Zone System - still relevant?

[Scott Peters]

Well, I use it to 'try' (I might add) and create a certain look. Like maybe make the shadows all dark (blow them out), or for development under extreme lighting conditions (either N- or N+). But honestly for 'straight' (if there is such a thing) landscapes, I think much can be done with out knowledge of the zone system.

 

[jstraw]

Another thing that appeals to me about having a system to follow, and bear with me...this may seem kind of out there...but it's a compliment to what's special about LF to me.

It's a "left brain"/"right brain" thing. It occupies my left brain and busies me with quantifiable tasks in ways that free the right brain to be intuitive.

I couls express this in terms of conscious and unconscious mind as well.

Or in terms of the zen of simple repetitive tasks that help me be alive to the moment.

The methodical, deliberate nature of LF is compounded by attending to a system of making exposures. This would be true of any system...but this is why I like having one.

 

[Markok765]

I use it for 35mm

 

[Kirk Gittings]

A very casual survey I did on the Large Format Forum suggested that about 2/3 rds of the respondents still use some form of the Zone System. That speaks to its continued relevance and a significant number of people use BTZS. See:http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19409

 

[stevewillard]

I use the Zone system as defined by Ansel Adams for color negative film. I do contracted development of N-1 and N-2 and expanded development of N+1. N development for me is not the same as the standard for the industry.

I have found that if I underdevelop the negative I can squeeze a dynamic range of 14 stops from the film I am using. This development is my N development allowing me to achieve placements at XIV with detail. N+1 for me is what the industry would call normal development.

With proper calibration as defined by AA you should get full detail at a Zone III placement. As a rule of thumb, if my significant shadow reads an EV of 9 or less with my Pentax spot meter then I apply a Zone III placement. If my significant shadow reads 9 or greater then I apply a Zone IV placement. An EV of 9 can go either way. Of course these placements are used only if I am trying to do a representational rendering of the gray scale. Many times this is not the case, and I may place significant shadows in Zone I or II if I am looking for a more graphic effect. Sometimes I am looking for a high key effect, and I will move the shadows into Zone V. It just depends on what my artistic vision is.

With color negative film there is no paper grades for controlling highlights so I build contrast masks modeled after Howard Bonds methods for making unsharp mask. This allows me to very easily print Zone XIV values without any burn marks from excessive dodging. I have become very good at building contrast mask so once the right mask has been construsted I do not have to do any dodging and burning. This greatly simplifies printing thereafter. I am finding that the contrast mask is a very powerfull tool. I can shoot at high noon now under blazing sun and with the use of a Polarizing filter and a contrast mask I can produce a very soft contrast image that is quite soothing with glowing colors. This has been very effective for shooting fall foliage colors.

The Zone system provides me with a very accurate predictor of the final print consistent with my expressive vision. I only make two exposures for a photograph because of concerns for dust spots. If dust were never a concern then I would only make one exposure and feel very confident about the end result of the final print. I never do bracketing.

 

[nworth]

As long as film contrast responds to development time, the zone system is applicable in full. It may not be as magical as it once was, but it is still useful in the black and white process. (It may even be useful, to a degree, in color, but I don't think this has really been explored enough, especially with today's color negative films.) Aside from the technical process of the ZS, learning it teaches you a lot about how to view the subject. It tells you what your meter is saying, and how to expose based on your measurements. This is applicable to all photography, including color and digital. If you can't compensate in development, it still tells you what to expect and points toward the best compromises.

That said, there have always been great photographers who did not use the ZS.

 

[Mark_S]

My opinion:
The tools that have been developed in the past 50 years have made the zone system less essential - we have more ways of rescuing a negative that would not have been printable then. At the same time, it is certainly helpful to have the benefit of a negative that does not require heroic efforts to print, and the ZS is the best way to get that negative as a starting point.


Personally I do not use the full zone system, but rather a variant which gets me closer to ideal than I would be without it, but not as close as I could be to perfect negatives.