Zone System - still useful?

[timbo10ca]

You will see from my question I'm a novice, but here goes:
I am trying to learn photography and know of the Zone System and basically what it entails. I don't have the time, space, or money to do my own developing, which sounds crucial to the use of the ZS. So other than trying to see the world in different shades of grey, how would I be able to actually apply the ZS to my photography?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Even if you have a lab develop your film, you can make use of the principles of the zone system in a modified way. If you're developing your own film (and developing your own film is not difficult or costly, and does not even require a dedicated darkroom), you would first test for film speed with your system and film/developer combination, and then you would test to see how much variation in development time you would need to effect predictable adjustments in contrast, and then over time, you might fine tune those results to your print method and tastes and to account for the small variations in film speed that are associated with adjustments in development time.

If a lab is developing your film for you, you can still do a film speed test in the same way you would, if you had developed it yourself. You can do this with a densitometer, or you can ask the lab to print contact sheets for you at the minimum exposure for maximum black, and determine visually what film speed gives you adequate shadow detail.

While you can't usually do things like figuring how much you need to adjust development time to get a 1 or 2 zone expansion or a 1 or 2 zone contraction of contrast, you can ask the question in reverse--"If I tell the lab to push one or two or three stops or to pull one or two stops while I actually keep my film speed constant, how much of an expansion or reduction of contrast will I get?" What the lab is calling a "push" or a "pull" is really just an extension or reduction in development time, and it does not change the film speed substantially--only the contrast. You might find, for instance, that what the lab calls a 1-stop push corresponds to +1, and maybe a 2 stop push corresponds to +1.5, and a three stop push corresponds to +2.3, or something in that ballpark, or maybe the lab habitually overdevelops and "normal" development is really +.5 (a common situation). The point is that you can still expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights with negative film, as long as you run a few tests to know how to control these factors.

This does not mean constant testing unless you are constantly trying new materials. Find what works, and stick with it.

 

[timbo10ca]

ahhhh- now this is language I understand. So.... as a blank slate, should I learn ZS or BTZS? I *do* hope to get into B&W developing and printing sometime in the future, it just can't happen for a while. I actually don't have alot of interest to be honest, but it sounds as though it is maybe the more important/satisfying part of photography for many people. I'd probably end up divorced if I started puting more time into photography than I already do though!

 

[Erwin]

Minimalist ZS?

When starting off with a new film I usually set my meter to the rated IE then shoot measuring for Zone II and exposing accordingly. If in the mood I will also note down some highlight readings.

Once the film is developed I determine the shortest exposure with which I get pure black on a blank frame (given col-hight and f-stop) and then print a few frames using that exposure and G2.5. If the measured shadow areas just show detail then the EI is OK, otherwise adjust a bit for the next roll.

If highlights were noted then compare how these come out though with my current developer (Prescysol) they seem to be OK most of the time. VG paper needs to take care of the rest.

Does this make sense? Seems to work OK, but then I'm just an ethusiast with limited time to spend on my hobby.

 

[Changeling1]

With the cost of analog photography going higher and higher the Zone System(s) and standardizing procedures seem more important these days than anytime in the past.

The days of going through a 100 sheet box of paper (or film) in a day or two as back in my carefree college days are long gone, along with the energy, stamina, and time required to pull off a good old-fashioned darkroom marathon!

I realize that any sort of dicipline (suggested or otherwise) has the potential of chasing newcomers away from our medium but without dicipline, the cost of pursuing our means of expression might well become out of the reach of many would-be enthusiasts.

Using the Zone System and/or variants thereof along with standardizing your personal film speeds and darkroom procedures can save very significant amounts of time and money. The real problem will then be how to keep all that money out of the pockets of the sellers over at "the auction site"!

 

[Christopher Walrath]

timbo10ca writes "ahhhh- now this is language I understand. So.... as a blank slate, should I learn ZS or BTZS?"

I would start with the Zone System. It can be a bit to bite off but once you get it, it sticks. It makes sense. Just get to that point. As to Beyond the Zone System, it is just that. Sensitometry further refines what you know to make the Zone System that much more effective. So learn the Zone System first. It was documented by Ansel Adams in 1940 so I would start there. Chapter 4 of his book entitled 'The Negative' is as good a start as you could ask for.

 

[Ole]

Understanding the logic behind the zone system is probably the best basis there is for understanding film/developer/processing/printing interrelationships. With that basis, make your own choise whether to use it or not, to use a related system (BTZS), or to go with an entirely different philosophy (William Mortenson, anyone?).

It is quite possible that you will also discover that Mortenson's technique correspond to a subset of the zone system, BTW...

 

[timbo10ca]

With the cost of analog photography going higher and higher the Zone System(s) and standardizing procedures seem more important these days than anytime in the past.

The days of going through a 100 sheet box of paper (or film) in a day or two as back in my carefree college days are long gone, along with the energy, stamina, and time required to pull off a good old-fashioned darkroom marathon!

I realize that any sort of dicipline (suggested or otherwise) has the potential of chasing newcomers away from our medium but without dicipline, the cost of pursuing our means of expression might well become out of the reach of many would-be enthusiasts.

Using the Zone System and/or variants thereof along with standardizing your personal film speeds and darkroom procedures can save very significant amounts of time and money. The real problem will then be how to keep all that money out of the pockets of the sellers over at "the auction site"!

Is there enough variation between cameras to warrant testing a film in all you use? (I have an EOS 3 and Elan 7E. I also plan to get an old Pentax I've been looking at, but that's material for a whole other thread) Also, so far I've been shooting almost entirely slide film to learn exposure properly the first time around (unforgiving, what you shoot is what you get), starting with a grey card then graduating recently to an incedence meter (analog Sekonic L398M). From what I'm reading here, using a meter isn't the simple solution I was hoping for and I should learn The Zone...?

 

[Michael Kadillak]

When I left variable contrast papers and opted for fixed grade Azo, out went the zone system and I have not opened up the Adams book in a very long time except to check a technical reference. I was spending far to much time in mental arithmetic and not being an every day shooter, and not enough time composing and exposing film.

Now with the assistance of the BTZS software, I have generated my curves and with a bit of re-training, I now blow and go with far greater accuracy than ever before. I occasionally use the spot meter to check subject brighness range but gear my brain to look into the scene for composition and how I want the print to reproduce the luminances. If it works for you, fabulous. Next time out a clock on the time it takes you to make the exposure determinations and the efficiency of the results in the print. If it takes you more than about two minutes then you need a better system.

Cheers!

 

[gnashings]

Is there enough variation between cameras to warrant testing a film in all you use? (I have an EOS 3 and Elan 7E. I also plan to get an old Pentax I've been looking at, but that's material for a whole other thread) Also, so far I've been shooting almost entirely slide film to learn exposure properly the first time around (unforgiving, what you shoot is what you get), starting with a grey card then graduating recently to an incedence meter (analog Sekonic L398M). From what I'm reading here, using a meter isn't the simple solution I was hoping for and I should learn The Zone...?

Look, this is one of those things with photography: you can shoot a Holga with whatever brand of film is cheapest at the time and have a great time - you may not be satisfied until you find the finest grained film that you will process by inspection from your 8x10 ULF rig, do test after test and so on.
Where are you at? I think I am somewhere in between the two extremes - I like the theory and the darkroom work as much as the shooting (maybe a bit more!), but I don't think I will own a densitometer any time soon and have a very basic understanding of toes and shoulders.
I found understanding the Zone System a useful tool for anyone trying to take a B&W photo with anything other than a pure-chance possibility of knowing what it will look like. Even if you use it as a starting point, or just a point of reference, its still a useful tool and has a place in the photographic world. Even if you don't use it, you should know what it is, so that you can make an educated decison of its relative merits or lack there of for you personally. I just use the parts that I can, and at least understand why things happen due to the parts of the system I choose not to delve into.
As to developing your own film, I find it a necessity with B&W (and by the looks of the colour prints I get..yuck... its seems to be getting there with colour - but that s a slightly more involved game to play). I don't know of a lab that could possibly develop film up to my very modest standards at a price that I would find affordible. It takes less time and room to develop a roll of film than to take a dump - and if you ate hot food, it costs less than the TP

Peter.

 

[df cardwell]

I wonder if more than 1 out of a hundred photographers have any idea what the Zone System is actually about.

.

 

[seadrive]

The real problem with the Zone System is that most people don't know how to translate actual reflected light values into print values. If you don't know what the "highest value that requires detail" and the "lowest value that requires detail" are in the scene, then it's unlikely that any system of exposure and development will help you.

It's the same thing in printing. You can spend days trying all sorts of developers and papers and contrast grades, split developing, masking, etc. But if you don't know and can't feel where the print values belong, then you are doomed to always be a lousy printer.

Picker said that good photographers were almost always good printers, because the same skill set that applied in making the photograph also applied when making the print. They knew how to make the right decisions.

 

[Papa Tango]

I wonder if more than 1 out of a hundred photographers have any idea what the Zone System is actually about.

Put most to the task and they will not know, nor have any idea that it was a St. Ansel creation. I have heard a couple attribute it to "that Picker guy." Personally, some of it I have found to be most confusing and an impediment to the selfsame "visualization" that Adams rants about. Others experience is just the opposite.

QUOTE=Ole]Understanding the logic behind the zone system is probably the best basis there is for understanding film/developer/processing/printing interrelationships. With that basis, make your own choise whether to use it or not, to use a related system (BTZS), or to go with an entirely different philosophy (William Mortenson, anyone?).[/QUOTE]

Yes, it is important to understand the relationship between shadow and highlights. A good negative will however print on a wide range of papers; graded or VC. Here is a simple method I use: Meter the shadows with discernable detail. Meter the highlights with discernable details. Average and determine a "middle" setting. Use that, or open a stop for shadow detail; close a stop for highlight detail. Develop normally, longer for highlight, shorter for shadow. What system is this? Immaterial. The point is that I have used it for years, executing HABS and other architectural documentation that requires immaculate detail, local contrast, and rendition for both contact and enlargement.

I am reminded of the "sunny 16" model, and how countless rolls of film came out with perfectly acceptable results. I see countless major and important photographic works that predate Zoning anything. Hell, Weston did not even use a light meter. How could that happen?

Ultimately, this is all really subjective. It is the result that matters, and not anyone's particular methodology. Is not this what photography is about?

 

[mark]

Why don't folks just use what works for them. These threads always end up sounding like AvD or Mac V Windows threads. And accomplish about as much.

 

[Papa Tango]

Why don't folks just use what works for them. These threads always end up sounding like AvD or Mac V Windows threads. And accomplish about as much.

Cause this is more fun. What, are you one of them Mac users? Let me tell you this, there is good reason they went over to Intel and now run windoze....

 

[tommy5c]

This discussion has been going on since AA started teaching it. I think Minor White harassed Ansel about the Zone system. Like all tools the zone system is a valuable one to learn. Once you are comfortable and consistantly making photographs, you can begin to form your own way of thinking and system. At that point it is based upon your experence in the medium. I myself, i'm still trying get what I want from the scene - to negative - to paper.

 

[timbo10ca]

This discussion has been going on since AA started teaching it. I think Minor White harassed Ansel about the Zone system. Like all tools the zone system is a valuable one to learn. Once you are comfortable and consistantly making photographs, you can begin to form your own way of thinking and system. At that point it is based upon your experence in the medium. I myself, i'm still trying get what I want from the scene - to negative - to paper.

Therein lies my frustration- I am trying to to become consistent and confident and am trying to figure out how to do so. My goal is to be a ble to shoot a roll of film in variable situations without having to bracket, and be confident in the results...... and not take 5-10 min per shot trying to figure out what I have to do to be successful. I long for the confidence that allows me to shoot a scene when I see it, and not miss it while trying to set up my camera. Sheesh- detail in shadows, highlights and getting the most out of contrast doesn't even seem to be in my algorithm yet! I know- just keep shooting, it takes practice. But also money. I've never been the patient type... must go meditate ;-)

 

[Ole]

.... My goal is to be a ble to shoot a roll of film in variable situations without having to bracket, and be confident in the results...... and not take 5-10 min per shot trying to figure out what I have to do to be successful. ...

The best way to do that, is to leave your light meter at home. Learn to see, guess and guesstimate exposures, and use the settings you know are correct.

 

[timbo10ca]

The best way to do that, is to leave your light meter at home. Learn to see, guess and guesstimate exposures, and use the settings you know are correct.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Well, I'm working on it.....

 

[lee]

This discussion has been going on since AA started teaching it. I think Minor White harassed Ansel about the Zone system. Like all tools the zone system is a valuable one to learn. Once you are comfortable and consistantly making photographs, you can begin to form your own way of thinking and system. At that point it is based upon your experence in the medium. I myself, i'm still trying get what I want from the scene - to negative - to paper.

Minor White it is reported to have said to Ansel Adams, "I see you are still using the zone system" to which Adams replied, "Yes, and I see you are still using the Zen System."

lee\c

 

[phfitz]

timbo10ca

There is nothing wrong with bracketing, that's why there are 2 sides to a film holder and lots of exposures on roll film. Not bracketing is really false economy, you may lose the scene and learn nothing.

Someone posted here, within 6 months, a graph of H&D curves that were not anchored at zone 0 shadow but at zone 5 midtone. It just made it easier to visualize the changes in film speed per developement, it just looks more intuitive graphed that way. Maybe someone else remembers and can find the link.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Oh my GOD! phfitz said the 'B' word. No, bracketing is fine. When you don't know, then bracket the shot so you can learn which exposure worked and why. but one cannot do this without recording some basic information about EACH exposure in some sort of a journal. I know, a pain in my side as well sometimes, but I try to do it whenever I can, especially my black and whites.

 

[Donald Miller]

When I left variable contrast papers and opted for fixed grade Azo, out went the zone system and I have not opened up the Adams book in a very long time except to check a technical reference. I was spending far to much time in mental arithmetic and not being an every day shooter, and not enough time composing and exposing film.

Now with the assistance of the BTZS software, I have generated my curves and with a bit of re-training, I now blow and go with far greater accuracy than ever before. I occasionally use the spot meter to check subject brighness range but gear my brain to look into the scene for composition and how I want the print to reproduce the luminances. If it works for you, fabulous. Next time out a clock on the time it takes you to make the exposure determinations and the efficiency of the results in the print. If it takes you more than about two minutes then you need a better system.

Cheers!

Michael,

Your experience parallels mine. I do still use some VC papers but the system you mention is much more accurate and repeatable in my experience.

 

[Allen Friday]

Is the Zone System flawed? Yes.
Is BTZS flawed? Yes.
Is relying on your camera's built in meter flawed? Yes.
Is taking a single incident meter reading flawed? Yes.

There is no perfect exposure system. If there was, we would all be using it. Great photographs have been taken by all the means listed above.

Each of the above methods of determining exposure has its advantages. Each has its disadvantages. Each photographer has to determine which works best for him or her in any given situation.

To determine if a system works for you, and to determine its strengths and weaknesses, you have to be familiar with the system and use it for a while. Then you learn when it is best to use one method as opposed to another.

I do all my film and paper testing with BTZS. When I shoot medium format or 35 (normally while traveling), I use my in-camera meter. But, I have used it enough to know when I have to vary from the meter indicated exposure. Over the last few years, I have photographed snow drifts in the winter with my MF gear. (Check out my gallery for a few of the photos.) The in-camera meter is pretty much useless for this task. I used an incident meter.

For my large format work I sometimes meter using BTZS methodology, especially when I am going for a "literal" rendering of the scene. Most of the time I will use Zone System metering because I find it easier to visualize changes in the "literal" tones with the ZS. Sometimes with large format, I will not use either. I do 90+ percent of my photography in Cass County, Iowa, and I am familiar with the light here. Most the time I know the exposure and development before I have set up the camera. I will take a quick incident reading simply to verify the intensity of the light.

I am not tied to any one system. I use all of the methods described above. But, I try to use each when most advantageous. But, I can "cherry pick" the best of each method only because I am familiar with each system and have experience with each method.

 

[Sparky]

Years and years ago I embraced the zone system wholeheartedly - read all the adams books with relish - this was before I really started taking pictures. I was very interested in white's take also. But something about it kind of bothered me - and it took me a few years to figure out what it was. Using anything beyond normal development (for me of course) totally F-ed up all my lovely textures I was capturing - which is why I really loved large format. Photographing a wall with a glued-on flyer that was torn and rain-weathered with N+2 or even N+1 made the paper look like some kind of cardboard. The delicateness is completely gone. Subtle relationships become destroyed. So I just eased it back. But at least I knew how to get this effect or that. So I used it accordingly. And very sparingly.

But what I really gleaned off all this was how to really standardize my chemistry and methods. So that's my 2 pfennigs on the subject.