What we know that our tools don't.

[markbarendt]

As Paul Harvey used to say "and now, the rest of the story".

One of the things that I think is really great about the Zone System is that it gives us some language to talk about the relationships between the scene, the film, and the print.

The concept of being able to measure the reflected luminance at any given point and translate that (with experience and judgement) into a camera setting was an amazing concept to learn. Place and fall with this, place and fall with that...

I also learned the concept of trying to see the print I wanted in my head. Did I want to see the subjects as I saw it real life or lighter or darker? Did I want or need to manipulate the placement of certain subjects.

I was taught by Adams through his books and disciples to look at the whole and how it all fit together.

The stories I heard of how Adams measured, and measured, and measured a scene rolled around my head. Good stuff.

Over the years I got familiar with my materials by listening to smart people and making many mistakes that I got away with and because of that and testing and listening I found where my limits were, and now I have a "look mom no hands" approach to exposure, I no longer play by the rules Adams taught, but I do surely apply many of his concepts. I've learned how to navigate my normal scene onto a film curve (somewhere workable) and from there onto paper.

One of the struggles we have with our tools and with systems, like light meters and the ZS, is that we use math.

While we can understand that we are working with a 2-dimensional things, are tools are typically are only defining 1 point at a time.

Mathematically an EI or ISO number represents a single point in an equation. In my head though it defines a range; more than that when I know the film I put in; I know the general look it will give me.

Do you think in terms of ranges when you think about an EI/ISO?

Other thoughts?

 

[BrianShaw]

Not so much for an EI/ISO but for sure with an EV.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think in terms of a target, like a bulls-eye to aim for...

In a game where you can miss by 35% and still get what you went for.

(Except not in the underexposure direction).

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I use the Zone System it is usually with roll film so N-1, N+1, ... are not possible. I select a portion of the composition that I want to be in a particular zone, say Zone 4, and set my light meter [Gossen Luna Pro SBC]* to that Zone, take the reading and the light meter tells me the expose I need to get that part of the subject in that Zone. I use that exposure in EV and set the camera accordingly.

No special processing. No endless and useless testing. The Zone System at its simplest works correctly every time even when I am using filters.





* Other light meters with filter compensation and Zone System will accomplish the same thing.

 

[Stephen Benskin]

There's latitude if that's what you're getting at. When I think about film speed I picture how the scene's luminance range falls.

 

[markbarendt]

Not so much for an EI/ISO but for sure with an EV.

Please explain.

 

[gone]

Not particularly. First, I usually decide which film to use in which particular situation. That will determine which camera it goes into to, a certain extent. For example, if among several cameras I choose a Holga, which has only one shutter speed of 1/100 and w/ limited or no aperture settings, then I need to determine which film will work "best". Of course one can't always anticipate what may come up, so if lighting conditions change you can either finish the roll later or just develop what is shot.

Having previously established which developer is right for the film, camera, subject, and lighting condition through past experience, and you need to either write this stuff down or rely on memory, at that point I'm done and can go and shoot the pics.

This is what made, and still makes, Tri-X and D76 such a great thing. It's a very flexible combination for different lighting and subject situations. If the conditions change too much and I end up shooting one frame at one exposure, another frame at another exposure, etc, then there's always Diafine. Tri-X, D76, and Diafine will pretty much cover my butt. Implied but not stated is that before any of this happens I have already decided which film would work best for say a portrait, maybe another film for a landscape, etc. Everything has to tie together since everything is related to the process.

Currently my idea is to simply own one camera, use Microdol X or D76 because I know them so well, and shoot the film(s) that work well w/ that combo. Then I don't have to make all these decisions. Anyway, in my mind, the zone system is for sheet film.

 

[BrianShaw]

Please explain.

I have never needed to use film at EI/ISO other than box speed. At box speed I think about the EV as a "single point" in the decision on how to expose for the light levels. For normal range scenes EV works as is. for limited or extended range scenes EV gets adapted to yield the desired outcome. I suppose one can do same with Film speed changes if one wants to.

Film speed to me is almost binary: lots of light or flash, use slow film; not so much light, use fast film.

 

[pdeeh]

Hmm.

I know nuttin' ...

If I'm shooting 35mm, I set box speed on the camera, and when I go out I point it at a bit of tarmac and set shutter/aperture to "correct". I only bother to meter again when I am in a location with less (or more) light. The negatives produced by this approach are generally both easily scannable and (wet) print straightforwardly.

Similarly for MF, except I generally use a "proper" meter, and with similar results.

For LF, I'd like to think I'm more careful, but the truth is I meter for film at 1/2 box (with no great reason attached other than it seems like a good idea) and overdevelop a bit as I want lots of shadow detail and some extra contrast as most negatives are destined for salt.

As far as metering technique goes ... I'm read Adams a couple of times, and I made it about 40 pages into Dunn & Wakefield before I gave up. I can't think mathematically about this stuff, and I can't even begin to conceptualise how or where "on the curve" things fit. But Adams prompted me to always consider the "fall" of shadow and highlight in an image, and is the only real ZS thing I took away from his books.

The single most useful thing I ever read about metering was the article here at APUG about incident metering, written by some bloke called Barendt.

Oddly enough, the material where I've done most testing is the use of enlarging paper for negatives. My results aren't different from my use of film

I think two things save my pictures from my slapdashery: first, the flexibility and latitude of the materials (both film and paper); second, that my printing skills are only at a very basic level. I think if I were a more skilled printer, I might find myself wanting to make more effort to make my negatives "better". But that still wouldn't make me able to do (or even understand) the mathematics ...

 

[cliveh]

Since the advent of digital, the zone system is dead in the water.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Since the advent of digital, the zone system is dead in the water.

I strongly disagree. When I use the Zone System for metering for MF and LF, but I have never done N-1, N+1, ... processing. Never needed to using box speed.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Matrix metering with the Nikons and Hasselblad has proven to be very dependable.

 

[markbarendt]

I think in terms of a target, like a bulls-eye to aim for...

In a game where you can miss by 35% and still get what you went for.

(Except not in the underexposure direction).

What I have come to think, when I set the meter EI, is "I just put FP-4 in the camera" not "I'm shooting at 125".

I'm shooting to a "whole and specific film", metaphorically "dancing with my date".

There's latitude if that's what you're getting at. When I think about film speed I picture how the scene's luminance range falls.

Not thinking latitude alone here, though that is at play in the thought.

If I put Portra 400 in the camera I think differently than when I have FP-4 in, different rules apply, it's a different girl. Delta 3200, different again.

All the meter sees is a number, what I know though is that each of these films have very different characteristics where they shine.

 

[markbarendt]

Since the advent of digital, the zone system is dead in the water.

I agree that the specifics are dated, there are some great ideas in there though.

 

[4season]

I was once very keen on ZS as it seemed a logical and systematic alternative to endless aimless experimentation.

But as of 2015? Film is very much an "alternative process" for me, my film burn rate is much lower, and unless I find myself in possession of a view camera (now there's an idea) I'm probably not going to optimize my film processing to favor a single image on a roll of film which may span a number of days or weeks. I think the fanciest I might get is simply shooting at half the rated speed in order to lower contrast

 

[markbarendt]

I think two things save my pictures from my slapdashery: first, the flexibility and latitude of the materials

Your's and mine.

 

[markbarendt]

I was once very keen on ZS as it seemed a logical and systematic alternative to endless aimless experimentation.

But as of 2015? Film is very much an "alternative process" for me, my film burn rate is much lower, and unless I find myself in possession of a view camera (now there's an idea) I'm probably not going to optimize my film processing to favor a single image on a roll of film which may span a number of days or weeks. I think the fanciest I might get is simply shooting at half the rated speed in order to lower contrast

Just an FYI, adding exposure by itself only changes placement of the subjects on the film curve, it helps ensure plenty of shadow detail is caught on the film. To change the contrast of the print you need to change the film's development or the paper grade you print with.

 

[ic-racer]

Do you think in terms of ranges when you think about an EI/ISO?

Other thoughts?

I don't know about a 'range' pre say, but changing exposure index alters the separation of the low values. This is the only effect, if we ignore extreme over-exposure.

 

[markbarendt]

Then I don't have to make all these decisions. Anyway, in my mind, the zone system is for sheet film.

Keeping decisions to a minimum is great, Holgas are great, I think Portra 400 is about my favorite for one.

On the film exposure side the ZS has redeeming ideas regardless of format.

 

[markbarendt]

I have never needed to use film at EI/ISO other than box speed. At box speed I think about the EV as a "single point" in the decision on how to expose for the light levels. For normal range scenes EV works as is. for limited or extended range scenes EV gets adapted to yield the desired outcome. I suppose one can do same with Film speed changes if one wants to.

Film speed to me is almost binary: lots of light or flash, use slow film; not so much light, use fast film.

Cool, thanks.

 

[4season]

Just an FYI, adding exposure by itself only changes placement of the subjects on the film curve, it helps ensure plenty of shadow detail is caught on the film. To change the contrast of the print you need to change the film's development or the paper grade you print with.

Yes, I was assuming a corresponding change in development, and one thing I've been wanting to try is stand-processing using dilute high-accutance developer, perhaps HC110 or Rodinal.

 

[markbarendt]

In Dunn & Wakefield's Exposure Manual it talks about the reasons to peg exposures to different points in the scene. It gives several and it was an eye opener for me. The following is based on that seed.

For example with movies pegging to the high or key light is important for a variety of reasons. Most importantly because faces are involved.

Consistency is another reason, if you are shooting 1000's of frames and we are allowing the peg in the scene or our EI to float there will be hell to pay in post/in the darkroom. Shooting one frame at a time, consistency isn't such a big problem but being able to use one enlarger setting to print a half a dozen rolls of portraits or all your proofs isn't a bad thing either.

Using the idea of pegging to a key light, we can play with mood while we're shooting. Maybe we want a face to look dark, like it's hiding a bit or sad, a bit of shade

Our meters don't know what we are trying to accomplish. We have to adjust our camera setting accordingly. Incident or Reflective, this needs to be considered.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't understand the Zone System;I just use it.

 

[DannL.]

My equipment has no clue what constitutes an aesthetically pleasing image.

Since the 60's when I first laid hands on a camera, up until some 10 years ago, I had no interest in understanding exposure. It was not important to me. I trusted my cameras, and they performed admirably. I could count the bad slides and negatives made during that time on my fingers and toes. In the past 10 years I have made great strides in my understanding of exposure, yet my satisfaction with my own work has not increased. To the contrary. I believe that as I become more anal (analytical), my work simply reflects this state. Last fall I decided that I wanted to return to when I enjoyed photography, and the images I produced. I have noticed though, that it takes quite a bit of effort not to analyze a scene before photographing it. Bad habits are difficult to break. I have high hopes. Hind sight being what it is, exposure for me is exactly like Bill noted. It's a bulls-eye with margin. Now, if I could attach and alarm to my camera that beeped as photographic moments approached, I would be all set. Point, meter, focus, shoot.

I'm just an enthusiast.

 

[markbarendt]

I'm not sure I'm clear on the original question,

Me either.

Many myths have been busted, and I understand what is going on and what controls I really have.

-My film has an ISO speed (no need for "EI" tests)
-A characteristic curve tells me what I want to know (no need for Zones etc.)

Part of what I'm trying to get to the top here is that an ISO or EI number is just a name for a curve/film/range/whole thing that a math formula can deal with.

Our tools aren't smart, like a tape rule, we need to judge the context they are being used in, where they are measuring from and to.

-Expose for the shadows,

So, the shadows point in the scene is where you choose to put one end of your measuring stick, the other is the ISO number.

A meter can help you figure out a camera setting but the math formula in the meter doesn't know what the relationship is between those points are. You have to translate the meter reading into a camera setting.