Is this sacrilege?

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Personally, I find some of the information useful. As folks move away from darkroom printing but still shoots film and scans their images this might be fine.

http://www.johnnypatience.com/the-zone-system-is-dead/

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Nope. Not sacrilege. You go with what works for you... but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Zone System is dead. I think everyone who uses this system (myself included) modifies it to suit their needs.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Nope. Not sacrilege. You go with what works for you... but I wouldn't go as far as to say that the Zone System is dead. I think everyone who uses this system (myself included) modifies it to suit their needs.

I do the same. I use it to pre-visualize an image. I tell my wife the optometrist that our eyes have amazing dynamic range compared to film. I discovered that through the Zone System.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Zone Systems, not Zone System.

 

[juan]

This guy "overexposed" Tri-X 400 at 200. That's what most Zone System photographers who test do.

 

[MattKing]

Bad conclusion. The Zone Systems are more limited in application than they once were but, like film, are far from dead.

 

[cliveh]

It seems all about process and technique. What about the subject and context?

 

[pentaxuser]

I note that any dissenters( the few that there are) are thanked politely but then given "short shrift" or fail to get real answers to their questions.

He equates XP2 to Fuju Neopan 1600 in answer to question from an admirer but fails to say why he believes the two films are such a good match. He fails to point out that D3200 does not have this speed so overexposing it by a couple of stops gets one close to its real speed or at best gives it maybe a slight overexposure.

He exposes Tri-X on a sunny day at 1/1000th at f2 with great results apparently which surprises me somewhat. That's even more that his famous 5 stops over, isn't it? Wow! But hey, he's a rebel and proud of it. He's a breath of fresh air but so is a hurricane, isn't it

I also note that while he shows his prints from overexposed and overdeveloped negatives( the dog on the snow is an example of massive overexposure and some overdevelopment) he has no comparisons with prints of negs simply developed to manufacturer's times at box speed. Yes film like Tri-X can handle massive overexposure but it is large leap of faith to believe that less than 5 stops is less than optimal.

I wonder if Ilford is re-considering its production of any film less than 400, given the conclusions reached in this article?

He makes no mention of film speed testing which as others have said often results in personal film speed being up to a stop less.

People love evangelists who always are certain of everything. Faith is vital. Doubters clearly need educating to embrace the warmth that the truth can provide

pentaxuser

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

The Zone System was invented at time before VC papers and film scanners. Just like anything in life. Take was applicable and throw away the rest. However, don't assume that everybody (photographer) is the same. Some photographers like Ralph Gibson would overrate the ASA for shadows without details. I think he processes his film so some areas have no highlight details either. As long as we know what look we want and not be dogmatic about it. I think photographers should experiment with various exposures and development times.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'll mention one friend among several as an example: he was hiking with me around a decade ago rather often. I carried a view camera. He had his
DLSR. After peeking through the groundglass a few times and seeing the actual prints, he tossed his digital camera and got a nice Mamiya MF film SLR. Then he bought a fixer-upper house with plans for a darkroom, but in the interim spooled his film into developing tank in a film tent, then scanned it after development to see if he was on the right track. Unfortunately, it's hard to fine-tune your exposures and development unless you print too. But then came along three kids, so he's still scanning (if he has time to shoot at all). Otherwise, the fundamentals of film sensitometry
have never changed; so the Zone System is potentially as relevant as ever. But it's just another tool, like your light meter itself. Therefore I don't
have much patience for these Johnny Patience types. Much ado about nothing. I found Zone System theory helpful as a beginner, but have long since
ignored it. After awhile, things just become intuitive and spontaneous.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

After awhile, things just become intuitive and spontaneous.

That's so Zen.

 

[Saganich]

Thus Spoke Zarathustra. JP like FN welcomes this death, however, as the parable goes the madman realizes no one cares all that much, smashes his lantern and disappears back up the mountain. I'm glad that JP figured out what is obvious to anyone working in traditional and digital processing...enlargers and scanners aren't the same.

 

[Leigh B]

And another meaningless thread title from the coon man.

- Leigh

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You can fix anything (practically) if you scan. The only death is that which isn't on the film. I read his diatribe about a week or two ago and can't say much other than he is sloppy. People lap up those outrageous claims though. Just like the guys that claimed they shot Tri-X at 25000 years ago. Total crap. No matter how exceptionally you think of yourself, you can't avoid the laws of physics. He really is just spewing click bait. The more outrageous the better in these times.

 

[klownshed]

Its a click bait headline, seemingly doing its job. You have to shout to get noticed...

I quite like his photos, so whatever method he is using, he's getting the results he wants.

The zone system is just one way of doing things, not the only way. When you read about it online, there are clearly some very talented photographers that use the zone system to good effect. There are also a lot of pretensions wannabes that like to show off their superiority over those of us that dare not bother 'placing' our zones. They often use technique and theory to mask the fact they can't take a decent photo ;-)

For me, the zone system makes no sense unless you are using sheet film. The workarounds for 35mm or 120 just seem like excersises in complicating life for no reason. YMMV. If you enjoy the zone system, great, that's what it's all about. But some of us get the results we want without it.

If I fail to get a printable negative, it's usually down to perosnal stupidity (recently not noticing I have my camera in Bulb mode seems to be a recurring theme!) not because I haven't used the zone system.

But the method the photographer referenced in the OP uses is one he's worked out for himself through his own experiences and tests. That's quit Ansel Adamsy if you think about it

The headline is to be ignored. It did its job getting us to look at his article. If he really feels the zone system should be abandoned by everybody, he is as absolute as AA was back in the day, a trait of AA I don't admire.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

The Zone System is a visualization too. The principles of sensitometry and tone reproduction that it simplifies are still valid. There's no free lunch.

Sure, you can overexpose several stops with black-and-white film and make stunning prints (I've done it myself many times, sometimes even on purpose ). But, overexposure will affect graininess. With large-format and today's less-grainy films, this is less of an issue, but it's still there. Try making a 16x20 from an overexposed 35mm neg and the same from one ideally exposed (i.e., with minimum exposure to retain all desired information) and you'll see the difference in the grain.

On the other hand, most beginners (and many "experienced") photographers have problems due to underexposure. Overexposing your film ensures that you avoid these and I can see that for many the overall results will be superior to what they had before. If I had an important scene to shoot and no reliable meter, you bet I'd overexpose!

I think it's a bit humorous that this guy is trying to discredit the Zone System, but then goes on to say how he exposes for the shadows, errs on the side of overexposure, etc., using typical ZS approaches but is blissfully unaware that the visualization of the final print (i.e., knowing what you want before you trip the shutter) is the central pillar of the ZS. Oh well.

Best,

Doremus

 

[derelict]

It works for him. I like his results. He likes his results. He is simply sharing what works for him and backing it up with example shots. I do not see why everyone is freaking out so much. He shoots film, scans, and then prints. Same as I do. I enjoyed reading his blog entry.

You guys getting so worked up over the title of a blog entry from a photographer no one knows is hilarious.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

And another meaningless thread title from the coon man.

- Leigh

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Absolutely nothing new in the link. Reinventing the wheel.

What is new in this APUG thread is proponents of scanning. Those must be forwarded to D.P.U.G. If you are looser who can't get it done in the darkroom, share in on D.P.U.G.

 

[Alan Klein]

I bracket my shots (medium format) and then scan them and look at the histogram to select the one that has the most info in the center of the histogram to use. Does that make sense to you?

 

[derelict]

If you are looser who can't get it done in the darkroom, share in on D.P.U.G.

Do the people on DPUG hold on tighter to things? I have a pretty firm grip. Maybe I belong over there.

 

[DREW WILEY]

We have a cat who had a histogram, so that she won't have any more kittens.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Absolutely nothing new in the link. Reinventing the wheel.

What is new in this APUG thread is proponents of scanning. Those must be forwarded to D.P.U.G. If you are looser who can't get it done in the darkroom, share in on D.P.U.G.

What a rude comment.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

We have a cat who had a histogram, so that she won't have any more kittens.

I think a mammogram is a topless messaging service.