Victoms of the Zone System

With a community this size the occaisonal flame war is inevitable, but they are few and far between. And even then they burn out quickly. I don't know of any members that have held huge grudges against another after the flames have died. That is what the ignore button is for if someone really gets annoying.

This will neer be a utopia but it is a very congenial place to be most of the time.

Getting back on topic...

I was taught the zone system 30 years ago. Sometimes I use it and other times I don't. It is of very little use to me in studio portraiture as I can control the lighting to the exact ratio I want. Shooting in "natural light" is another story, the knowledge (and all of the testing) comes in mighty handy when confronting scenes with difficult lighting.

If nothing else, the testing that is required to dial in your personal working EI for a particular film/developer combo is very good discipline. Think about how many times you see the question asked in an on-line forum of "what time should I use with film X in developer Y?" While many who ask the question are looking for a starting point for testing, I'm willing to bet there are those who will take the answer "7 minutes at 68 degrees" as gospel and never do further testing of their own. That is nothing but laziness, and lazy is one thing you can't be if you want to learn ANY craft - especially photography.

I'll shut up now...

I think there is some validity to Anchell's statement. Back when I used to peruse the forums on Photo.net, there seemed to be a lot of questions from people wondering that if they did this or that, would they be violating the Zone System. Those threads always brought out the Fascists on both sides of the Zone. Makes me think they all missed the point somewhere. Maybe Anchell was trying to say the same.

So what if Adams didn't use sepia? I agree, his landscapes would not be as good in sepia. His portraits might have done better with it though (wink!).

Maybe AA should have called it the Zen System. There are two topics you do not talk about at parties, religion and politics, maybe we should add "The Zone System" to that list.

Personally I use it every time I make a negative. I have a Zone dial on my meter and just place the EV value opposite the zone where I want it, and make the exposure, simple and fast. Just measure the high and low values and let the mid tones fall where they may. You cannot control them very much to begin with so why bother.

All meters are not created as unequal as some would have us believe. From what I have read, most photographers rate film around one stop slower then the manufacturer; for me Tri-x at 200, Pan F at 25, Tmax 100 at 50 and so on.

Essentially, every photogapher uses the Zone System whether they admit it or not. Every time you alter the exposure other then what the meter indicates, you are Zoning. How many closet Zoners are there, out there?

I’ll go with Bob Fowler here. The Zone System is a tool, like a hammer or saw. When it is needed, use whatever part is suitable then put it away until needed again. Of course one can make this their entire hobby – making data. That’s not only O.K. it is welcome as long as they keep it scientific and refrain from subjecting others to abject criticism whenever they depart from the “excepted standard”.

The Zone system is just another way of describing exposure/development relationships. Most of the technical stuff in photography is supremely irrelevant if your goal is to make photographs. But you do have to understand, and understand thoroughly, the exposure/development relationship of the film you are using.

I am frequently amazed how many cannot instantly identify the differences an underexposed from an overexposed negative or an under or over developed one. The zone system is one way of teaching those relationships. It is not complicated to learn. As Jan Pieterzak said, it can be taught in a day. I would add--or less.

It is an illusion that by following the Zone System you will get easily printable negatives. As has been noted, Adams himself had many difficult-to-print ones. He did more dodging and burning than almost any photographer except for Gene Smith. And I understand that some of his students have to resort to making masks or split-filter printing to get their fine prints. So much for the Zone System giving you easy-to-print negatives.

The Zone System is useful, however, for discussing photographs. If someone says, "Zone III" or "Zone VIII" you have an idea of what tones they are talking about.

For me, the Zone System provides an easy way to think of making exposures. But for me it ends there. Since I develop film by inspection, I leave myself open to change things, by developing for a longer or shorter time than originally estimated, thereby correcting for the vagaries of sticky shutters, miscalculation, or the many, many other variables that can affect the film.

To sum up—an understanding of the exposure/development relationship is essential. The Zone System provides one way of learning that. It should never be anything that is followed slavishly, just as no other system should be followed slavishly.

To get your negatives right: If you understand exposure/development relationships the best way to consistently get good negatives is to look at the last ones you made. If they are not easy to print, correct the next time you are photographing in the same lighting conditions--give more or less exposure and/or develop your film more or less. No photographer's negatives are always perfect (unless you are working in a studio with controlled lighting). If yours are not, simply keep adjusting every time, based on your last results. It's really quite simple.

Michael A. Smith said:

The Zone system is just another way of describing exposure/development relationships. .........


........... No photographer's negatives are always perfect (unless you are working in a studio with controlled lighting). If yours are not, simply keep adjusting every time, based on your last results. It's really quite simple.

Click to expand...

Very well put Michael, and makes sense..Thanks

Great explanation, could not have said it better myself, puts things into perspective.

AA's writings in his photo series are rather complex because he uses foot candles as his reference for measureing light as compared to a more simplified EV scale on exposure meters today. It can confusing for some. I think that tends to turn many away from the Zone System.

Still, the science of sensitometry/densitimetry is basic and essential to light sensitive materials, with out it, there would be no analog photography! All films are produced and rated, based on laws of science. I certainly would not want to discourage anybody from studying about sensitometry and possibly discovering a whole new analog process. You really cannot seperate science from art.

wow Les I wish i was you

By golly Les, I wish I were photographer enough to master the Zone System in one day. But it is a worthy enough tool that taking longer is time well spent for those that do work that allows them to apply it and for those that do not but whose underestanding of the photographic process by studying it would be enhanced.

It certainly, is not my view that this is an extension of Zen, or a religion or anything other than a tool to produce a good photograph. I tend myself to head for the hills when I hear talk of mysticism or or other brain farts.

Claire Senft said:

It certainly, is not my view that this is an extension of Zen, or a religion or anything other than a tool to produce a good photograph. .

Click to expand...

Obviously you never studied under Minor White.

An Michael- how dare you cut my debating off by making sense!

Hi there,

Why did this thread restart? Is it an open invitation to flame?? That would actually be pointless.

garryl, didn't you get the joke yet? William Mortensen was 'disappeared' for a high crime and mis-demeanor, he was actually teaching people about photography.

"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? "

Where and why else would one want to standardize procedures, processes and materials? That would be to efficiently run an assembly line in a factory. Whatever the zone system started as, it has been morphed into a religion on one hand and a manual for producing 'commercially viable product' on the other. I find both options distasteful.

Good luck with it all people.

Greetings from the thread starter:

I wanted to say, and it will be the last thread that I ever start regarding the ZS, that I am a ZS user and proud of it; it's a neat way of understanding. I am not ashamed to say that I use it nor do I feel that I am some kind of "Zonie", "Zonite", or whatever, not that anyone was calling me that in particular, but in the collective sense.

These terms imply that one has somehow been programmed to view photography only as AA did; this is a complete absurdity, as far as I'm concerned. Simply put, for me, I taught myself the ZS concept in a short period of time, and am currently involved in some self study of sensitometry, which is not so simple. As a result, my understanding of the relationships between film, light, development, exposure, contrast, density, etc....has made a monumental leap and that's a good thing.

I am not, however, a slavish robot to a relatively simple concept that I may have been previously unaware. Before I learned the ZS, I was shooting from the hip on all occasions with many more misses than hits. Now, I am taking dead aim and enjoying much improved precision and accuracy.

After skimming through all the posts in this messy thread that I have started, I have come to a conclusion about something, right or wrong and without meaning to offend, this is what I think:

Those that maintain such an arrogant position against the ZS, seem, to me, to be trying to defend their own lack of understanding and inadequacies with it. For the life of me that is the only conclusion that I can arrive at to describe another's contempuous point of view regarding someone else's proven success (meaning AA's formulation of the ZS). There are many other successful methods I'm sure, but this is the one I have latched onto and have learned from. Lastly, those claiming that the ZS is some kind of fatal mental block to creativity and self expression....................well, let me just say, that's BS. I've struggled with creativity and self expression in my photography and produced horrible negatives at the same time for a long time; now, I mostly just struggle with creativity and self expression. My own inadequacies of the past with the craft of photography, for the most part, no longer get in the way. Learning how to express myself with my camera is way harder than anything I have experienced so far in photography, now that I have much more command of its craft (not perfect command, but more than I've ever known before).

Chuck

P.S.
Mr. Nestler, I have found your comments to be insightful, enlightening, and level headed with an aim toward advocacy without pleading insistance. I will never understand the distasteful rhetoric the evolves ( I say that feeling/hoping that I have not engaged in myself at times, perhaps it is just inevitable). So, as the starter of this thread, let me also be the end of it.

Chuck1 said:

Greetings from the thread starter:

Those that maintain such an arrogant position against the ZS, seem, to me, to be trying to defend their own lack of understanding and inadequacies with it......
......So, as the starter of this thread, let me also be the end of it.

Click to expand...

Look- I studied it. Self mastered the history,facts, techniques and formulas. Used it for over two years. An gave up on it for all the senso/denso/Zen crap before your 12th birthday.
So don't tell me about my "understandings and inadequacies" with it.

"But I'm feeling much better now"

Right...I'll put my flame-proof suit on and get ready for the onslaught.

As an amateur, having never studied the ZS in depth, I can honestly say that the ZS saved me much time, effort, film, and chemistry as recently as two days ago. I only shoot 120 and 35mm but I used an approach to film and developer testing which is rooted firmly in the ZS and it worked for me. The testing sequence was absurdly easy to follow and never once required that I go into a trance or pledge allegiance to AA's ghost or anything like that.

Michael Scarpitti actually PM'd me to tell me that the method I wanted to use was faulty (without offering any real alternative), but the ZS proved useful to me, a beginner, in this instance.

So, the POV from a total newbie to the ZS is that it is a useful tool and I am happy that I have something new in my meagre bag of tricks.

Cheers,
Kent

I've found this thread particularly interesting, refreshing and downright humorous.

Must one use the zone system to take a photograph? Does it enhance an understanding of the photographic materials (film, but not paper)? Does it force one to take boring pictures? Does it open the gates to creative experience and photographic Nirvana? Is it, in fact, a commie plot to drain our precious bodily fluids and corrupt our purity of essence? (Yes and No on that one)

Do people like to blather, rather than take pictures or work in the darkroom? Is ego stomping with golf shoes really that much fun? Do any of these opinions really matter in the overall scheme of photographic expression, or are they meerly cerebral flatulence expressing the collective subconscious of thousands of years of cave dwelling primates who scratch pictures on walls with dung and berry juice?

If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it. I still want to be cremated and put in a pinata along with my best works of art. I invite all of you to swing the baseball bat at my funeral, but get in line. tim

noseoil said:

...Does it enhance an understanding of the photographic materials (film, but not paper)?

Click to expand...

Oh well. I might as well jump into the fire here.

I think one of the things that most people (and zone system books) overlook when attempting to do the zone system is that the target film density numbers actually relate to something. And that something is the tonal values reproduced on the particular, specific paper that they are using. If you just match the numbers out of some book or on somebody's say-so, you're missing the point of the whole test and it won't mean a thing. It may also muddle and confuse you even more.

The first thing anyone attempting to learn the ZS should do is grab a 21-step transmission density wedge and a blank piece of film (film base+fog only) and a sheet of photo paper, and head into the darkroom. Find minimum time for maximum black through the fb+f negative, then take the stepwedge, put it on top of the blank film, and make a proper proof of it at this exposure time. This will reveal how different film densities will reproduce on the paper the photographer actually uses. Now he/she will know that a net film density of say 0.70 above fb+f will produce a print value that matches an 18% Kodak gray card, or that the 0.10 net density is or is not perceptually different than than the surround using that paper. (This is also a point that one can't glean from a text. Just what does "slightly lighter than maximum black" actually mean? How is slightly lighter different than obviously lighter?) They will also now know what their threshold light gray density is.

Armed with the knowledge of these three densities, one can adjust their process accordingly using the (zone) system as they will now have personal target densities. Without knowing how your paper is reacting, you are only doing a third of the zone system when you test film.

Max Power said:

Michael Scarpitti actually PM'd me to tell me that the method I wanted to use was faulty (without offering any real alternative), but the ZS proved useful to me, a beginner, in this instance.

Click to expand...

Kent,
You are right on; if it works for you, what's the problem.
Michael Scarpitti is on a rampage of hostile PMs. Others seem to need public forums to air their hostility to a technique that has helped many of the finest photographers in the world for many years (yes; a technique; not a religion or dictum that anyone must obey).

Time really is better spent practicing photography.

SLNestler said:

Michael Scarpitti is on a rampage of hostile PMs.

Click to expand...

(I received a couple from him and noticed that he had many, many PM's but not one post on the Forum...I told him if he didn't have the guts to air his views where others could read and respond to them, I didn't want to hear from him again and put a block on all PM's to me).

The Zone System gave me the concepts of place and fall, expansion and contraction, negative zones and print values, personal film speed, consistancy of exposures and development processes, previsualization, and the realization that technique is meaningless without clarity of artistic vision.

Murray

Test film? What is that all about? I haven't done a film test in years. I was out shooting today, northern Connecticut and Mass areas and my meter craped out on me! I mean it was all over the place. I think some moisture got in the works. Still after a few decades of experience, I was able to determine the EV values of what I was shooting and continued working.

That is invaluable, another area the ZS teaches, experience. What is the EV value of white clap board in full sun? Usually around 16, 17 if the sun is glaring point blank, 14 to 15 late afternoon. What about snow, clouds? These are some of the things the ZS can teach.

Have you ever read how AA was able to shoot Moonrise Hernandez, WITHOUT A METER, with only a few minutes before the sun set behind some clouds??!! Any experienced landscape photographer can tell you that only a few seconds is the difference between the sublime and the mediocre.

The ZS teaches control of your materials which is essential in any medium, for any artist, to create what he or she intends to create.

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? "

Where and why else would one want to standardize procedures, processes and materials? That would be to efficiently run an assembly line in a factory. Whatever the zone system started as, it has been morphed into a religion on one hand and a manual for producing 'commercially viable product' on the other. I find both options distasteful.

Good luck with it all people.

Click to expand...

Any accomplished Zone practitioner will have to disagree with you. On one hand you have a Zone System photographer and on the other side, you have your typical photographer who shoots through intuition. I give you a simple subject: A grey card.. I tell both photographers to shoot that grey card and make it Zone I black.. The Zone System photographer will nail it everytime where as the haphazard photographer will NOT! Why would you NOT want to have predictable results? Accurate results? End of story. don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

If you want to put a twist to the discussion, lets discount Shutter and Aperture as well! Hell those are technicals too.. After all, the REAL photographer shoots from intuition and creativity.. Don't let shutter/aperture cripple their creativity! hahah

"It seems as though a lot of people who shoot and use the zone system to determine exposure and subsequent developing and printing options want to couch it in a bunch of alchemical terms, making it out to be more than it was, and more than it is. Ansel Adams was, if anything, a teacher, and while his zone system is complex, it isn’t too difficult for anyone to use, and I think Adams would have eschewed this practice we seem to have these days of making more out of it than it is. It is merely a system for deciding what values you want in your final print and then arriving at those values as easily as possible." - Marcus Ward

Andy

djklmnop said:

Any accomplished Zone practitioner will have to disagree with you......
I give you a simple subject: A grey card.. I tell both photographers to shoot that grey card and make it Zone I black.. The Zone System photographer will nail it everytime where as the haphazard photographer will NOT!
Andy

Click to expand...

Of course they do. When a photographer takes up "the dark slide",
he pleadges to defend the System against all detractors. With his graphlex lightsabre set to f/64 and wearing his 18% gray robes.

It would be very easy to shoot a Zone 1 without metering. Just shoot a blank frame and print it one shade lighter than black.haha

garryl said:

Of course they do. When a photographer takes up "the dark slide",
he pleadges to defend the System against all detractors. With his graphlex lightsabre set to f/64 and wearing his 18% gray robes.

It would be very easy to shoot a Zone 1 without metering. Just shoot a blank frame and print it one shade lighter than black.haha

Click to expand...

That sounded like something a digital photographer would say... "Just shoot it and fix it in photoshop later!"

djklmnop said:

That sounded like something a digital photographer would say... "Just shoot it and fix it in photoshop later!"

Click to expand...

HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
That felt good-thank you!