Victoms of the Zone System

[Les McLean]

For some time I've wondered if AA (and whatshisname) would have "invented" the Zone System if he'd lived in the Northeastern US or Europe rather than in the West where the extreme contrasts of the clear high altitude light almost necessitate exact contrast control. Having photographed in the East for over 50 years (even in the days of Kodachrome I), I can count on my fingers the number of times when simple exposure bracketing didn't give me a fully printable negative.

If you bracket you are half way there, for all you have done is move the contrast up or down and as you say you are certain to have made a correct exposure. However, in many lighting conditions controlling contrast by development is essential if you are to arrive at a correctly processed negative, hence the need to spend a morning testing exposure and development and the afternoon putting the results of the tests into practice. Clearly, over a period of time you learn to use the ZS as second nature but that first day establishes the principles as to how it works,ad consequently starts to remove doubts of how to expose and develop for the prevailing lighting conditions.

 

[Jorge]

For some time I've wondered if AA (and whatshisname) would have "invented" the Zone System if he'd lived in the Northeastern US or Europe rather than in the West where the extreme contrasts of the clear high altitude light almost necessitate exact contrast control. Having photographed in the East for over 50 years (even in the days of Kodachrome I), I can count on my fingers the number of times when simple exposure bracketing didn't give me a fully printable negative.

Well, I have some shots that took up to 35 minutes to expose, bracketing is not an option. Or if you are using 8x10 and larger. Having a system so that one can be sure to get all the information is better than nothing. But then it is just a system, it should not replace the "art" of making a photograph.

 

[photomc]

If you bracket you are half way there, for all you have done is move the contrast up or down and as you say you are certain to have made a correct exposure. However, in many lighting conditions controlling contrast by development is essential if you are to arrive at a correctly processed negative, hence the need to spend a morning testing exposure and development and the afternoon putting the results of the tests into practice. Clearly, over a period of time you learn to use the ZS as second nature but that first day establishes the principles as to how it works,ad consequently starts to remove doubts of how to expose and develop for the prevailing lighting conditions.

This is why I'm looking forward to Les workshop with Lee in May...to hopefully put the exposure part behind me and not have always jumbled up while trying to take a reading. What I would like to do is look at a potential photograph, find the areas of importance (to me) shadows and highlights, determine the exposure, be able to make an intelligent note about developing if needed and go off to find another. Know it's not always that simple, but darn should it always be so complicated.

 

[garryl]

As a way of getting back to the original posting about toners and the Zone movement :confused:--

"Making a Photograph; Amsel Adams; 1948; pg.68-

"The author is very conservative in his use of toners,preferring only the enrichment of the print values, and not being desirous of producing obvious
color.

...The author prefers a print of cold blue-black tone as yielding the richest values when treated with the above-mentiond toners."

the toners he mentions are KRST and Nelson Gold Toning formula.

You also must keep in mind the photo-history of the time. He was of the "straight" photograpgy movement and a founder of Group F/64. Toners, other than for archival or value enhancement, and textured papers and
fancy mounting were considered "pictorialism". Tools of the "fuzzy school" of photography- which Adams was crusading against.

MHO,

Garry

 

[gbroadbridge]

I recently purchased a copy of the Adams book 'The negative'

I have to say, having read it cover to cover, it covers the Zone system admirably, but that is something that can be learned in one day, he rest of the book is simply about placement and common sense.

Graham.

 

[WarEaglemtn]

Someone said it well before me but it works: It is the zone system, not the pinpoint system.

 

[garryl]

Someone said it well before me but it works: It is the zone system, not the pinpoint system.

No! With the pinpoint system you can get stuck.

 

[SLNestler]

Some thoughts after 30 years of teaching the Zone System:

The Zone System is a tool for making better exposures. I think that Ansel and Fred Archer did us all a service by easily codifying exposure into a simple system; simple to learn, simple to use. Over the years, several authors have made their mark by subverting it or attacking it. It certainly seems easier to write and market a book that has "Zone System" in its title, than to come up with something truly original.

I have heard the complaint over the years by students who don't want to learn the Zone System, that it may hinder their creativity. What I've observed is that their goal is the "interesting accident" I call these photographs "wonder fumbles." The Zone System, as many have said, is a tool; no more nor less than a light meter or focusing cloth. I wouldn't want to photograph without any of the three. Nor would I want to spend a great deal of my consciousness on any of the three. The excitement in my chest is the sign that an important event is going on, and I want to know that the exposure will be good enough to record that event properly.

Steven

 

[garryl]

Some thoughts after 30 years of teaching the Zone System:

What I've observed is that their goal is the "interesting accident" I call these photographs "wonder fumbles."
Steven

Isn't it amazing how many "interesting accidents" and "wonder fumbles" were produced by Robert Capa, Bill Pierce, Dr. Paul Wolff,Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Carl Mydans, Gordon Parks, W. Eugene Smith, Ralph Morse, Nina Leen, Harry Benson, Philippe Halsman,Brett Weston , David Vestal, Peter Stackpole, Peter Gowland,and other non-zone users.
Photographers that believe only in Zoning are like painter that believe only great art can be produced with certain kinds of brushes.
Guess I'd better shut up not before someone accusses me of being
Michael S. }:^)>

 

[mark]

You seemed to have missed what Steven was saying. As a lot of folks have said: The ZOne System is a tool, nothing else. Just like like DBI, BTZS, a cable release, and light meter it is a tool, not a religion, or sexual orientation. Yes plenty of folks have been very successful without it and plenty have been very successful with it. It really does not go any further than that does it?

 

[garryl]

You seemed to have missed what Steven was saying.

I don't think so. Reread paragraph three.

As a lot of folks have said: The ZOne System is a tool, nothing else. Just like like DBI, BTZS, a cable release, and light meter it is a tool, not a religion, or sexual orientation.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION! Well there was that condom jellyfish reference in Ansel autobiography. }:^)>

Yes plenty of folks have been very successful without it and plenty have been very successful with it. It really does not go any further than that does it?

try telling that to a true Zonie!

 

[mark]

I read paragraph three and I guess we are interpreting it differently. I got the ZS is a tool just like anything else.

I guess all of those really cool photos taken in the 1800's with no light meter means a light meter is not necessary either. But if you use it as a tool then you are in better control of what your final print wil wlook like. Having printed many glass plates from this era I can say for certain that a light meter is a really good tool, but not necessary. Use it if you want, just like the zone system, or other exposure method.

 

[Ole]

DBI was mentioned here, and that's relevant to understanding the purpose of the zone system.

When all films were orthochromatic, all development was by inspection. Beutler describes a system of three developers with different properties: The negative would be started in one; then if inspection showed it to be overexposed it was moved to another; if underexposed (only weak traces after several minutes) it went into the third to develop to completion.

Panchromatic film and its popularity ended this. Film could now only be developed in darkness - at least most of the time - or inspected using brief flashes of dim light. This is far from easy, at least compared to the relatively bright red safelighs for ortho.

So a quick rule was "expose for the shadows; develop for the highlights". Very neat, but...

The zone system is an attempt to answer the inescapable question following the quick rule: "How much?"

And that is all it is. Simple questions often have complex answers, but to me the zone system is the simple answer to the "how much".

Of course DBI is even simpler, when you know your film and your developer well enough that you could almost write your own "system" about it.

 

[SLNestler]

Isn't it amazing how many "interesting accidents" and "wonder fumbles" were produced by Robert Capa, Bill Pierce, Dr. Paul Wolff,Alfred Eisenstaedt, Margaret Bourke-White, Carl Mydans, Gordon Parks, W. Eugene Smith, Ralph Morse, Nina Leen, Harry Benson, Philippe Halsman,Brett Weston , David Vestal, Peter Stackpole, Peter Gowland,and other non-zone users.
Photographers that believe only in Zoning are like painter that believe only great art can be produced with certain kinds of brushes.
Guess I'd better shut up not before someone accusses me of being
Michael S. }:^)>

Garry,

Let me attempt more clarity;

The Zone System is, as stated, a tool. It is certainly not the only way to achieve good exposure. However, I believe the alternative, if you expect to be consistent, is many years of keen observation and experience; that is what so many people on your list used so well. You don't list the millions of people who tried photography, and found it too difficult. The Zone System is a way of giving easier, more consistent results.

There are many other examples. When I look at an iconic image, like Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother," it never occurs to me to care about how she arrived at her exposure or development. Those considerations are so minor, compared with the emotional content of the image. As one who has had the privilege of printing her negatives, I can tell you that some of them are very difficult to print. I also know that some of my own may be difficult; even with the benefit of the Zone System; even many of Ansel Adams' were difficult. The advantage of the Zone System is merely that it makes consistently printable negatives easier.

I think it makes more sense for me to teach a group of relatively new photographers how to identify tones and the corresponding exposures a la Zone System, rather than telling them to work at trial and error for the next 20 years.

As a teacher, I have no desire to tell anyone what they should be looking for in photographing. But I constantly watch new students try to dodge in shadow detail that is below the threshold, or burn in highlights that are several stops above possible.

Even beyond that, I find that after learning the Zone System, even students who are more interested in studio digital work, or photojournalism, have a much better developed sense of tone, and are more aware of what they are exposing for. This happens in a few weeks, rather than the years it may otherwise take.

How much use the Zone System is to you in practical situations, may depend on the type of photography you do. For example, photojournalism requires more of an "f/8 and be there" ethos. But I believe that having a better sense of tonality can only make things better.

I am not a "Zone Buddhist." I am well aware of great photographers who never used it; I just think refusing to learn it may be foolish, and attacking it by one experienced enough to know better, is very foolish.

 

[Joe Lipka]

Well, here we go again with a zonistas against the world. Do that Zone System thing for a while until you understand how exposure and development work for you (you being the primary word here), then just go make some photographs.

It may not be the best exposure/development system, but no one's come up with anything better have they?

 

[Flotsam]

I don't get the problem. The Photographer decides whether he wants his shadows rich with detail or flat and black, whether he wants the Snow to be on the very edge of showing tone or darker and full of texture. All the ZS does is offer him a method on how to create a negative that will best express his interpretation of the scene. Nothing imposing about that. Anyone that doesn't want to deal with it can always just take a general reading, develop according to the data sheet and take whatever he gets.

 

[garryl]

The Zone System is a way of giving easier, mre consistent results.....
The advantage of the Zone System is merely that it makes consistently printable negatives easier.

This is the great "trap" of the Zone system- easy, more printable.
Where is it written that great photography has to be consistant and/or easier? Any photography worth doing is worth sweating over. Dodging and burning is part of the "preformance" . "Preforming" well takes prctice. How can you learn "preformance" if you only have easily printable negatives.

But I constantly watch new students try to dodge in shadow detail that is below the threshold, or burn in highlights that are several stops above possible.

An I'll bet that there're the better printers for it.

This happens in a few weeks, rather than the years it may otherwise take.

You mean the "you push the button and Photoshop will do the rest" crowd.

I am not a "Zone Buddhist." I am well aware of great photographers who never used it; I just think refusing to learn it may be foolish, and attacking it by one experienced enough to know better, is very foolish.

Your a fool for not learning it and a fool for criticizing it? Sure sounds like Zonie mantra.
There are too many teachers that require Zone
for graduation. So student come out knowing all about tone and virtually nothing about composition, selective focus, lighting. or
print finishing.

 

[SLNestler]

blue

The Zone System is a way of giving easier, mre consistent results.....
The advantage of the Zone System is merely that it makes consistently printable negatives easier.

This is the great "trap" of the Zone system- easy, more printable.
Where is it written that great photography has to be consistant and/or easier? Any photography worth doing is worth sweating over. Dodging and burning is part of the "preformance" . "Preforming" well takes prctice. How can you learn "preformance" if you only have easily printable negatives.

But I constantly watch new students try to dodge in shadow detail that is below the threshold, or burn in highlights that are several stops above possible.

An I'll bet that there're the better printers for it.

This happens in a few weeks, rather than the years it may otherwise take.

You mean the "you push the button and Photoshop will do the rest" crowd.

I am not a "Zone Buddhist." I am well aware of great photographers who never used it; I just think refusing to learn it may be foolish, and attacking it by one experienced enough to know better, is very foolish.

Your a fool for not learning it and a fool for criticizing it? Sure sounds like Zonie mantra.
There are too many teachers that require Zone
for graduation. So student come out knowing all about tone and virtually nothing about composition, selective focus, lighting. or
print finishing.

Garry,

I'm sorry you've had such bitter experience with someone using the Zone System. But learning it doesn't mean you don't learn anything else. I teach and use the Zone System. I also teach and use other things. I have no desire to force anyone to use the Zone System. But, yes, it is a requirement for graduation at my school. Many years before I got there, it was decided that for the graduates to be well educated, they needed the vocabularies; both verbal and visual, that learning it would bring.

I consider myself a craftsman, and am not interested in the easiest and fastest way to do everything. However, there is little virtue in fruitless struggle for its own sake. When shadow areas are below the threshold, you cannot dodge detail in; no matter how hard you're willing to try. And burning in a highlight that is above that threshhold just becomes muddy gray.

Garry, if you don't need the Zone System, fine; don't use it. But, if you do need it, and refuse to learn it, isn't that foolish?

And don't you think the name-calling is foolish?
Do you use a light meter? Are you "one of those meteries?"
Do you use a car? Are you one of those autoies?

Many people use it. Many people don't. Far too much energy is being spent on this topic.

 

[Jorge]

The funny thing about this, is that now we have just as many rabidly anti-zonites as we do zonites.....

 

[garryl]

I'm sorry you've had such bitter experience with someone using the Zone System.

I don't have a bitter experience with someone using the Zone System nor the System itself. I have a burr with people who think it is holy and "the best thing since sliced bread". An it is a substitue for experience.

Many years before I got there, it was decided that for the graduates to be well educated, they needed the vocabularies; both verbal and visual, that learning it would bring.

"some people believe that having the vocabulary and techniques of photography is all there is to being an artist.It isn't true." - William Mortensen.


Many people use it. Many people don't. Far too much energy is being spent on this topic.

At last agreement!

 

[Bob F.]

The funny thing about this, is that now we have just as many rabidly anti-zonites as we do zonites.....

Personally, I'm militantly anti-militant. All fanatics should be put up against a wall and shot.

Twice. And then beheaded, drawn and quartered...

And then shot again, just in case.

Then they have to apologize and say sorry, and to really, really, mean it.


Cheers, Bob.


... and then shoot them again.



The b*****ds.


.

 

[SLNestler]

The funny thing about this, is that now we have just as many rabidly anti-zonites as we do zonites.....

Jorge,
That is a funny thing. There really is no point to being rabidly for or against the Zone System, or any other method. The image is the thing; if a system helps you, fine. If it hinders you, don't use it.

I hope the name-calling can stop. I use it; I'm a photographer; not a "zonie" or a "zonite," or any other cutesie epithet.

My understand is that this forum is supposed to be a place where sincere people try to help one another. I mentioned that I thought the Zone System could be helpful, and I have been personally attacked. Some idiot sent me a private message that was scathing. This is starting to feel like the Rush Limbaugh show.

 

[mark]

I mentioned that I thought the Zone System could be helpful, and I have been personally attacked. Some idiot sent me a private message that was scathing. This is starting to feel like the Rush Limbaugh show.

Can't say I am surprised Forward the E-mail Sean. Better yet post it with the name of the person attached. I believe in holding people accountable for their actions. Some may not agree.

You have a lot to offer, stick around.

 

[Jorge]

I dont mind flame wars in public, but IMO personal messages berating you is out of bounds...forward the PM to Sean.

 

[SLNestler]

I dont mind flame wars in public, but IMO personal messages berating you is out of bounds...forward the PM to Sean.

Frankly, Jorge, I don't see the point of public or private flame wars. If this is a place for childish name-calling, rather than truly promoting photography and helping newer photographers, I think we'd better take a good look at ourselves.

I know you are a knowledgeable photographer with a great deal to offer; why get drawn into silly "flame wars?"
Steven