Need some help with the Zone System

[Craig]

If using 35mm, set meter to box speed, set metering mode to matrix/evaluative (Nikon/Canon respectively) and shoot. Done. Beautiful negatives with no fuss, no muss.

I have done the full zone system analysis (paralysis?) of a scene, placed shadows and spot metered galore and them metered the same scene with my Nikon on matrix metering. The result was the same suggested exposure, and obviously the Nikon is much faster. I prefer to get an exposure suggestion the easy way, and I find the zone system sis the hard way.

 

[Craig]

The secret is to just hang around awhile, and don't make any sudden moves, until they start ignoring you.

I had the 4x5 set up in Banff National Park and an Elk got curious about the camera and came over for a look. I waited until he got to where I had prefocused and then took the photo. Only time I have photographed large wildlife with a 4x5.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I'm just waiting till someone gets gored by an elk bull here, getting inside their defensive circle around calves for a closeup or selfie. I stick with either a long telephoto on my P67, or a 450 lens on my 4X5 monorail. But I admit that neither is the best setup when bulls get into a fight and are chasing one another all over the place. For that kind of thing, the wildlife pros have the better gear. When my Dad was a surveyor on an Idaho Fed dam project, there was an infamous bull elk that would stand in the road blocking it each morning. If any car didn't give that bull either a cigarette or wad of pipe tobacco to chew, it would smash the windshield with an antler. That actually happened to my dad on his first day of work there. After that, he always had tobacco handy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Matrix metering and so forth is no substitute for the Zone System. I'm not implying it doesn't work to an extent - but it's an entirely different approach, which might have its seeming convenience benefits, but cannot in fact give you as much control over shadows and highlights as a specific conscious evaluation of those via precise point metering.
Just for fun and practice, I've also compared TTL Nikon results with the more methodical approach, and know all too well the shortcomings. But I really do like to skate on the extreme edges of the ice rink, and it shows in many of my prints. But that doesn't mean I use the ZS per se. I have my own shortcuts which are even more precise.

 

[Paul Howell]

Carson Graves wrote the Zone System for 35mm photographers, I've used some of his techs, he does emphasize visualizations and choices that can made for a range of final prints. But with roll film no matter how one approaches a given scene you can either set the shadows or the highlights, one way or another the shadows or highlights will fall where they may. Sheet film is the only medium that allows for complete control allowed by the zone system. The workshop I attended with Minor White helped me understand the relationship between exposure, shadows, highlights, and development relate one to another. When shooting landscapes and such with roll film I use the camera spot meter or handheld, meter shadows zone III and develop for zone VII then fix as needed in printing. Shooting action, matrix metering.

 

[Bill Burk]

We still don't know:

1) What format the OP is using
2) What his goal is

In another thread we can infer he’s using:

35mm vintage Minolta SLR whose battery needs to be mercury or adapted to 1.35 volt for accuracy. 400 speed Ilford film developed to ASA specs in Ilford ID-11 1:1.

Exposures vary towards overexposure in many cases. Grain is higher than he thought it should be.

 

[Bill Burk]

If using 35mm, set meter to box speed, set metering mode to matrix/evaluative (Nikon/Canon respectively) and shoot. Done. Beautiful negatives with no fuss, no muss.

I have to figure out how to fix the latch on the back of the Nikon that was given me. Why did they make it plastic?

 

[Craig]

Why did they make it plastic?

So it will break and then you'll buy a new camera!

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Thanks. I think I asked you this before and will try my best effort to not forget the answer!

Don’t put too much effort into it as their point is well made in the available material.

Hey Brian,

Found an original copy and that was the end of the text. There's a short acknowledgement and bibliography but that's it. Fortunately most of the relevant bibs are scattered though out the paper.

There is also an abridged version published in the Journal of the SMPTE. Ironically, I'm having problems creating a pdf file of the abridgement small enough to upload.

Stephen

 

[Paul Howell]

Matrix metering and so forth is no substitute for the Zone System. I'm not implying it doesn't work to an extent - but it's an entirely different approach, which might have its seeming convenience benefits, but cannot in fact give you as much control over shadows and highlights as a specific conscious evaluation of those via precise point metering.
Just for fun and practice, I've also compared TTL Nikon results with the more methodical approach, and know all too well the shortcomings. But I really do like to skate on the extreme edges of the ice rink, and it shows in many of my prints. But that doesn't mean I use the ZS per se. I have my own shortcuts which are even more precise.

I have used my Minolta 800si and Sigma SA9 bodies with matrix to meter for 4X5 and got good results, as long as I was not looking to place a highlight out of it's natural zone. In terms of 35mm, only a crippled version of the zone will work with roll film, shooting action, get printable negatives and fix in printing. If a person is not practicing visualization or previsualization I just don't see the point, the zone is a lot of work, for a record shot, incident metering, spot meter to find V 18% gray, or a average metering, even sunny 16 works. When I shoot 35mm landscapes, spot meter for Zone III and develop for zone VII I am only looking for printable shadows and highlights, not really visualizing.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I shoot a lot of roll film these days (mostly Fuji 6X9 RF). I get very precise results even in extreme lighting via true spot metering, with an appropriate film and development, of course. The whole process is second-nature for me. I don't even think about step A, step B, step C, etc. The composition counts; everything else should be almost spontaneous.
That comes with time and experience. There are obviously instances when you can shoot under the same lighting for several hours or more, and don't need repeat readings. Many other times, the lighting is constantly shifting, and you need to be more careful.

I'm not a Zone System junkie. But what it does teach is the importance of knowing where your boundaries lie. And for that reason, a center-point (18% Zone V) reading in less than ideal in high contrast black and white scenarios, while taking actual readings of the extremes is generally beneficial.

But "Visualization/previsualization" can become a kooky religion, like how Minor White attached mystical significances to specific zones of gray. If it made his clock tick, fine; but his natural orbit was somewhere between Neptune and Pluto anyway. I have no doubt whatsoever that, just like the rest of us, he had to wrestle with the negative awhile during a printing session to really know what he could get out of it in a satisfying manner. I must point out once again how the prime object is to get a reasonably versatile negative which brackets our contemplated outcome in print fashion, but doesn't exclude other renderings, since we really don't know until we get our hands and eyes involved in the printing aspect as well.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

I must point out once again how the prime object is to get a reasonably versatile negative which brackets our contemplated outcome in print fashion, but doesn't exclude others renderings, since we really don't know until we get our hands and eyes involved in the printing aspect as well.

Exactly. A negative that contains a little more than can be printed (at normal contrast) is not a bad thing. That's what I strive for. If needed, a little dodging or burning-in can help. Also, placing your hand on the paper in the developer can sometimes get a stubborn highlight to darken just a bit. Your body heat is the key. You learn lots of tricks if you read old books.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

How, pray tell, is one supposed to calculate all this while photographing a soccer match? We still don't know what format the OP is using. It sounds like he is using 35mm or roll film.

No calculations necessary. How's the lighting for that soccer match? Contrasty? Then compensate a stop or two with your exposure compensation and fire away using the camera set on auto if you like. Whether you choose one or two stops compensation depends on how contrasty you judge the scene to be compared to normal. Yes, you've got to have some experience; a practiced eye and a drawer full of failures, but once you can reliably recognize contrastier-than-normal situations, then it's EZPZ. You just have to compensate for the in-camera meter's tendency to underexpose contrasty scenes.

And, I was responding to a question in a post partway through the thread, not the OP.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Thank you for the detailed explanation. Yes, that makes a lot more sense now. A final question:
These tests will create a "personalised" development time and EI for the film/developer/enlarger combination you tested with. But does the brand of VC paper you choose have a significant effect on the final print, given that you use the same filter? Similarly, is the type of paper developer that important? Again, thanks for the response.

The idea is to get a negative that has enough shadow detail to print what you want in the shadows and a contrast range that is in the middle of the extremes of whatever paper you like to use most. That will give you a good enough negative to print on just about any paper with any developer if you decide to switch to something else. Developers really don't make as much difference as they used to; the tone and contrast of modern papers are pretty well baked in. Yes, some papers are a bit more contrasty than others, but if your negative prints well on a grade 2 or 2.5 on one paper, you can easily print it on grade 1 or grade 3 on whatever other if it's more or less contrasty.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Augustus Caesar]

No calculations necessary. How's the lighting for that soccer match? Contrasty? Then compensate a stop or two with your exposure compensation and fire away using the camera set on auto if you like. Whether you choose one or two stops compensation depends on how contrasty you judge the scene to be compared to normal. Yes, you've got to have some experience; a practiced eye and a drawer full of failures, but once you can reliably recognize contrastier-than-normal situations, then it's EZPZ. You just have to compensate for the in-camera meter's tendency to underexpose contrasty scenes.

And, I was responding to a question in a post partway through the thread, not the OP.

Best,

Doremus

Right, I don't calculate. I just use a generous exposure (based on experience).

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Right, I don't calculate. I just use a generous exposure (based on experience).

Great! I'm now trying to understand why you took issue with my first post... I never mentioned calculation, just exposure compensation for contrasty situations when using averaging-type meters. Maybe you confused me with someone else.

Doremus

 

[john_s]

Remember the Minolta SLRs from decades ago with "CLC" (Contrast Light Control)? It added exposure automatically if it detected higher contrast in the scene.

 

[cliveh]

Doesn't the introduction of multigrade paper invalidate the zone system?

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Remember the Minolta SLRs from decades ago with "CLC" (Contrast Light Control)? It added exposure automatically if it detected higher contrast in the scene.

Well, sort of. If held horizontally, it gave more weight to the bottom half of the frame.

 

[MattKing]

Doesn't the introduction of multigrade paper invalidate the zone system?

No. It limits the need for it, and tends to move the emphasis from some of the technique focused parts to more of the visualization parts.
The move from sheet to roll film probably had more effect on its usability.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Doesn't the introduction of multigrade paper invalidate the zone system?

No, multigrade paper expands the possibilities of the Zone System and other things that Ansel Adams and other taught.

 

[DREW WILEY]

VC paper does make things easier. And you can largely ignore all the ole fixed paper grade straightjackets. But otherwise, if one chooses the Zone System model, it is every bit as applicable to the current VC paper era. It is still wise to aim for a "best fit" whenever possible. In fact, even though I now routinely use VC papers, straight enlarger light, unfiltered, works more often than not to give me the same contrast level as back when I standardized on Grade 3 paper, even with the same old negatives. But there are distinct advantages to the tweaks VC allows.

The notion that "visualization" and targeted process are somehow at odds with one another, requiring one to emphasized as the expense of the other, is illogical both in theory and in practice. They work hand in hand. That's the whole point. Refining your process opens the door to more easily to confirming your visualization.

And in terms of roll film, it can be just at tightly reguated for specific ZS development categories as sheet film IF one has designated interchangeable film backs, or uses a preponderance of suitable images on any particular roll of film approach.

 

[Bill Burk]

How far off does density and negative contrast have to be to create a difficult-to-print negative?

What will your experience be like in the darkroom if you aim for negatives to have qualities similar to those that the Zone System aims for?

Multigrade paper is a good thing, but negatives that can print on grade 2 or 3 are a great thing.

And all you have to do is aim.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Doesn't the introduction of multigrade paper invalidate the zone system?

The Zone System was always adapted to whatever materials were/are used. It's just practical applied sensitometry/tone reproduction. The main feature of the Zone System, i.e., being able to visualize your results (somewhat at least) before tripping the shutter is just as valid for VC papers as any other. If you know the capabilities of your materials and how to expose and develop to get the most of them, you're using half the Zone System already. Metering for visualization and creative control purposes is the other half.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Safety Factors in Camera Exposure, Abridgment. Journal of the SMPTE, July 1960