The Zone System is Dead

[Stephen Benskin]

Nice to see you back, Stephen.

Thanks. Good to see so many of the experts still around.

Having only glanced at the video, I was struck by the missed opportunity to fully utilize the step tablet. It was good to see someone using the paper as a determinant for the film development aim, but not attempting to ascertain the values from the film and paper seems like a waste. One way the results are numerically defined and can be effectively communicated, and the other way they're not. On the subject of whether the Zone System is dead or not, the OP has only demonstrated a method of testing. The Zone System's strength come from associating the visual aspects of image making with sensitometry. At best, the OP can only postulate he has a better testing methodology. To which I would like to offer Beyond the Zone System or actual sensitometry for consideration.

 

[Bill Burk]

Good to hear from you Stephen!
I agree it seems wasteful to not try to find the values from film and paper. But I applaud OP for developing a completely independent system without using any of the original ideas. It’s like the kid who spelled “usage” “yowzitch”

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

To me, the Zone System comes down to this. Intention and visualization.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

Good to hear from you Stephen!
I agree it seems wasteful to not try to find the values from film and paper. But I applaud OP for developing a completely independent system without using any of the original ideas. It’s like the kid who spelled “usage” “yowzitch”

Thanks Bill. Perhaps the biggest hole in the Zone System books is that Adams doesn't deal with the sensitometry of paper. I'm not exactly sure where he writes how the print is the creative side, so it's not necessary to deal with paper sensitometry. There's lots of instructions on how to test a negative, but little to none how to relate it all to the paper LER. The savor is the little table of aim negative density ranges tucked toward the back of The Negative. I don't think it was in the earlier editions. While the aim values are not correct, they at least offer some value to test for..

 

[Bill Burk]

Thanks Bill. Perhaps the biggest hole in the Zone System books is that Adams doesn't deal with the sensitometry of paper. I'm not exactly sure where he writes how the print is the creative side, so it's not necessary to deal with paper sensitometry. There's lots of instructions on how to test a negative, but little to none how to relate it all to the paper LER.

Kodak wrote similar cautions. That the choice of paper LER for a particular negative might be suggested by the numbers but in the end it’s a subjective decision.

I often tell how I was poised to do paper tests until I found two negatives - one that was almost too contrasty for grade 2 and the other that was thin and flat and just barely looked good on grade 3.

After that I had my hammer and screwdriver. So long as I aim for a negative between those extremes I can get a print.

All my effort goes towards falling between those two negatives because I really don’t want to print anything harder to handle than that.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I wonder how often the high priests of previsualization changed their minds mid-session in the darkroom, and printed it different themselves - My guess would be 80% of the time. A manifesto is one thing, the real-world interaction of neg and paper another.

 

[faberryman]

I wonder how often the high priests of previsualization changed their minds mid-session in the darkroom, and printed it different themselves - My guess would be 80% of the time. A manifesto is one thing, the real-world interaction of neg and paper another.

You mean post-visualization? Score vs. performance, which I think is something AA addressed. Certainly printed Moonrise differently during the course of his life. Curious where you came up with your 80% figure. Is that your experience with your own work? You see something in the field and use all your skill to capture it, and then change your mind completely when you get in the darkroom. Nothing wrong with that though. It's the final image that counts.

 

[mark]

Click bait title. Too bad. If he had dropped a hot model into the thumbnail title page for Youtube it would have been total cliche click bait. At least the OP did not go that far.

Lofty claim to make and does not reach the heights it hopes for.

 

[DREW WILEY]

My own rate is a lot closer to 100%. I do previsualize to the extent I routinely bag versatile, accurately-exposed and well-processed negs. But then the real dance begins in the printing session. Otherwise, the 80% remark was a sheer guess.

 

[cliveh]

Development and printing technique has little effect on what you captured in the camera. For me capture is the supreme goal.

 

[DREW WILEY]

How do you figure that? All photograhy is ultimately a form of illusionism, some convincing, some not. The mere fact you've pointed a camera a particular direction and selectively transposed a 3-dimensional world onto a 2-dimensional rectangular surface means all bets are off. And this is itself meaningless unless its viewable. Capture what? A wink don't get a gal to the Prom, and a mere neg ain't a picture yet.

 

[cliveh]

How do you figure that? All photograhy is ultimately a form of illusionism, some convincing, some not. The mere fact you've pointed a camera a particular direction and selectively transposed a 3-dimensional world onto a 2-dimensional rectangular surface means all bets are off. And this is itself meaningless unless its viewable. Capture what? A wink don't get a gal to the Prom, and a mere neg ain't a picture yet.

In a few years technology will have advanced to make the most dismal negative/print into the most wonderful image. But it can't change the original capture.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Doubt that. Too easy always seems to gravitate to mediocrity. But even given "perfect capture" to begin with, there's a thousand different ways to print it, and that's what separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

 

[faberryman]

[

Doubt that. Too easy always seems to gravitate to mediocrity. But even given "perfect capture" to begin with, there's a thousand different ways to print it, and that's what separates the men from the boys, so to speak.

"Perfect capture" gives you the ability to exercise your creativity in the darkroom. Poor exposure/development hampers you. Everything matters.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

[
"Perfect capture" gives you the ability to exercise your creativity in the darkroom. Poor exposure/development hampers you. Everything matters.

Seems like we've gone almost full-circle now "Perfect Capture" = Proper Exposure and Development for your subject and your vision....

Remind me again why the Zone System was developed... I seem to have forgotten...

Doremus

 

[DREW WILEY]

Perfect ain't perfect if it's a straightjacket allowing no wiggle-out. I've got way better process control than most. But no matter how you slice the pie, "previsualization" and an actual print are never synonymous. Maybe that could be more realistically stated when shooting color film for an actual slide show back in the day. But here we're gnawing on film to print jargon.

 

[cliveh]

You can print a negative a million different ways over many years, but you can't change the time of capture on the negative.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Duuh.

 

[ericdan]

Johnny also says it's dead.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe the living dead, and not going away anytime soon!

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Perfect ain't perfect if it's a straightjacket allowing no wiggle-out. I've got way better process control than most. But no matter how you slice the pie, "previsualization" and an actual print are never synonymous. Maybe that could be more realistically stated when shooting color film for an actual slide show back in the day. But here we're gnawing on film to print jargon.

Exactly! "Perfect" is based on what your desired results are. I don't know how exact my "previsualization" is, but I have a pretty good idea of what I want a print to look like and communicate at the time of exposure. Sure, that gets modified during the printing stage (just like a musical composition gets modified during the performing stage, to extend the old analogy), but some more-or-less specific guiding vision is there for me, which is based on why I made the image in the first place. Sometimes I have to compromise, sometimes I find new avenues for expression, but, at the time of exposure, there was an image of a finished print in my head. I base my exposure and development on what will allow me to achieve my original intention, which may or may not be what many would consider "correct." I am at the same time, however, trying to optimize possibilities for what I'm trying to communicate and for unforeseen possibilities at the printing stage. To that extent, my visualization continues to guide my technique, and not vice-versa.

Best,

Doremus

 

[Doylefotografix]

It’s all about visualisation. Don’t forget there were photogs and printers before Mr Adams, and I love looking at their photos too. One can become very technical when printing but again, it’s an artists impression. The world is not b+w, it’s colourful, so we are already abstracting from reality.

 

[ypkennedy]

Good to hear from you Stephen!
I agree it seems wasteful to not try to find the values from film and paper. But I applaud OP for developing a completely independent system without using any of the original ideas. It’s like the kid who spelled “usage” “yowzitch”

Hi, do you and Stephen mean finding the film and paper values using a densitometer (or densitometers)? Thanks.

 

[Bill Burk]

Hi, do you and Stephen mean finding the film and paper values using a densitometer (or densitometers)? Thanks.

Hi ypkennedy!

First off, I applaud your ingenuity and originality. I like the fact you start with the Stouffer scale.

Densitometers used to cost thousands of dollars, but now are relatively cheap. That's good, but what's bad about the available used densitometers is that you take a bit of a risk... It might not work. There's a popular model where its replacement light bulb is hundreds of dollars. That's silly.

I have a Macbeth TR-524 densitometer that cost me not much more than shipping. It's electronic and I worry one day it will just not power on. But it works now and I can get bulbs for it at my local Ace hardware store. To back that up, I have a Marshall Studios densitometer. It's a visual densitometer based on the law of inverse squares. It uses an ordinary light bulb that travels back and forth. There is nothing that can go wrong with that.

Anyway so long as the Macbeth works, I have reflected-light and transmitted-light modes and I can read the densities of my film and paper quickly.

A little time spent plotting graphs gives me sensitometric curves to work with. Like you, I have a derived chart (Time-Contrast Index) for film, so I can quickly decide how much development I want to give a particular sheet or roll of film... based on the original scene.

Don't read too much into my criticism that "it seems wasteful not to use densitometry".

The "waste" I mention is that you may have inconsistent outomes of "speed" because you are evaluating the resulting print visually.

I might shoot my film at the same "speed" as you. But I know the film speed is its ISO speed, and I'm choosing a different speed to get the quality I want...

While you are looking at the quality you want and picking the speed that gives that to you.

Not sure there is any difference, so I say not to read too much into my critique, because I know you'll get excellent results.

 

[Arklatexian]

I agree with the others that what made the zone systme most useful was connecting the photographers vision of what he/she wants when the negative is printed. In terms of how to determine personal EI or ISO for any given film and developer combo that goes beyond AA system, John Schaefer's The Ansel Adams Guide Book 2 has a chapter on testing film with step wedges using a view camera, not just sheet film, roll film as well. Then there is always Phil Davis's Beyond the Zone System. For a very easy method Kodak printed a method for a ring around test, found most later editions of the later editions of the Kodak Processional Black and White Films, no need for step wedge or densitometry.

Most of the Commercial photographers in this area who were not self taught and some that were used the Kodak ring around tests but for those who have made up their minds that all testing is a waste of time, no system will work except the disproven and very expensive "system" of "trial and error" and "hope that you get lucky and make a good print". I played that game for a long time too. It is nice to know ahead of time what the negatives will look like so you can spend most or all your time visualizing......Regards!.≥...(Somewhere I have the Kodak Professional Black and White Films book. I must try to find it.