it for what it was designed to do.

All that stuff about exposure and development is dependent on the materials being employed and the creative possibilities presented by the myriad combination available from them. Different materials need different approaches.

Are you contact printing black-and-white film on one grade of silver-chloride paper and have to make sure your negatives are tailored for that contrast grade? Well, you'd better learn to expose carefully and then develop the negative so its density range matches the paper you use. Edward Weston did this superbly by experience and development by inspection. But there is no inherent visualization aspect to his approach except his intimate knowledge of his materials and processes. The Zone System provides a practical framework to both visualize the final result and to expose and develop the negatives correctly. We can argue about which approach is better, but I think we all agree that the Zone System is a viable and successful approach.

With today's quality VC papers and high-dynamic-range films, we often don't need all the development controls that were conceived in the original version of the Zone System. We can often dispense with development controls altogether, relying instead on the exposure latitude of the film and the contrast control available from VC paper to do the job (hence the adaptation of the ZS maxim to "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights" instead of "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights").

Nor do we now need to do all of the testing that was originally conceived as an integral part of the Zone System. Finding one's personal E.I. is a lot easier, since with today's film speed ratings and more accurate meters, we can simply start at a bit slower than box speed and be in the ballpark. Keeping good field notes allows us to refine from there.

Still, if we take time to figure out which film speed setting is best for our purposes, find a developing time that works well for our printing style (even if it is just the manufacturers' recommendations) and use our meters wisely to measure luminances in the scene and, from that information, decide what you want the final print to look and feel like, we're using the main features of the Zone System.

If you don't want to do anything more than make sure your film is correctly exposed, you don't need the Zone System at all. If you see in your mind's eye what you want from a scene and wish to know, before releasing the shutter, if your image has a good chance of realizing that vision, then the Zone System offers a way to zero in on that visualization.

Exposing your film properly (for the shadows!) is just a small part of that.

Best,

Doremus

Click to expand...

As you know, I don't have a darkroom so the Zone system is far afield from my use. But I am curious how "you see in your mind's eye what you want from a scene and wish to know, before releasing the shutter, if your image has a good chance of realizing that vision, then the Zone System offers a way to zero in on that visualization."

What is it you look for? What is it you see? What changes do you make when taking the picture? that the Zone system provides beyond the exposure setting from measuring shadow details?

Alan, re-read post #128.

takilmaboxer said:

Alan, re-read post #128.

Click to expand...

128 is a broad generalization of what a skilled practitioner might be able to accomplish with the zone system. Alan's question was more of the how to do it, and 128 doesn't answer that.

Alan Edward Klein said:

As you know, I don't have a darkroom so the Zone system is far afield from my use. But I am curious how "you see in your mind's eye what you want from a scene and wish to know, before releasing the shutter, if your image has a good chance of realizing that vision, then the Zone System offers a way to zero in on that visualization."

What is it you look for? What is it you see? What changes do you make when taking the picture? that the Zone system provides beyond the exposure setting from measuring shadow details?

Click to expand...

Alan,

I work primarily in black and white, so I'll answer your question in that context.

When I come across a scene I wish to photograph, my intent is rarely to make a "faithful record" of the scene. Rather, I'm interested in its potential for expressing the ethos, mood, emotions, meaning and intensity that I wish to convey to the viewer (this plus any allusions and other more contextual references I'm making as well). To accomplish this, I work hard on form and organization (not so relevant here) and planning for expressive tonalities (more important here).

I want things in particular places tonally and texturally. The first step, for me, is placing that important shadow value. I don't just want a "detailed Zone III black" for everything. Often, I want a more luminous shadow, so I'll plan for Zone IV. I even place some shadows in Zone V for the "feeling" of the shadow. Conversely, I'll sometimes place a shadow as Zone I or II for a feeling of emptiness or for a graphic area of solid black in the print. Sometimes I feel like I want something in between Zones, but this I take care of by exposing more and printing down a tiny bit.

Then, I always want certain relationships between tones; lots of separation between this and that, lots of texture here, a gradual progression from black to white here, a brooding middle gray or a sparkling white here or a rough texture there. You get the idea. The actual distribution of luminances in the scene only rarely lines up with what I'm imagining, but with the magic of a little planning, I can read the different areas of the scene with my spotmeter, see what I can do with filters, contrast controls, dodging, burning, bleaching, etc. and plan my negative to contain enough of the right information to help me achieve my goal.

Or, I do all my meter readings and see that my initial impulse is unrealistic (or just plain impossible). Then, I'll rethink or reject the image.

All of this boils down to being able to see in your mind's eye the tonalities you want for the elements in an image, much as a musician can hear in their head the pitch, harmony and timbres of a piece of music they are studying or composing.

And, like music, it takes a little training. Musicians have ear training, photographers have eye training. When I was first learning the Zone System, I read about Zone Rulers in The New Zone System Manual by White, Zakia and Lorenz. I made rulers for all my films on my favorite paper, one for each development scheme from N-2 through N+2. These I carried around in my camera bag with me for reference so I'd know what a value would look like (approximately) when placed and how the others would look where they fell. This, then allowed me to visualize the scene better as it would be ordinarily rendered photographically and then later, to move on to visualizing the things I could do with manipulations.

In my exposure record, you'll find notes like, "dig for the shadows in the bottom right rock," or "burn the clouds with a #5 filter," or "bleach up the light areas in the water," etc., etc. All of this because I anticipate that I'll be needing to tweak the tonalities and textures in the print to match up with how I want it to be.

With color, there may be less flexibility with contrast and moving one tone against another, but there is a lot that one can do with the colors and their relationships. I'll let the experts on color take it from here.

Best,

Doremus

Craig said:

128 is a broad generalization of what a skilled practitioner might be able to accomplish with the zone system. Alan's question was more of the how to do it, and 128 doesn't answer that.

Click to expand...

How to do it: become a skilled practitioner...

1) Desire to be a skilled practitioner, because it is a lot of hard work that can take one out of their comfort zone.

2) By paying attention to what Doremus writes.

Like life, the more one knows about photography, the greater the opporuntiy to learn.

Welcome to Photrio! I use a spot meter to meter the shadows when I want more shadow details.

Sirius Glass said:

Welcome to Photrio! I use a spot meter to meter the shadows when I want more shadow details.

Click to expand...

I use my feet

In the absence of a spot meter: bracketing, a little experience, Fingerspitzengefühl and trusting the flexibility (forgiveness?) of the film+developer.
But that doesn't always works...

MattKing said:

I use my feet

Click to expand...

So THAT's what they mean about film having a long toe ...

I try to find like-for-like areas I can meter, as substitutes for things I cannot.

My EIs (Personal ASA) are fairly well established and have been for a long time. What I'm finding, though, is a bias toward placing shadows up higher on the HD curve - either Zone III-IV or actually on IV), and using less development or compensating development to hold in the highlights. This seems to give more printable negs, but I'm still working out the exact mechanics.

MattKing said:

I use my feet

Click to expand...

I use the metric system for most things these days.

Sirius Glass said:

I use the metric system for most things these days.

Click to expand...

You have ten feet?

MattKing said:

You have ten feet?

Click to expand...

No, two feet have always been sufficient for me. What about you?

I found this (on the WWW) to be a rather interesting description:

I read the open shade and then the area where the strongest light is . By doing this I now understand the lighting ratio of the scene. I usually expose
for the open shade and develop accordingly to the lighting ratio. Really strong light I will minus development , really flat light I may extend the development.

When I use the PMK developer I rate the film so that I have a 1 1/2 overexposure so I can go deep into the shadows and the tannin effect of the developer will hold the highlights with detail.

Even though I respect those who use a spot meter I never was able to grasp this method and use a simple meter or flash meter to measure the light in its path.