I agree, in terms of just testing film, all you need to shoot at box speed, then bracket a set of scenes, bright daylight, open shade, deep shade if flash user then flash. Develop to manufactures recommended time for your film then made a contact print or scan to determine which shots give both shadow and highlights and that becomes your personal ISO for that camera. My newer cameras with electronic shutters and matrix metering shoot very close to box speed, Foma 400 at 320 Tmax 400 at 400. With my older mechanical cameras with average TTL metering, all over the map. Konica T3, Foma 400 200, Tmax 320, Konica T, Foma 400 800, Tmax 800, Not a fault of the film or developer just aging cameras and meters.Yes I found that book to be a pretty good text on what to do and why to do it but as Doremus says "the reduce film speed by 1/2 to 2/3rd stop and reduce development time by 15-20%" maxim probably gets you very close
pentaxuser
I agree, in terms of just testing film, all you need to shoot at box speed, then bracket a set of scenes, bright daylight, open shade, deep shade if flash user then flash. Develop to manufactures recommended time for your film then made a contact print or scan to determine which shots give both shadow and highlights and that becomes your personal ISO for that camera. My newer cameras with electronic shutters and matrix metering shoot very close to box speed, Foma 400 at 320 Tmax 400 at 400. With my older mechanical cameras with average TTL metering, all over the map. Konica T3, Foma 400 200, Tmax 320, Konica T, Foma 400 800, Tmax 800, Not a fault of the film or developer just aging cameras and meters.
Did you forget the title of the thread? - Simplifying the Zone System. That's like expecting a short course in herding cats. Each has their own mind.
For myself, I spent quite a bit of time studying Ansel Adams books and reading this website back when it was APUG, before I decided to divide Zone System into the ZS Exposure and ZS Development because I was shooting roll film and I could not have 12 or 36 different developments in a roll of film. Then looking only at changing the exposure, when I though about the zones as different EVs or f/stops up or down, I could clear out all the clutter and come up with a simplified approach. If I had been using my 4"x5" cameras primarily at that time, I would have used both the exposure and development parts of the Zone System.
Can someone explain what the zone system is trying to achieve? I ask this, as I wonder how it relates to picture aesthetics, or just tonal representation.
Can someone explain what the zone system is trying to achieve? I ask this, as I wonder how it relates to picture aesthetics, or just tonal representation.
For myself, I spent quite a bit of time studying Ansel Adams books and reading this website back when it was APUG, before I decided to divide Zone System into the ZS Exposure and ZS Development because I was shooting roll film and I could not have 12 or 36 different developments in a roll of film. Then looking only at changing the exposure, when I though about the zones as different EVs or f/stops up or down, I could clear out all the clutter and come up with a simplified approach. If I had been using my 4"x5" cameras primarily at that time, I would have used both the exposure and development parts of the Zone System.
That seems reasonable, and I would add in ZS printing too. But separating the elements and using only part might not be worthy of the ZS name. I do similar and it's "ZS inspired", at best. Seems like others do similar.
Visualisation and its rendering in a final print is the aesthetic part. The technical aspects of the zone system are the path that gets you from the scene to the print—it's a process more than a system. Following the path means mastering the means of adequating the tonalities you saw (visualisation) and those you render on the print.
It's the shortest answer I could come up with.
Can someone explain what the zone system is trying to achieve? I ask this, as I wonder how it relates to picture aesthetics, or just tonal representation.
The part for me was that the enlargement on 16x20 inches Multigrade paper required an exposure of 9 minutes, so you can imagine how dense the negative was. He needed 'Patience' for that.Just for fun, I read through that little article Keith posted, "The Zone System is Dead" by Johnny Patience. I soon ran out of patience with his own preconceptions. Again, the incorrect assumption that every black and white film behaves like Tri-X, and that every color neg film behaves like his chosen Portra 400.
Can someone explain what the zone system is trying to achieve? I ask this, as I wonder how it relates to picture aesthetics, or just tonal representation.
Thanks, Brian. No doubt some more fun reading which will have zero effect on my own methodology. Johnny seems to gravitate toward that old washed-out, off-hued 70's look of CN film; so I get his own reason for overexposure. And he tries to replicate the old gritty 35mm journalistic look of Tri-X, which is fine too. But it shouldn't become blanket advice for everyone.
Gordon Arkenberg's rebuttal to Johnny Patience has an interesting title, "Reports of the Zone System's Death are Greatly Exaggerated",
making a play on Mark Twain's famous response to incorrect reports of his own death. Since it points out some of the inherent flaws in J.P's train of thought, it saves me the trouble of specifically spelling them out. And it's a FAR better informed article than J.P.'s; so I recommend reading it. Gordon also has several other ZS articles which might be of particular interest to those participating on this particular thread.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?