Zone System - who has an easy to follow - simple guideline to setting it up

[Doremus Scudder]

Some random thoughts:

The Zone System is just one method of simplifying and applying sensitometery and tone reproduction so the non-scientist can use them effectively.

Fitting subject luminescence range to a paper grade/contrast setting by means of altering development time (after exposing "correctly," of course) and using Zones III and VIII as textured extremes is just one way to apply the ZS. That's the formula for "plain-vanilla," faithful-to-reality-rendered prints. Many like those.

With a thorough knowledge of the ZS and a bit of tone reproduction on the side, you can use the techniques for anything that the medium is capable of: underexposing and overdeveloping for that "pushed" look, increasing contrast for a graphic black-white representation without a lot of midtones, etc.., etc.

If you visualize something outside of the realistic rendering, the ZS can also be an effective tool.

"Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights" needs to be modified to, "Expose for the shadows and develop or change print contrast for the highlights." Contrast control by means of altering development time is not the only tool in the toolbox and, especially in the case of contractions, often is not as good as other methods (SLIMT is my go-to for extreme contractions these days).

Planning print manipulations, including dodging, burning and bleaching can, and should, be incorporated into the visualization and into ZS methodology.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

Newspaper grit is due to the halftone process. But there was a distinct grain effect to those old journalistic shots which showed even in prints, and can be quite beautiful for the right kind of subject matter. I seldom shoot Tri-X, but I suspect the present form of it in 35mm and 120 roll film version is somewhat different than in its heyday.

Though this has been claimed often, I see no evidence of it, and Kodak has denied it.

 

[MattKing]

Though this has been claimed often, I see no evidence of it, and Kodak has denied it.

The 35mm Tri-X I shot most recently is distinctly less grainy than the stuff I was using in the 1970s.
Similar in most other ways, but definitely less grain.
Part of that might come from the fact that I use XTol now, and D76 mostly in the 1970s.

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The 35mm Tri-X I shot most recently is distinctly less grainy than the stuff I was using in the 1970s.
Similar in most other ways, but definitely less grain.
Part of that might come from the fact that I use XTol now, and D76 mostly in the 1970s.

Quite possibly your technique has improved too!

 

[Augustus Caesar]

The 35mm Tri-X I shot most recently is distinctly less grainy than the stuff I was using in the 1970s.
Similar in most other ways, but definitely less grain.
Part of that might come from the fact that I use XTol now, and D76 mostly in the 1970s.

From Kodak (2003):

"Regarding Kodak Tri-X products, there are three basic Tri-X products that professional photographers might be involved with. I'm not sure what other films might be included in your description of "films such as Tri-X." A significant change in silver content of traditional B/W films would be accompanied by a significant change in other characteristics --tone reproduction, contrast, and granularity, for example. Consistency of product has always been a prime goal in the manufacture of Tri-X products, and, over the years, comparisons of Kodak products with other manufacturers' products have shown Kodak to be consistently ahead of other manufacturers in this regard. Any "breakthrough" in technology that would allow a significant change in the silver content or image structure would be better introduced to the public as a new product than as a "secret" change to the Tri-X films. In fact, such a breakthrough was introduced with the T-Max films. Although some people within the company expected sales of Tri-X would tail off following the introduction of the T-Max films and that the products would be discontinued due to lack of sales, this has not happened. The current "best practice" for manufacturing these products is to control the characteristics of all the materials going into the product, and to control all parts of the manufacturing process so that the "standard" product formulation will produce product with consistent characteristics every time. This has been found to work better than the procedure used in past years, when the film formulation engineer had the freedom to "tweak" a component slightly to compensate for apparent changes in raw materials in order to make the resulting product closer to established aims. So it is probably not true to say that a particular Tri-X product has always had the exact same silver level for the past 30 or 40 years. But based on my experience for the last 20 or so, I doubt that there would be any variations greater than 5%, and certainly no permanent, intentional level shift."

 

[MattKing]

Whether or not the silver content has changed, the technology certainly has. In particular the production control technology.
When all film manufacture was moved to the newly constructed Building 38 - the current location - the films did show changes.
As to whether my 35mm technique has improved in 50 or so years, it is hard to say. I was shooting a lot more in 1976 than I am now, and I was printing more from each roll.
What I do know is that 35mm Tri-X grain was more of a limitation on the quality of results than it is now.

 

[Paul Howell]

When I started to shoot news while in college starting in 1966 most of the local papers I freelanced for wanted a higher contrast negative, At the time available light was the the preferred method, the old days of shooting with a 4X5 with M 5 flash bulbs was giving way to TLR and 35mm. with faster lens and high speed film, TriX or GAF 500. Trix, GAF and HP4 were rather grainy in both 6X6 and 35mm. The grain and higher contrast coupled with the halftone process gave the news look that lasted into the 70s. Eugene Smith and Robert Capa another others were shooting in this style in the 40 and 50s. Smith was a master of the style.

 

[cliveh]

When I started to shoot news while in college starting in 1966 most of the local papers I freelanced for wanted a higher contrast negative, At the time available light was the the preferred method, the old days of shooting with a 4X5 with M 5 flash bulbs was giving way to TLR and 35mm. with faster lens and high speed film, TriX or GAF 500. Trix, GAF and HP4 were rather grainy in both 6X6 and 35mm. The grain and higher contrast coupled with the halftone process gave the news look that lasted into the 70s. Eugene Smith and Robert Capa another others were shooting in this style in the 40 and 50s. Smith was a master of the style.

How true, just look at the contrast of any Weegee print. Great for newspaper reproduction.

 

[Paul Howell]

Weegee shot mostly at night, he used a big flash bulb, much of the contrast comes from the light drop off in the background. But Weegee was the king of gritty crime photography.

 

[MattKing]

Blood looked particularly "Weegee-like" the way he worked.
Of course, he did other interesting work as well, including with 35mm film: https://www.straight.com/movies/394076/kubrick-weegee-and-strangelove-meet-again

 

[Chris Coppola]

I haven’t posted here in forever but I’m setting my darkroom back up this weekend and want to dive back in. I learned the zone system but I find its use very limited for roll film in most cases. The exception would be if shooting in the same exact contrast range for an entire roll.

This can be somewhat mitigated using 3 backs on a hasselblad or rb67 with removable backs. An n-1, n, n+1 back could be used effectively And swapped as needed for 3 different contrast ranges. For a tlr or 35mm, I’ve found the best thing to do is downrate Speed 2/3 stop as mentioned above, meter Shadows, then use a 2 bath developer like divided d23 or Barry Thornton 2 bath to restrain highlight density. The entire roll should have a contrast range well within printable range. Then in a darkroom split grade the print or in digital it becomes simple to manipulate contrast curves.

 

[Bill Burk]

I understand what you guys are saying, but I only photograph something I find of interest and never think about printing it at the same time. But when I do print it, I just try to reproduce the tonal record of the original scene, although I may print it darker or lighter for aesthetic effect. Or tone or turn it into some alternative process. But to me, faithful reproduction of the original scene is paramount.

In his five by seven, quarter inch book “Zone System Manual” Minor White wrote, on page 28 out of 111 pages (Trying to get across the significance of how he fit the whole Zone System in such a tiny publication yet he shared early in the book the part that is most meaningful.)

He distilled the essence of the Zone System in a caption under a pair of photographs (one normal, one stylized).

“If the Normal Print is always thought of as a point of departure, or standard of comparison, technique always remains at the service of purpose and interpretation.”

“If the Normal Print is thought of as the ultimate in print quality, technique becomes sterile and the closing of doors.”

He wanted to facilitate his students to become artists, not technicians.

 

[Bill Burk]

If you take a map of California and turn it sideways with LA on the right.

And imagine the plot of individual Giant Sequoia trees as individual Time-CI plots.

The tone reproduction theory based exposures will be in Tahoe, Ansel Adams would be in Yosemite (where he rightly belongs) and William Mortensen would be in Sequoia-Kings Canyon (where I lived and met the author of the book this picture comes from, Mike Law “To Find The Biggest Tree”).

 

[DREW WILEY]

No. I grew up right in between Yosemite and Kings Canyon. William Mortician-sen belongs in smoggy LA making B horror movies, not in our mountains. And the "biggest tree" depends on whose measuring convention takes precedence - that of the Forest Service (diameter of the trunk eight feet up), or that of the Natl Park Service (cumulative board footage). By FS rules, the biggest tree is in a seldom visited grove not in any NP; and the reason for measuring 8 ft up is so trees like the Bay Fig, which greatly spread out their root system slightly above ground, don't get factored.

A better analogy would be to stand at Yucca Point and take a gander at the greatest canyon drop in North America, with North Palisade and its glaciers comprising Zone VIII over 14,000 ft high, and the depths of the canyon clear down around 1000 ft approximating Zone II. Then try placing a sticky segmented gray scale on a ridge all the way up to the top of Spanish Mountain directly across the River from Yucca Point. Yeah, above timberline it does get lighter gray, and lower down, where forest fires have done their thing, it's distinctly blacker. Where black bears fit into the tonality scale is harder to say; they keep moving, so it's hard to meter them.

 

[BrianShaw]

Be nice Drew. Mortensen isn’t the only photographer to reside in by LA. Weston and Adams passed through. Curtis stayed. I visit with him and his family on a regular basis.

 

[Hassasin]

In his five by seven, quarter inch book “Zone System Manual” Minor White wrote, on page 28 out of 111 pages (Trying to get across the significance of how he fit the whole Zone System in such a tiny publication yet he shared early in the book the part that is most meaningful.)

He distilled the essence of the Zone System in a caption under a pair of photographs (one normal, one stylized).

“If the Normal Print is always thought of as a point of departure, or standard of comparison, technique always remains at the service of purpose and interpretation.”

“If the Normal Print is thought of as the ultimate in print quality, technique becomes sterile and the closing of doors.”

He wanted to facilitate his students to become artists, not technicians.

Great quote, yet where is a single discussion about ZS that is not about what he says was (allegedly) not meant by it? Absolute majority of exchanges draw people into this robotic state of mind, where one cannot make great prints without the pain of endless testing. Instead of working on eye development, evaluating visual aspect of outcome, too many fall into the trap of “it must be my technique”, mostly thanks to the Zone $ystem.

 

[joho]

Zone System - who has an easy to follow - simple guideline to setting it up…

I think all light meters are ZS blind!!
all B/W films are continues tone so why only 10 tones ????

 

[Hassasin]

Zone System - who has an easy to follow - simple guideline to setting it up…

I think all light meters are ZS blind!!
all B/W films are continues tone so why only 10 tones ????

Well, all tones will fall in between furthest extremes. As ZS preaches, one places something somewhere, and the rest will fall as they may. I know of some who do that, then continue to measure other areas just to see if they "fall" where they "should", and so on.

 

[pentaxuser]

William Mortician-sen belongs in smoggy LA

Did he wake up each morning to find his business was effectively dead?

pentaxuser

 

[Paul Howell]

Zone System - who has an easy to follow - simple guideline to setting it up…

I think all light meters are ZS blind!!
all B/W films are continues tone so why only 10 tones ????

Adams and Archer made an arbitrary decision, 10 zones seemed manageable and understandable., in terms of visualization. Minor White used 9, thinking that papers of the 60s had less tonality than papers of the 40s. Davis used 7, the zones with texture, but he did not preach visualization.

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Why do we have meters, inches, kilometers and miles when distance is continuous? So we can measure. If we need more precise measurements, we use smaller increments (half-Zones, quarter-Zones, etc. would be possible, just not really necessary).

Ten Zones is arbitrary, many use nine Zones. When metering contrasty scenes, I've measured up to Zone XIII or higher. The exposure-development part of the Zone System is simply there as a practical application of sensitometry and tone reproduction to ensure the film is properly exposed and developed so that it's printable (these are flexible concepts depending on the photographers intentions).

Understanding how systems work and how to work within them to get the creative results one desires is anything but robotic. If the ZS is turning people into camera-wielding zombies, they are not understanding or applying it correctly.

One needs both adequate technique and vision to make a successful photograph.

Doremus

 

[cliveh]

Perhaps Photrio should have a gallery dedicated for just prints produced using the zone system, so we could all appreciate the tonal aesthetics of prints produced in this way?

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Perhaps Photrio should have a gallery dedicated for just prints produced using the zone system, so we could all appreciate the tonal aesthetics of prints produced in this way?

I'd be happy to contribute.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Why do we have meters, inches, kilometers and miles when distance is continuous? So we can measure. If we need more precise measurements, we use smaller increments (half-Zones, quarter-Zones, etc. would be possible, just not really necessary).

Ten Zones is arbitrary, many use nine Zones. When metering contrasty scenes, I've measured up to Zone XIII or higher. The exposure-development part of the Zone System is simply there as a practical application of sensitometry and tone reproduction to ensure the film is properly exposed and developed so that it's printable (these are flexible concepts depending on the photographers intentions).

Understanding how systems work and how to work within them to get the creative results one desires is anything but robotic. If the ZS is turning people into camera-wielding zombies, they are not understanding or applying it correctly.

One needs both adequate technique and vision to make a successful photograph.

Doremus

A good analogy would be with the piano. It's divided into twelve equal steps—semitones—, but it could have been more (there have been keyboards with 19 tones, 31 tones, and more), or, as in Indian ragas, much less. And the twelve steps have not always been equal; only in J. S. Bach's time was the equal temperament developed. And it was so for practical, not natural reasons: it made it possible to modulate from any key to any other key.

Now that the equal temperament exists does not mean that every instruments follows it exactly. For a violinist, for example, an F sharp is not exactly the same as a G flat, even though they are the same key on the keyboard. Same goes with the zone system : it's not because you have ten zones on the film or on the print is limited to ten zones.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A good analogy would be with the piano. It's divided into twelve equal steps—half-tones—, but it could have been more (there have been keyboards with 19 tones, 31 tones, and more), or, as in Indian ragas, much less. And the twelve steps have not always been equal; only in J. S. Bach's time was the equal temperament developed. And it was so for practical, not natural reasons: it made it possible to modulate from any key to any other key.

Now that the equal temperament exists does not mean that every instruments follows it exactly. For a violinist, for example, an F sharp is not exactly the same as a G flat, even though they are the same key on the keyboard. Same goes with the zone system : it's not because you have ten zones on the film or on the print is limited to ten zones.

Follow-up to this, here's a modern recontruction of a 16th-century keyboard that had 36 keys per octave.