Which Zone for a White Shutters in sunlight?

Honestly, I don't think it is simply 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' is an accurate description because I can (and do) use it to give a scene a particular moodiness by, as 2F talked about, moving where the highlights fall. In that kind of situation, I don't expose for the shadows, I expose for where I want the highlights to fall, and I use the ZS to calculate what I want. Geez, even 'calculate' is too strong a word, perhaps 'shift exposure' might be better.

white.elephant said:

Honestly, I don't think it is simply 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' is an accurate description because I can (and do) use it to give a scene a particular moodiness by, as 2F talked about, moving where the highlights fall. In that kind of situation, I don't expose for the shadows, I expose for where I want the highlights to fall, and I use the ZS to calculate what I want. Geez, even 'calculate' is too strong a word, perhaps 'shift exposure' might be better.

Click to expand...

Indeed.
It is a matter of 'giving it' a bit more, or less, as it is (was?) called.

It isn't "'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights", which is more about contrast control, getting everything on film that you want to have on film.
And as such, it also doesn't even begin to be ZS.

What you are asking is by how much you can overexpose a film without losing highlight detail, i.e the contrast range of a film.
That depends on the film. Something you need to try.

2F/2F said:

I would like to hear how you believe it is not correct in the Adams normal development method...because it is not incorrect at all.

In the Adams method, to test for a normal development time, you do place something on a high tone (zone VIII specifically). Then you develop, and see if it ended up where you wanted it.

There is a sentence from straight out of "The Negative" that should prove I am not b.s.ing. It is from the "Normal Development" section of the "Film Testing Procedures Appendix.

"To test for normal development, set up the test card under uniform illumination as before. You must again be careful to control all test conditions, and use the same equipment and materials as in the first test. Read the luminance of the card, and determine the exposure to place the luminance on Zone V and then on Zone VIII, using the film speed established in the first test (Zone V is the exposure indicated by the meter, and Zone VIII is three stops, or 8x, more than the meter-indicated exposure)."

(emphasis added)

This is basic knowledge in using the zone system.

This is exactly why people have trouble understanding it: people circulate incorrect and confusing information about it, and/or contradict correct and clarifying information about it.

IMO, based on what Q.G. has said, people should read the book, figure it out them self, and refrain from asking another soul for guidance until they understand everything in that book. Too many people give out too much bad information on it to go around asking just anyone.

Click to expand...

It seems that you have elected yourself as the judge over right and wrong.

Ansel is talking about a verification test in that section. He recommends this test after regular film testing is completed and before the system is used. You are mixing Ansel's recommendations for testing, verification and usage of the Zone System. This makes it very confusing.

The Zone System is very clear and utterly simple. Ansel describes the system in one 50-page chapter of his book 'The Negative'. To put his message into one sentence:

'Place your shadows, check where the highlights fall, and correct this through exposure if you want them someplace else.'

If you got something else out of his text and like to place highlights, be my guest. As long as it works for you, why not?

white.elephant said:

Honestly, I don't think it is simply 'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights' is an accurate description because I can (and do) use it to give a scene a particular moodiness by, as 2F talked about, moving where the highlights fall. In that kind of situation, I don't expose for the shadows, I expose for where I want the highlights to fall, and I use the ZS to calculate what I want. Geez, even 'calculate' is too strong a word, perhaps 'shift exposure' might be better.

Click to expand...

'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights'

It is that simple, and has been true since Hurter and Driffield!

Exposing for the highlights and working the rest out from there works too, but it turns the Zone System upside-down and makes it more cumbersome than necessary.

Q.G. said:

Indeed.
It is a matter of 'giving it' a bit more, or less, as it is (was?) called.

It isn't "'expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights", which is more about contrast control, getting everything on film that you want to have on film.
And as such, it also doesn't even begin to be ZS.

What you are asking is by how much you can overexpose a film without losing highlight detail, i.e the contrast range of a film.
That depends on the film. Something you need to try.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. The Zone System is all about contrast control, and the 'usable' contrats range of film depends more on film development than on the film itself. You don't need to try that, you can accurately test for it.

RalphLambrecht said:

I don't think so. The Zone System is all about contrast control, and the 'usable' contrats range of film depends more on film development than on the film itself. You don't need to try that, you can accurately test for it.

Click to expand...

But: "In that kind of situation, I don't expose for the shadows, I expose for where I want the highlights to fall, and I use the ZS to calculate what I want. Geez, even 'calculate' is too strong a word, perhaps 'shift exposure' might be better."
The thing is not about contrast control.

RalphLambrecht said:

The Zone System is very clear and utterly simple.

Click to expand...

The last bit it may be.

The first bit is demonstrably not true.

For proof, you need not look further than any of the many discussions involving the ZS here on APUG (including this one!).
But if you like anyway, any other forum might do as well.

"It seems that you have elected yourself as the judge over right and wrong."

If I have done this just by arguing that I am right against somebody who is wrong, then so be it. Anyone who enters an argument electing themselves as judge over right and wrong. Otherwise, they would not be arguing.

FWIW, the whole point of my posts is to stop the soaking up of incorrect information by the OP (or anyone else who might be learning from this thread); not simply to be right.

"Ansel is talking about a verification test in that section. He recommends this test after regular film testing is completed and before the system is used. You are mixing Ansel's recommendations for testing, verification and usage of the Zone System. This makes it very confusing."

Hey! how come I am not on a first name basis with him? It must mean I am wrong and you are right.

Next, the normal development test is what the OP is doing. HELLO!?

Then, the zone system in use is used just like it is in testing. If it is not, it does not work! That is the purpose of the testing.

Most importantly, the zone system is NOT designed to give you perfectly printable shadow and highlight detail in every situation. Not at all.

The zone system is designed to give you the negative that will let you print the print you want, whether it has enormous amounts of shadow/highlight detail or not.

I am mixing nothing; only disputing your incorrect assertions that:

1. "placement" only refers to low tones and "fall" only refer to high tones
2. where something "falls" in Adams' method changes depending on development

In fact:

1. any luminance can be placed on any zone
2. where something "falls" in Adams' method is dependent on how it relates to the placed tone on a linear exposure scale. It has nothing to do with development, expect for the theoretical perfect development that makes a 100% linear S curve.

"The Zone System is very clear and utterly simple. Ansel describes the system in one 50-page chapter of his book 'The Negative'. To put his message into one sentence:

'Place your shadows, check where the highlights fall, and correct this through exposure if you want them someplace else.'"

It is utterly simple. So why are you purposefully messing it up for someone who is learning it by stating incorrect facts about it?

Show us the sentence in context, please. One example of an abridged methodology stated once in the book does not support what you are saying, and cannot be used as a total understanding of the system. Read the whole thing. Show us the section where he first tells us what "fall" is. Show us the many times he refers to placement and fall, none of which say that placement is for low tones only, that fall is for high tones only, or that fall is a concept that applies after development. I can, in fact, easily find several examples of exactly the opposite; examples that are not off-the-cuff, informal summaries of the system.

"If you got something else out of his text and like to place highlights, be my guest. As long as it works for you, why not?"

I read and understood his text some time ago. It is so well-written and clear that it sticks in my mind very well. I use the zone system sometimes, and sometimes I don't. I already listed my problems with it. It is not a Bible. It is not the be all and end all. It is simply a method...and the method that the OP happens to be learning at this juncture. However, regardless of how any of us view it, employ it, modify it, tweak it to suit our understanding and practice, or totally write it off, it: 1. states that any luminance can be placed on any zone, and 2. that those luminances that fall do so around the placed tone based on how they relate to it on a linear exposure scale. Dese are de facks, mang. Dey's dere in de book.

You are using the logic that because you or most people, do something a certain way 90%, or even 100% of the time, that it is the only way it can be done. If you never place a highlight, then all it means is that you never place a highlight. It does not mean that highlights cannot be placed. (In my opinion, if you use the word "never" in this case, it also means that you expose and develop your negatives by absolute formula, as opposed to by your individual visual desires. If you are doing this, then it is no wonder that you don't "get it" and are passing along false information.) The purpose of the zone system is to give photographers an artistic tool that lets them do what they want to do, not to teach photographers to make The Perfect Negative or The Perfect Print as determined by absolute standards.

I will again repeat: The normal development test is what the OP is doing.

Again: The normal development test is what the OP is doing.

So WHY are you arguing that the OP should not (in fact, CAN NOT) place a high tone during this test, when doing so is necessary to perform the test?

For what it is worth, I pulled out the book again, and found this little gem in 30 seconds:

"Thus the essential rule: we can place any one luminance value on any zone of the exposure scale, and doing so will determine the camera exposure. We can then read other luminances of the subject, and these will fall elsewhere on the scale of zones, with each one stop or 1:2 luminance change representing a one-zone difference."

(Emphasis is as printed in the book.)

Adams calls what I am arguing "the essential rule" in the "Place and Fall" section of that chapter. I didn't even know that when I started arguing, but it is nice to find now!

I will also include the three paragraphs that lead up to the one I just copied:

"Place and Fall

"What we have actually done in the foregoing example is to make an initial decision regarding one subject luminance, and then determine the other subject luminances and their corresponding exposure zones. In Zone System terms, we say that we first placed the luminance of the middle-gray subject area on Zone V of the exposure scale, and the other luminances fell on other zones. In nearly all cases using the Zone System, we follow this procedure; we place one luminance on a specific exposure zone and then observe where other subject luminances fall.

"By placing one luminance on a particular zone we determine the exposure settings of the camera, and we have no control over the exposure of other luminances of the subject; they fall elsewhere on the exposure scale according to the one-stop (1:2) luminance ratio described. In our example, we first read the luminance of the gray card (12) and placed that value on Zone V. Having done this, the dark area which read 10 must fall on zone III, since its luminance is two stops, or two zones, lower on the scale. Similarly, the area reading 15 must also fall on Zone VIII. The results are shown below:

"[chart of exposure scale showing Zone V placement, and Zones III and VIII fall]

"The result is exactly as described earlier, but note that it is the placement of a single subject luminance (12) on a specific zone (V) that determines how all the subject luminances are exposed.

"In the subject cited it is logical to assume that we will want the gray card to reproduce as a middle gray in the print. But it must be understood that we are under no restriction regarding this placement. If we choose for some reason to render it darker than middle gray, we might place its luminance on Zone IV. It and all other subject areas would then be one zone lower in exposure, and one value darker in the print, as follows:

"[chart of exposure scale showing Zone IV placement, and Zones II and VII fall]"

(Emphasis is as printed in the book.)

This one section verifies the main points I have argued, and disproves the main points that you have argued...and yet there are numerous more passages to use as evidence, such as the following, which follows the explanation of where low values should be placed for certain renderings in the print:

"These placements should be considered guidelines. Cases will arise where we do not make our initial placement on these low zones, but we will then almost always at least check to see what luminance falls on these low zones, since any luminance that is allowed to fall lower than Zone II will be recorded without useful detail in the negative. In other cases the subject may require Zone IV placement of an important shadow area to yield much fuller and more luminous detail; I have even placed shadow values as high as Zone V to obtain certain effects of great luminosity, and then resorted to development control to hold the rest of the subject luminance scale within the rage of printable densities. Experience is required to make such judgments effectively."

I do not get the reason for the continued argument when you have been proven wrong.

One more thing:

The quote from the book that you posted:

"Place your shadows, check where the highlights fall, and correct this through exposure if you want them someplace else."

Are you sure that the word "exposure" was not supposed to be "development"?

...and do please give us the context. What section was it in? What was the rest of the paragraph? What was in the paragraphs before and after?

2F/2F said:

Anyone who enters an argument electing themselves as judge over right and wrong.

Click to expand...

I think this conversion has gotten out-of-hand a bit, but if the above is your view, it explains your sometimes agressive tone of voice. To me, entering an argument also clarifies contributed thoughts, and often, all parties leave the argument a bit more knowledgeable. However, if one believes to be the only one who is 100% correct anyway, the flow of knowledge becomes a one-way street. This is what happened here.

I like to thank you for your point of view. It clarified a few things for me. 'Place and fall has everything to do with exposure and nothing to do with development.' I've never seen it that clearly stated. You are absolutely right on that one. Thanks for that, because I did benefit from your contribution, and I mean it.

2F/2F said:

One more thing:

The quote from the book that you posted:

"Place your shadows, check where the highlights fall, and correct this through exposure if you want them someplace else."

Are you sure that the word "exposure" was not supposed to be "development"?

...and do please give us the context. What section was it in? What was the rest of the paragraph? What was in the paragraphs before and after?

Click to expand...

There is this underlying aggression again. I never said it was a quote. I said it was his message (as I understood it from the book). But, you are right, in all of this back and forth, I managed to use the wrong word. It was suppose to say:

"Place your shadows, check where the highlights fall, and correct this through development if you want them someplace else."

That's the main message I took from Ansel's book 'The Negative'. There are exceptions, as in high-key photography, but in general, that's the way it works. Shadows are placed and highlights fall, which is what I wanted to get across initially, because there was talk about placing highlights and you defended it. I still believe that highlights fall and are not placed in the Zone System. If you call me wrong because of it, we live on different Zone System planets, and we have to leave it at that.

Thanks for your contribution again.

Q.G. said:

The last bit it may be.

The first bit is demonstrably not true.

For proof, you need not look further than any of the many discussions involving the ZS here on APUG (including this one!).
But if you like anyway, any other forum might do as well.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid, you're right. We've seen it many times, haven't we?

We have.

That's why i can't help but appeal to people to quit thinking and talking about the ZS.
It makes things appear much more complicated than they are.
Misunderstood concepts are bandied about as if they were additional parameters, only known by, and available to adepts who have passed a secret series of initiation rites. And an air of Inner-Circle-of-Initiates mysticism is often used to set one apart as one who is "in the know", as if the ZS were not a [expletive] teaching tool for people who do not yet have a grasp of the very basics of photography.

The "hybrid way" has been bannished (rightly so) to a separate forum.
The same should be done for the ZS.

Discussions like the present one, about what "place" and "fall" mean (WHAT???!!), should not be allowed on any Forum that takes photography seriously.
While the hybrid way makes perfect practical sense, such zealous debates about which Interpretation of the Holy Text is the One-and-Only-Right-One have absolutely nothing to do with photography. It, once again, has done nothing to provide an answer to the OP's question.

So away with all ZS b***s**t!


(Yet seriously! The creation of a ZS-only forum and - more importantly - a ZS-free photography forum would be the greatest thing since the invention of photography.)

If you read carefully, you will see that each post got more and more aggressive. It is because each post to which I was replying got more and more stubborn, and the points remained unwavering; just as wrong as they were before, despite increasing explanation and evidence to the contrary.

A problem I have with your last post is that the word "aggressive" is thrown around with a bad connotation attached to it. Aggression is necessary to prove your points right and others' points wrong in an argument. You must aggressively discredit your opponent's statements while aggressively adding validity to your own. It is how debate works. The more wrong and unwavering the person whose point you are trying to disprove is, and the more they seem to ignore what you are writing and the evidence, the more frustrating it gets, and the more aggressive one must become to finally seal the coffin on their points. Even if their points are doomed from the beginning, it is still a difficult and frustrating practice to which I am not emotionally impervious. I get upset when I have to argue the obvious...hey, whaddyagonnado?

...and after all this, including the passage straight out of the book that decidedly proves you are wrong that highlights can only fall and cannot be placed in the Zone System (and not only that you are wrong, but that the viewpoint you oppose is "the essential rule" in the Place and Fall section of the book), you STILL won't budge on that point. READ THE BOOK. You seemingly have not, and if you have, you have not understood it, yet you persist in arguing your incorrect interpretations of that which is in it. I can only do so much to prove what the book says without actually transcribing the whole darned thing, so I have to give up at this point. Hopefully the OP simply reads the book and does not come to the Internet for 100% of his knowledge in this area. I mentioned this earlier, and I hope it was read by at least someone. The amount of crap information that is archived and publicly searchable forever (or at least until the server crashes or a glitch wipes the files) is thoroughly distressing to me. You can defend incorrect information by calling it "opinion", or saying that "we live on different...planets", but it does not mean that it is correct information.

I have a different take than Q.G.: away with all B.S. about the zone system, but it is not B.S. itself. I feel it is a valid tool that should be discussed. It is simple. It is easy. It helps. People saying CRAP about it is why it is not. Discrediting the CRAP is important. It is not about who has moved to some inner circle of special ZONIES and has the right to disperse all information about it. it is also not about proving that it is the be all and end all (which I have already made clear that I do not believe at all). It is about reading comprehension. The book is very clear, and very well written. Answers to 90% of questions about it can be answered by quoting the text itself, and compared to some of the crap that passes for writing these days, 90% clarity is darned good. I do not worship Adams as a photographer, worship the zone system (in fact, I refuse to capitalize it unless as part of a quote ), or think of the book as a Bible...but I do think of him as an excellent and clear writer and educator...and I do know how to read and comprehend something that someone writes...and then, if there is a question about the system's methodology as it was written, to recall what was written, and use this comprehended information to answer questions about it...and to refute incorrect claims about what was written in the book. The OP's original question was answered, and it was done so simply, briefly, correctly, and early in the thread. Then, the simple, brief, and correct answer was challenged, hence........

2F/2F,

I wholeheartedly agree with your explanation of the value of, and need for, aggression.

Q.G. said:

We have.

That's why i can't help but appeal to people to quit thinking and talking about the ZS.
It makes things appear much more complicated than they are.
Misunderstood concepts are bandied about as if they were additional parameters, only known by, and available to adepts who have passed a secret series of initiation rites. And an air of Inner-Circle-of-Initiates mysticism is often used to set one apart as one who is "in the know", as if the ZS were not a [expletive] teaching tool for people who do not yet have a grasp of the very basics of photography.

The "hybrid way" has been bannished (rightly so) to a separate forum.
The same should be done for the ZS.

Discussions like the present one, about what "place" and "fall" mean (WHAT???!!), should not be allowed on any Forum that takes photography seriously.
While the hybrid way makes perfect practical sense, such zealous debates about which Interpretation of the Holy Text is the One-and-Only-Right-One have absolutely nothing to do with photography. It, once again, has done nothing to provide an answer to the OP's question.

So away with all ZS b***s**t!


(Yet seriously! The creation of a ZS-only forum and - more importantly - a ZS-free photography forum would be the greatest thing since the invention of photography.)

Click to expand...

Remember, you have the freedom to not participate in such discussion, but you don't have the right to forbid them.

Q.G. said:

2F/2F,

I wholeheartedly agree with your explanation of the value of, and need for, aggression.

Click to expand...

That's where we differ. I see no reason for agression in a forum like this, because this is a place for people with the same interest to exchange their experiences. There is no need to get agressive with people who value the same fantastic hobby.

2F/2F said:

...READ THE BOOK. You seemingly have not, and if you have, you have not understood it, yet you persist in arguing your incorrect interpretations of that which is in it. I can only do so much to prove what the book says without actually transcribing the whole darned thing, so I have to give up at this point...

Click to expand...

Thank You

RalphLambrecht said:

That's where we differ. I see no reason for agression in a forum like this, because this is a place for people with the same interest to exchange their experiences. There is no need to get agressive with people who value the same fantastic hobby.

Click to expand...

It's a way to stress a point. It's not person vs person, but view against view.

A way to express the strength of one's commitment to that same fantastic hobby.
Also known as passion.

RalphLambrecht said:

Remember, you have the freedom to not participate in such discussion, but you don't have the right to forbid them.

Click to expand...

Noone thinks (at least not me) they can forbid anything.

That's why it is an appeal.


Apropos the freedom not to participate: so how about allowing digital on APUG?
Nah...
Even though we would have, as you point out, the freedom not to participate in such discussions, this would not be the haven that it is.

As will be clear, i often long for a ZS-free haven as well.
A place where we are spared the many different takes people have on what that Doctrine is about. Spared discussions that only serve to demonstrate how many different ways there are to get something inherently dead simple so very wrong.
A place devoted to photography itself. Not to something only still vaguely resembling photography after it has been filtered, expanded, contracted, 'N'-ed, and generally 'zoned' to death.

RalphLambrecht said:

That's where we differ. I see no reason for agression in a forum like this, because this is a place for people with the same interest to exchange their experiences. There is no need to get agressive with people who value the same fantastic hobby.

Click to expand...

Time for a beer summit.

Seriously,

I lived in San Francisco for 3 decades before moving to the pacific northwest. There were three or four of us amateur photographers who used to drive down the coast to Carmel for photography. The mentor of our group knew Ansel Adams personally and promised us we would get to meet him eventually. In 1980, three or four of us concluded a day on the rocks with a visit to Adam's house at 5pm... the time Adams normally finished his work in the darkroom and welcomed random visitors.

I've used the Zone System for 26 years... after having met St. Ansel himself and had a bourbon with him in his living room. He convinced me to give it a try and I did. God, it would have been great to get all of the thread debate participants in his living room at happy hour. Mr. Adams would have appreciated the give and take... and then refilled everyone's glass with gin & tonic.

Ralph, I appreciate and respect the way you acknowledged a lost point. You sir, are a gentleman.

For what it is worth, I remember meeting Ansel one more time and asking the place/fall question. His answer was essentially, you can place either shadow or highlight... it's up to you. But remember, if you don't get enough exposure in the shadows, you cannot fix it through development.

Q.G. said:

It's a way to stress a point. It's not person vs person, but view against view.

A way to express the strength of one's commitment to that same fantastic hobby.
Also known as passion.

Click to expand...

Agression is passion taken too far.

SchwinnParamount said:

For what it is worth, I remember meeting Ansel one more time and asking the place/fall question. His answer was essentially, you can place either shadow or highlight... it's up to you. But remember, if you don't get enough exposure in the shadows, you cannot fix it through development.

Click to expand...

Well said and to the point. It sums this long thread up very nicely.

Thanks for sharing. I spend an afternoon in Ansel's darkroom with John Sexton myself once. It was a memorable afternoon.