Yet another post about the Zone System

bdial · Jan 11, 2015

Octal Roman numerals would be just too weird.

Anyone here still have their HP 16c?

gzinsel · Jan 11, 2015

I think you have a great Idea!! series glass. (sincerely) I would like to see that fleshed out in a working (s) situations and application

RalphLambrecht · Jan 11, 2015

cliveh said:
What on earth are you talking about?

onlyonein10people understand binary.theother one doesn't

drkhalsa · Jan 11, 2015

RalphLambrecht said:
onlyonein10people understand binary.theother one doesn't

That's funny!

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 11, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
IBM 7094, a pre-IBM 360 main frame.

A bytes is eight bits. What is half a byte called?

Fifty cents.

benjiboy · Jan 11, 2015

A nibble

Sirius Glass · Jan 11, 2015

swchris said:
Parameter to "chmod" command...

Unix.

Solaris used a form of Unix.

mauro35 · Jan 11, 2015

The zone system define zones in a way that moving a certain brightness in the subject one zone higher on the film is equal to a stop more of light and a zone lower is equal to a stop less of light (stop meaning double or half= base2). So isn´t the zone system still in base 2 (considering the amount of light needed to reproduce the zones)? The fact that they are numbered from 1 to 10 is just a convention. You could number them anyway you like but there is no unit in zones, whereas light intensity itself can be measured (for instance candles per sq.ft). This is how I understood it.

Sirius Glass · Jan 11, 2015

mauro35 said:
The zone system define zones in a way that moving a certain brightness in the subject one zone higher on the film is equal to a stop more of light and a zone lower is equal to a stop less of light (stop meaning double or half= base2). So isn´t the zone system still in base 2 (considering the amount of light needed to reproduce the zones)? The fact that they are numbered from 1 to 10 is just a convention. You could number them anyway you like but there is no unit in zones, whereas light intensity itself can be measured (for instance candles per sq.ft). This is how I understood it.

Yes as you stated it is base 2.
However the numbering is not 1 to 10, it is 0 to 10 making it eleven steps. Hence 211 which I am proposing could be handled better by a hexadecimal schema or even an octal schema. Also noted that paper has seven levels of tone and that would be a candidate for an octal schema.

mauro35 · Jan 11, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
Yes as you stated it is base 2.
However the numbering is not 1 to 10, it is 0 to 10 making it eleven steps. Hence 211 which I am proposing could be handled better by a hexadecimal schema or even an octal schema. Also noted that paper has seven levels of tone and that would be a candidate for an octal schema.

Sorry I meant to write 0 to 10. The reason why there are 11 zones is because any other zone (higher or lower) would be indistinguishable from pure white (zone X) or pure black (zero). If we were to change the scale, we would end up with differences from one zone to another that are not 2 in relative amount of light. Maybe I didn´t understand completely your idea, but a numerical example of what you mean would help.

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 11, 2015

Zones 0 through 10 are still arbitrary, or better stated, "relative". A very poor paper with minimal Dmax and lesser bright Dmin and different contrast will have a different-looking scale than a paper of the very best quality with very deep Dmax and ultra-bright whites. And that's only a small piece of the equation.

When I calibrated my film developing I standardized everything and was meticulous regarding mixing, age of chemicals, processing temps, etc. I finally settled on only three films, one film developer and one paper/developer combination. I did things the CHEAP/EASY way because I was a poor fifteen-year-old kid. First I found exposure indexes and processing times that gave me results I liked with the paper I was using. Then I exposed some film (blank gray wall with the camera focus at infinity) and had a lad find .1 over FB+fog for all three films, both in full shade and in bright sunlight. Yes, I kept track of actual shutter speeds. Then I adjusted my "guide" exposure indexes accordingly. I never stuck stringently to the ZS because I considered it a "guide" rather than being set in stone. I've stated my methods before and didn't get responses but suffice it to say I think my results were quite good even though I was just a dumb kid.

Chan Tran · Jan 11, 2015

tkamiya said:
With advent of computers, we see Hex as more less a normal number system but when Adams developed zone system, did it even exist in most people's vocabulary? (or did it even exist??)

Does anyone use Octals anymore? I recall using them on DEC PDP11/34 but that was long time ago....

I still use Octal number because one of the PLC (programmable controller) I work with uses octal addressing scheme. I read Adams biography and found that he was home school. I don't think he had very advanced mathematics.

tkamiya · Jan 11, 2015

swchris said:
Parameter to "chmod" command...

NEVER thought of it that way!

chmod 777, yeah

Photo Engineer · Jan 11, 2015

Actually, it is a 21 step system and AA dumbed it down. IDK why.

PE

NedL · Jan 12, 2015

tkamiya said:
NEVER thought of it that way!

chmod 777, yeah

Yep! But be careful with that a+rwx!
And Sirius I still administer solaris 10 today!

Back the zone step system...

Sirius Glass · Jan 12, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
Actually, it is a 21 step system and AA dumbed it down. IDK why.

PE

Thank you. I see that my step wedges have 21 steps.

Bill Burk · Jan 12, 2015

I could see naming 15 of these steps (the normal scene 7 1/3 stops).

But you know... it all started with the Weston Master meter, the design of its dial is where 10 came from.

Photo Engineer · Jan 12, 2015

10 is better than 42.

Sirius Glass · Jan 12, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
10 is better than 42.

Do you 1010 or 1042?

Arklatexian · Jan 12, 2015

Photo Engineer said:
Actually, it is a 21 step system and AA dumbed it down. IDK why.

As I understand it, because he and Fred Archer needed a way to teach students at Art Center a simple way to previsualize the final result before exposing film in a way that did not require an advanced degree in math. It worked pretty darned good if most of these students learned to control film exposure and print quality as well as the people I know/knew who graduated from there.......Regards

Photo Engineer · Jan 13, 2015

Old timer, not sure about that. The 21 step shows the entire curve which is very helpful.

Sirius, I do base 2, 8, 10 and 16 but not as often since I retired from EK. I don't do base 42 as there will be no common app using it until the end of the world. And, I don't want to live and hear all of that awful poetry.

PE

Chan Tran · Jan 14, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
Thank you. I see that my step wedges have 21 steps.

May be Ansel couldn't count that high?

Old-N-Feeble · Jan 14, 2015

Thank you. I see that my step wedges have 21 steps.

May be Ansel couldn't count that high?

I can count to 20 with my shoes off but 21 requires a more drastic attire change.

NJH · Jan 14, 2015

I think this is interesting;
http://medical.nema.org/dicom/2006/06_14pu.pdf

Seems that the best way to fit the luminance levels that the human eye can perceive onto a graph is good old log base 10.

Chan Tran · Jan 14, 2015

NJH said:
I think this is interesting;
http://medical.nema.org/dicom/2006/06_14pu.pdf

Seems that the best way to fit the luminance levels that the human eye can perceive onto a graph is good old log base 10.

Although I never read any medical document about that but don't most of us know that already? But log is log no matter what base they are the same.

Yet another post about the Zone System

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency