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

Signs & fragments

A
Signs & fragments

  • 1
  • 0
  • 10
Summer corn, summer storm

D
Summer corn, summer storm

  • 1
  • 1
  • 23
Horizon, summer rain

D
Horizon, summer rain

  • 0
  • 0
  • 29
$12.66

A
$12.66

  • 6
  • 5
  • 167
A street portrait

A
A street portrait

  • 1
  • 0
  • 163

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,814
Messages
2,781,227
Members
99,710
Latest member
LibbyPScott
Recent bookmarks
0
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Not at all. One viable approach is to simply place a shadow value and let the highlights fall where they may. You'll get contrasty negatives with contrasty scenes and flat negatives with flat scenes, but that gets taken care of by using the contrast controls available when printing (or in post).

The only dialing-in you have to do with this approach is to find a developing time that lets you print the contrastiest negs you have with a #00 filter or higher and the flattest negs you have with a #5 filter or lower. Once you've done that, this approach will work for all but the most extreme situations. It would be my preferred approach to using roll film, where scenes of many different subject luminance ranges are on one roll.

Modern films are really great at holding detail well into the "overexposure" range. Of course, if you use a retro film that shoulders out quickly, you might want to switch approaches.

However, this approach eliminates the whole visualization feature of the Zone System, which I find its most-useful attribute. Checking separation between different values (with and without filters) helps plan an expressive image. However, that really doesn't have much to do with deciding the actual exposure; a shadow value will suffice.

With the full-blown Zone System, one strives for negatives that all have a similar contrast range. That was more important in the days of graded papers and when one wanted to print on a single grade of paper. Still, there were, in the heyday of graded papers, five or sometimes six different contrast grades available. Many felt, however, that the middle grades of 2 and 3 yielded the best prints. With today's VC papers, you can get good prints with the full range of contrasts available.

Keep in mind, that the contrast control in the ZS is largely done with changing the development time, not by changing exposure; that was determined by placing the shadow value where you wanted it. If we no longer need to worry so much about getting the negative contrast tailored exactly for a particular grade of paper, then we are more free to just develop normally and deal with contrast in other ways. Of course, there are extreme situations where this approach won't work well and changing development time would yield a better image, but those instances are more rare. Experienced photographers will recognize these situations and deal with them accordingly. Otherwise, the more-simple expose fully, develop so that your negs will be printable approach works well.

Best,

Doremus

What happens if the ground is in shade making the shadow areas even darker? Setting the shadow value at 3 could blow out the highlights in the sky. I realize that's more of a problem with positive chrome film. But even negative BW film has a limit. Shouldn't you at least take a reading of the sky to see the stops difference just to verify you aren't going to clip the highlights there? Maybe you need to use a graduated ND filter or allow the shadow to go black keeping the more important highlight to not clip? (Note: I don't use zone system or develop my own film so everything I say is just thoughts I have.)
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
What happens if the ground is in shade making the shadow areas even darker? Setting the shadow value at 3 could blow out the highlights in the sky. ...
Doremus wrote:
Keep in mind, that the contrast control in the ZS is largely done with changing the development time, not by changing exposure; that was determined by placing the shadow value where you wanted it.
In order to know what development time to use, we can base our exposure on the shadows, but measure the highlights for exactly the reason you stated -- so we do not blow out the highlights with excessive development -- OR so that we know to give extra development if the highlights are not bright enough in the scene compared to the shadows to give good contrast to work with.

In your case, Alan, if you find that negatives from certain high-contrast scenes are difficult to scan and work with, you might try in the same light conditions/film, give the film a stop more exposure and ask to have the negatives developed at N-1 or N-2 (or one of each), if that service is available. Then scan and see if the image quality you want is easier to achieve.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Not at all. One viable approach is to simply place a shadow value and let the highlights fall where they may. You'll get contrasty negatives with contrasty scenes and flat negatives with flat scenes, but that gets taken care of by using the contrast controls available when printing (or in post).

The only dialing-in you have to do with this approach is to find a developing time that lets you print the contrastiest negs you have with a #00 filter or higher and the flattest negs you have with a #5 filter or lower. Once you've done that, this approach will work for all but the most extreme situations. It would be my preferred approach to using roll film, where scenes of many different subject luminance ranges are on one roll.

Modern films are really great at holding detail well into the "overexposure" range. Of course, if you use a retro film that shoulders out quickly, you might want to switch approaches.

However, this approach eliminates the whole visualization feature of the Zone System, which I find its most-useful attribute. Checking separation between different values (with and without filters) helps plan an expressive image. However, that really doesn't have much to do with deciding the actual exposure; a shadow value will suffice.

With the full-blown Zone System, one strives for negatives that all have a similar contrast range. That was more important in the days of graded papers and when one wanted to print on a single grade of paper. Still, there were, in the heyday of graded papers, five or sometimes six different contrast grades available. Many felt, however, that the middle grades of 2 and 3 yielded the best prints. With today's VC papers, you can get good prints with the full range of contrasts available.

Keep in mind, that the contrast control in the ZS is largely done with changing the development time, not by changing exposure; that was determined by placing the shadow value where you wanted it. If we no longer need to worry so much about getting the negative contrast tailored exactly for a particular grade of paper, then we are more free to just develop normally and deal with contrast in other ways. Of course, there are extreme situations where this approach won't work well and changing development time would yield a better image, but those instances are more rare. Experienced photographers will recognize these situations and deal with them accordingly. Otherwise, the more-simple expose fully, develop so that your negs will be printable approach works well.

Best,

Doremus

I use the Zone System for metering only. I have not needed to use the development part.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,672
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format
I use the Zone System for metering only. I have not needed to use the development part.

It was the developing part that bothered me in the beginning, then I 'dropped' it, but still...
If I read what is explained here, I think I'm more likely to use some kind of a very simplified version of the Zone System, which I wouldn't dare to call zone system, absolutely not, but I can live with it...

But, I have a second thought: AA wrote for the first time about his Zone System during the interbellum (correct me if I am wrong), it must have been based on the then existing film emulsions?
He wrote again about it in the '50s.
But, now days, we have different film emulsions, developers and paper, and insights too (not to mention the influence of the the digital approach)...
Doesn't that change things?

That's why I think that Doremus's approach isn't bad at all, by far; each of us has to find his own, personal, way of dealing with subject contrast.
Anyway, subject characteristics are inherent with the (personal-) style of photography each of us is committing, so, a 'generalised' modus operandi isn't always applicable.
 
Last edited:

L Gebhardt

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
Messages
2,363
Location
NH
Format
Large Format
What happens if the ground is in shade making the shadow areas even darker? Setting the shadow value at 3 could blow out the highlights in the sky. I realize that's more of a problem with positive chrome film. But even negative BW film has a limit. Shouldn't you at least take a reading of the sky to see the stops difference just to verify you aren't going to clip the highlights there? Maybe you need to use a graduated ND filter or allow the shadow to go black keeping the more important highlight to not clip? (Note: I don't use zone system or develop my own film so everything I say is just thoughts I have.)

Regarding positive chrome films you would indeed clip the highlights. With a wide brightness range for chromes something is either going to be very black or very white/clear on the film (or both if the scene is very contrasty). Black and white negative film is a lot more forgiving to extra exposure and a little more forgiving to under exposure. But either can benefit from graduated ND filters to help reduce the overall contrast range of the scene. Graduated ND only works well if you can hide the transition line of the filter, which in many cases is not possible.

Black and white negative film can usually handle quite a few stops of over exposure before shouldering off (or clipping in other words). With that knowledge I find reducing the highlights with burning in (aka printing down) at the printing stage easier to manage than graduated ND in the field in most cases.

In the above case you could also develop less to compress the entire contrast range. Good in many cases, this also reduces your local contrast. Local contrast is very important in a print and in my opinion all to frequently ignored when talking about zone system development changes, especially contraction.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
...
But, now days, we have different film emulsions, developers and paper, and insights too (not to mention the influence of the the digital approach)...
Doesn't that change things?

....

The 'job' has changed, so how we use the tool (Zone System) will change. The tool is still useful for those who wish to wield it. And there are other tools and methods one can use.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,364
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Regarding positive chrome films you would indeed clip the highlights. With a wide brightness range for chromes something is either going to be very black or very white/clear on the film (or both if the scene is very contrasty). Black and white negative film is a lot more forgiving to extra exposure and a little more forgiving to under exposure. But either can benefit from graduated ND filters to help reduce the overall contrast range of the scene. Graduated ND only works well if you can hide the transition line of the filter, which in many cases is not possible.

Black and white negative film can usually handle quite a few stops of over exposure before shouldering off (or clipping in other words). With that knowledge I find reducing the highlights with burning in (aka printing down) at the printing stage easier to manage than graduated ND in the field in most cases.

In the above case you could also develop less to compress the entire contrast range. Good in many cases, this also reduces your local contrast. Local contrast is very important in a print and in my opinion all to frequently ignored when talking about zone system development changes, especially contraction.

I found that the exposure latitude of slide film is too narrow to bother with shadows. Take the light readings without the sky and the exposure will be correct and there will be some shadow detail included without blowing out the highlights.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2002
Messages
3,589
Location
Eugene, Oregon
Format
4x5 Format
What happens if the ground is in shade making the shadow areas even darker? Setting the shadow value at 3 could blow out the highlights in the sky. I realize that's more of a problem with positive chrome film. But even negative BW film has a limit. Shouldn't you at least take a reading of the sky to see the stops difference just to verify you aren't going to clip the highlights there? Maybe you need to use a graduated ND filter or allow the shadow to go black keeping the more important highlight to not clip? (Note: I don't use zone system or develop my own film so everything I say is just thoughts I have.)
Two different things to address here: I'll start with transparency film.

With transparency film (slides, chromes, whatever you call it), use of the Zone System and the adage of exposing for the shadows is reversed. You should be basing exposures for transparency film on the highlights. Due to the rather limited dynamic range of transparency film, you should be aiming for a textured/detailed white at two stops over the meter reading. Usually, then, the shadows just fall where they may, since there are very few practical contrast controls. However, for very contrasty scenes, there are a couple of things that can be done including flashing the film at Zone II or thereabouts or asking for development "pulls" from the lab.

If you're using an averaging or incident meter with transparency film, you need to recognize contrasty situations and give more exposure so the highlights don't block up. The shadows are going to go black (maybe it would be better to come back on a cloudy day?).

The Zone System was really developed for black-and-white negative materials and is at its best there, so on to that topic:

Shadows in the shade together with shadows in the lit areas together with brightly lit areas in a scene is about as contrasty a situation as you can find. Think crepuscular shadows inside a dark structure but with a sunlit scene in a large open window and you want to get detail in all of that.

First, some considerations:

Film choice for situations like this are important. If you're using a film that has a limited dynamic range and shoulders off quickly, then exposing for the shadows will definitely block up the highlights if development is "normal." So, the only way you're going to get the image you want with this film is to use a reduced development time or some form of compensating development. All that is great and falls neatly in the classic Zone System practice: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

However, if you use a film with a large dynamic range, say TMY or another modern high-dynamic-range film, the highlights will not block up on the film's shoulder with normal development in all but the most extreme of cases; you'll just end up with a very contrasty negative. With such a film, there are more possibilities to get the print you want.

Here are a couple of approaches:

First, the classic Zone System approach (the one you'd want with a low-dynamic-range film): Meter the lowest shadow you still want some detail in, place that in Zone II or III (depending on your vision and how much detail you really want in the shadow) and determine your exposure. Now meter the other values in the scene and come up with a development scheme that will keep all those values within or close to the dynamic range of the paper you are printing with (and keeping in mind that you can always dodge and burn - often a contrastier negative that has easy areas to dodge and burn yields a better print than one that has the dynamic range compressed to match that of the printing paper).

Second, the modern variant of the Zone System that depends more on high-dynamic-range films and VC paper contrast controls: Meter as above, but then just develop normally. Use a low contrast setting/filtration for your printing paper. Dodge, burn, and maybe pre-flash your paper to get the contrasty negative's dynamic range to fit on the paper.

Third, a hybrid of sorts between the two. This is really only necessary if you determine, with your metering, that the subject luminance range is going to be too great for even your high-dynamic-range film and the contrast controls you have available from VC paper. Expose for the shadows, figure out the minimum development time reduction you need to get the negative's dynamic range down to a place where it's comfortable for you to print. An example might be pairing N-1 development with a #0 filter for VC paper.

And, since the thread here is about how to "meter for the shadows" if you don't have a spot meter, here are some metering alternatives for very contrasty scenes:

Use Phil Davis' incident metering technique described in his Beyond the Zone System method. This entails metering the incident light illuminating the shadows as well as that illuminating the lit part of the scene and calculating an exposure that retains shadow detail (and, in BTZS, gives you a development time as well).

Use an averaging or center-weighted meter (in-camera or not) and use exposure compensation to correct for the underexposure such meters usually give contrasty or high-key scenes. This requires experience and knowing your materials. However, since this kind of metering is usually used with smaller, roll-film cameras, bracketing in such situations is more economically feasible and better ensures getting a usable negative.

Or, you can just be sloppy; get yourself the film with the highest dynamic range you can find, use your camera in auto mode, err on the side of overexposure in contrasty scenes (heck, a stop or two more can't hurt, right?) and then just fire away. Develop for the manufacturer's recommended time in their recommended developer and use VC paper. I imagine that all but the most extreme scenes will be able to be printed successfully.

Really, it's underexposure and under- / overdevelopment that are the real enemies to making good prints.

Best,

Doremus
 

warden

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
3,040
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Medium Format
Or, you can just be sloppy; get yourself the film with the highest dynamic range you can find, use your camera in auto mode, err on the side of overexposure in contrasty scenes (heck, a stop or two more can't hurt, right?) and then just fire away. Develop for the manufacturer's recommended time in their recommended developer and use VC paper. I imagine that all but the most extreme scenes will be able to be printed successfully.
For the most part I do something like this, although I wouldn’t call it sloppy, but rather fast/simple when fast/simple is what I need or want. Give TMax400 ample light and it is quite forgiving and easy to print on VC paper too.
 

Philippe-Georges

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
2,672
Location
Flanders Fields
Format
Medium Format
I found that the exposure latitude of slide film is too narrow to bother with shadows. Take the light readings without the sky and the exposure will be correct and there will be some shadow detail included without blowing out the highlights.

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).
 

Castrillo

Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
23
Location
España
Format
35mm
If you don't have a spot meter the only way is to approach them...or buy a spot meter.

"expose for the shadows, print for the highlights". That's a simple way of referring to the Zone System. But applying the Zone System is not this, this is just a simplification. In the application of the Zone System the Tonal Range of the Scene is measured, to know where each zone falls and how it should be developed and the best way to do it is with a spot meter.
The Zone System does not go into a post.

Not taking into account the highlights in my opinion is a mistake, because where there is none, nothing can be obtained.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
It was the developing part that bothered me in the beginning, then I 'dropped' it, but still...
If I read what is explained here, I think I'm more likely to use some kind of a very simplified version of the Zone System, which I wouldn't dare to call zone system, absolutely not, but I can live with it...

Quite similar with me. Even the metering part, except when the scene is “not normal “, bothered me and I dropped it in lieu of simpler metering techniques to achieve same/similar goals.

And those other metering techniques are in no way “sloppy”! (I think I know what was meant by that phrase but consider it a poor choice of words.) Even ZS can be sloppy the way some people seem to practice it just as it can be so finicky it practically precludes photography the way others practice it. :wink:

I use the Zone System visualization aspect no matter how I meter or develop. And because of that I’d never claim to be a ZS practitioner even when using a spot meter in a pseudo-ZS scene analysis application.
 

Castrillo

Member
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
23
Location
España
Format
35mm
The correct phrase is "expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights".



Believe me, I make an effort to find the best translator and also look at what americans write.

I have always heard "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights". It's always worked for me when I do it. I usually shoot in manual and just point the lens at the darkest subject in the scene, set my exposure with TTL meter and shoot away. Doesn't matter what I set my ISO/ASA at. If it's neg film I usually over expose 1 stop my setting my ISO/ASA to one stop less from box speed depending on the film. i.e 400 film at 200 on my camera. Pretty simple really.



Thank you, I like your version. Please be patient
 

faberryman

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Believe me, I make an effort to find the best translator and also look at what americans write.

Evidently Derek is not familiar with the concepts of the Zone System. I do not know where he learned the phrase "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights", or even what it means.

Thank you, I like your version. Please be patient

The phrase is the crux of the Zone System.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Two different things to address here: I'll start with transparency film.

With transparency film (slides, chromes, whatever you call it), use of the Zone System and the adage of exposing for the shadows is reversed. You should be basing exposures for transparency film on the highlights. Due to the rather limited dynamic range of transparency film, you should be aiming for a textured/detailed white at two stops over the meter reading. Usually, then, the shadows just fall where they may, since there are very few practical contrast controls. However, for very contrasty scenes, there are a couple of things that can be done including flashing the film at Zone II or thereabouts or asking for development "pulls" from the lab.

If you're using an averaging or incident meter with transparency film, you need to recognize contrasty situations and give more exposure so the highlights don't block up. The shadows are going to go black (maybe it would be better to come back on a cloudy day?).

The Zone System was really developed for black-and-white negative materials and is at its best there, so on to that topic:

Shadows in the shade together with shadows in the lit areas together with brightly lit areas in a scene is about as contrasty a situation as you can find. Think crepuscular shadows inside a dark structure but with a sunlit scene in a large open window and you want to get detail in all of that.

First, some considerations:

Film choice for situations like this are important. If you're using a film that has a limited dynamic range and shoulders off quickly, then exposing for the shadows will definitely block up the highlights if development is "normal." So, the only way you're going to get the image you want with this film is to use a reduced development time or some form of compensating development. All that is great and falls neatly in the classic Zone System practice: Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights.

However, if you use a film with a large dynamic range, say TMY or another modern high-dynamic-range film, the highlights will not block up on the film's shoulder with normal development in all but the most extreme of cases; you'll just end up with a very contrasty negative. With such a film, there are more possibilities to get the print you want.

Here are a couple of approaches:

First, the classic Zone System approach (the one you'd want with a low-dynamic-range film): Meter the lowest shadow you still want some detail in, place that in Zone II or III (depending on your vision and how much detail you really want in the shadow) and determine your exposure. Now meter the other values in the scene and come up with a development scheme that will keep all those values within or close to the dynamic range of the paper you are printing with (and keeping in mind that you can always dodge and burn - often a contrastier negative that has easy areas to dodge and burn yields a better print than one that has the dynamic range compressed to match that of the printing paper).

Second, the modern variant of the Zone System that depends more on high-dynamic-range films and VC paper contrast controls: Meter as above, but then just develop normally. Use a low contrast setting/filtration for your printing paper. Dodge, burn, and maybe pre-flash your paper to get the contrasty negative's dynamic range to fit on the paper.

Third, a hybrid of sorts between the two. This is really only necessary if you determine, with your metering, that the subject luminance range is going to be too great for even your high-dynamic-range film and the contrast controls you have available from VC paper. Expose for the shadows, figure out the minimum development time reduction you need to get the negative's dynamic range down to a place where it's comfortable for you to print. An example might be pairing N-1 development with a #0 filter for VC paper.

And, since the thread here is about how to "meter for the shadows" if you don't have a spot meter, here are some metering alternatives for very contrasty scenes:

Use Phil Davis' incident metering technique described in his Beyond the Zone System method. This entails metering the incident light illuminating the shadows as well as that illuminating the lit part of the scene and calculating an exposure that retains shadow detail (and, in BTZS, gives you a development time as well).

Use an averaging or center-weighted meter (in-camera or not) and use exposure compensation to correct for the underexposure such meters usually give contrasty or high-key scenes. This requires experience and knowing your materials. However, since this kind of metering is usually used with smaller, roll-film cameras, bracketing in such situations is more economically feasible and better ensures getting a usable negative.

Or, you can just be sloppy; get yourself the film with the highest dynamic range you can find, use your camera in auto mode, err on the side of overexposure in contrasty scenes (heck, a stop or two more can't hurt, right?) and then just fire away. Develop for the manufacturer's recommended time in their recommended developer and use VC paper. I imagine that all but the most extreme scenes will be able to be printed successfully.

Really, it's underexposure and under- / overdevelopment that are the real enemies to making good prints.

Best,

Doremus

Thanks for your ideas. With chromes, I go for average using an incident meter, or an 10% spot reflective meter, or lately, my digital camera using its's exposure setting checking the screen view and histogram & blinkies. Then, I might just close down 1/2 stop.. I'm experimenting with using the digital camera as a meter and I'm not sure its readings translate effectively yet. It's a work in progress. If I see that the range of stops is too high, I'll use a GND.

With BW negative film like Tmax 100 or Tmax 400 set at box speeds, I'll follow the same procedures and add 1/2 stop for good measure. Maybe I should add 1 stop?
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,455
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I found that the exposure latitude of slide film is too narrow to bother with shadows. Take the light readings without the sky and the exposure will be correct and there will be some shadow detail included without blowing out the highlights.

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.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Evidently Derek is not familiar with the concepts of the Zone System. I do not know where he learned the phrase "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights", or even what it means.



The phrase is the crux of the Zone System.

Yes, while true, from what I have been hearing from others here, a modified Zone System for use with variable contrast paper is being used, in which "expose for the shadows, print for the highlights" is a working guide for them. So it actually makes some sense, tho it is not how I use the Zone System as a tool.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Given the profound changes in photographic materials, perhaps it’s time for ZS to retire? Kinda like Dunn’s duplex metering was good until it became OBE (by popular demand… but not me). :smile:
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,079
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Retire an understanding of how light 'works'? Odd..... 😎
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Retire an understanding of how light 'works'? Odd..... 😎

LOL… I understand your comment on my comment!

Not suggesting to retire sensitometry but, rather, the words and their associated baggage and the mystique that all other metering/processing/scanning/printing alternatives are wrong or sloppy.
 

Craig

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 8, 2004
Messages
2,330
Location
Calgary
Format
Multi Format
Given the profound changes in photographic materials, perhaps it’s time for ZS to retire? Kinda like Dunn’s duplex metering was good until it became OBE (by popular demand… but not me). :smile:

Given the changes in the way film speed is defined, it could be said that the zone system has been obsolete since 1960.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,526
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Given the changes in the way film speed is defined, it could be said that the zone system has been obsolete since 1960.

I see your point, but that won’t sell books or gain anyone name recognition… let alone sainthood by repeated repetition. :smile:
 

faberryman

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2016
Messages
6,048
Location
Wherever
Format
Multi Format
Given the changes in the way film speed is defined, it could be said that the zone system has been obsolete since 1960.

Except that in the Zone System you don't rely on the manufacturer's ISO. You determine your own film speed. The fact that the ASA speeds were doubled in 1960 to eliminate the safety factor has no bearing on that calculation. (See Adams, The Negative (1981), pp. 240 et seq.)
 
Last edited:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom