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.
Zone System - who has an easy to follow - simple guideline to setting it up
-
A
- Thread starter Rob Skeoch
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Hasselblad 500ELX kit with CT80 lens
- Started by EgawaShiro
-
Free Kodak slide carousels
- Started by Mkaufman
-
Free Case of 22B Flashbulbs -- NE Ohio pickup
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale Zone VI Development Timer and Newsletters
- Started by 2Dogs
-
Sold Nikon s2 with 50mm 1.4
- Started by Gram Nylén
Forum statistics
This part always gives me pause. @koraks seemsm to frequently state that scanning will never (my words) give unbiased results. For B&W and transparency films it seems that examining the negative/positive is quite instructive, but less so for color negative. The company I use for color negative provides a "proof sheet" but its not clear to me if the scanning for that has been corrected in any way, as a whole or on individual frames. For general impressions, though it seems good enough and may fulfill the level of quality for this great suggestion.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,949
- Format
- 8x10 Format
A bit of a problem there, Paul - neither contact prints nor scans will correspond directly to how the tonal range will reproduce via optical enlargement. Scans can be especially misleading when it comes to proper development (unless scanning itself is the endpoint). I've had friends who made that mistake. It's better to do the testing with an actual printing paper of one's choosing, by the same method of printing, that is, projection versus contact. But after awhile, with experience, one can simply look at a neg over a lightbox and get a pretty good idea if the exposure is in the ballpark or not.
In terms of color negs, ordering up a basic scan along with digitally printed proof sheet from the lab can have serious shortcomings unless you opt for an expensive scan. And the smaller the sampling area, the more error you are likely to get, with 35mm originals being the worst due to their small size. Whenever I have gone that route testing an unfamiliar new color neg film, I submitted 120 size exposures instead. There are real limitations to automated scanning and printing lines, especially on a tight budget.
In terms of color negs, ordering up a basic scan along with digitally printed proof sheet from the lab can have serious shortcomings unless you opt for an expensive scan. And the smaller the sampling area, the more error you are likely to get, with 35mm originals being the worst due to their small size. Whenever I have gone that route testing an unfamiliar new color neg film, I submitted 120 size exposures instead. There are real limitations to automated scanning and printing lines, especially on a tight budget.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
This part always gives me pause. @koraks seemsm to frequently state that scanning will never (my words) give unbiased results. For B&W and transparency films it seems that examining the negative/positive is quite instructive, but less so for color negative. The company I use for color negative provides a "proof sheet" but its not clear to me if the scanning for that has been corrected in any way, as a whole or on individual frames. For general impressions, though it seems good enough and may fulfill the level of quality for this great suggestion.
There are many who only scan, and sending off for prints may be too expensive . In the end I guess it up to the user to decide scan or pay for printing.
In terms of color negs, ordering up a basic scan along with digitally printed proof sheet from the lab can have serious shortcomings unless you opt for an expensive scan. And the smaller the sampling area, the more error you are likely to get, with 35mm originals being the worst due to their small size. Whenever I have gone that route testing an unfamiliar new color neg film, I submitted 120 size exposures instead. There are real limitations to automated scanning and printing lines, especially on a tight budget.
As OP question concerning zone system, his ID states that he is a 35mm shooter I did not address color.
In terms of contact printing, a contact made on VC paper with #2 filter, why would an enlargement have different tones? After 57 years of making contact prints with contact paper, standard paper VC, FB, RC, I have not seen jump in tones. It does take a loop and light table to really get a look. Contact paper tends to be more problematic as it does match printing paper very well, not sure who even makes contact paper. Then again for the test roll if OP prints he can made a set of 5X7 proof prints.
There are many who only scan, and sending off for prints may be too expensive . In the end I guess it up to the user to decide scan or pay for printing.
In terms of color negs, ordering up a basic scan along with digitally printed proof sheet from the lab can have serious shortcomings unless you opt for an expensive scan. And the smaller the sampling area, the more error you are likely to get, with 35mm originals being the worst due to their small size. Whenever I have gone that route testing an unfamiliar new color neg film, I submitted 120 size exposures instead. There are real limitations to automated scanning and printing lines, especially on a tight budget.
As OP question concerning zone system, his ID states that he is a 35mm shooter I did not address color.
In terms of contact printing, a contact made on VC paper with #2 filter, why would an enlargement have different tones? After 57 years of making contact prints with contact paper, standard paper VC, FB, RC, I have not seen jump in tones. It does take a loop and light table to really get a look. Contact paper tends to be more problematic as it does match printing paper very well, not sure who even makes contact paper. Then again for the test roll if OP prints he can made a set of 5X7 proof prints.
The original entry to the discussion was looking for a simple zone system so here’s my system that has worked for me for some fifty plus years.
To me what interests the viewer is the subject and composition then the “quality” of the printing and presentation all of which is subjective. So that comes first to me.
I use two films Delta 400 in 120 in either of two cameras and HP5 4x5 After determining my personal ISO , I found it to be close to box speed with a couple of lenses so rather than testing each lens I settled on box speed and one developer and paper. My enlarger has an Aristo variable contrast lamp so I can split print as needed
I use either the Z6 Pentax 1degree meter or a Gossen Ultra Pro with the white dome depending on the subject. If shadow detail is important to me, I meter off that which I want and then close down 1 1/2 stops, if no important shadow detail is desired but highlight detail is important I meter off it and open 1 1/2 stops. If the difference between the shadow and highlight is such that will print with reading in the middle I go with that. Sometimes I use a filter to emphasise the tone of a particular color and accommodate for the filter factor. With 4x5 bellows extension comes into play. Tweaking is done when printing
If I’m not sure which way will work best I might make three or four different exposures if the subject is important to me and I can’t go back to it or the lighting is unusual such as cloud formation.
Of course I’ve been doing this for a long time
https//www.jeffreyglasser.com/
https//www.sculptureandphotography.com/
To me what interests the viewer is the subject and composition then the “quality” of the printing and presentation all of which is subjective. So that comes first to me.
I use two films Delta 400 in 120 in either of two cameras and HP5 4x5 After determining my personal ISO , I found it to be close to box speed with a couple of lenses so rather than testing each lens I settled on box speed and one developer and paper. My enlarger has an Aristo variable contrast lamp so I can split print as needed
I use either the Z6 Pentax 1degree meter or a Gossen Ultra Pro with the white dome depending on the subject. If shadow detail is important to me, I meter off that which I want and then close down 1 1/2 stops, if no important shadow detail is desired but highlight detail is important I meter off it and open 1 1/2 stops. If the difference between the shadow and highlight is such that will print with reading in the middle I go with that. Sometimes I use a filter to emphasise the tone of a particular color and accommodate for the filter factor. With 4x5 bellows extension comes into play. Tweaking is done when printing
If I’m not sure which way will work best I might make three or four different exposures if the subject is important to me and I can’t go back to it or the lighting is unusual such as cloud formation.
Of course I’ve been doing this for a long time
https//www.jeffreyglasser.com/
https//www.sculptureandphotography.com/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,949
- Format
- 8x10 Format
Paul - with a contact print, apples to apples on identical paper, you don't have any light spread, so both the tonality and contrast are relatively undilute. Then you've got additional intervening variables, like enlarger bellows and lens flare in certain situations. But when people make contacts of strips of film inside plastic sleeves, some of that advantage gets offset. Yes, for sake of enlarging, contrast and development can be tweaked; but in terms of predicting all that, a contact proof can be misleading to an unexperienced person.
Similarly, people sometimes get a wrong impression trying to figure out everything up front using a step tablet, especially if the step tablet is old and discolored.
In hindsight, the Zone System really is simple - too generalized for me, in fact. But to a beginner tempted to load everything up front, I can understand how the various iterations of it can be confusing. About half of this thread so far really hasn't been about the Zone System at all, but practical workarounds instead. That's fine too. What works, works.
Similarly, people sometimes get a wrong impression trying to figure out everything up front using a step tablet, especially if the step tablet is old and discolored.
In hindsight, the Zone System really is simple - too generalized for me, in fact. But to a beginner tempted to load everything up front, I can understand how the various iterations of it can be confusing. About half of this thread so far really hasn't been about the Zone System at all, but practical workarounds instead. That's fine too. What works, works.
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.
My understanding it is aesthetic, the visualized scene. To achieve the visualized scene AA and Fred Archer developed the Zone System to replicated the visualized scene by controlling the various factors. Film speed, development time, filter factors, type of len, uncoated, single coated, and later multi coated. The 10 zones from paper white base to d max black are abertary, to Archer and Admas 10 seemed to be doable. Minor white reduced the zones from 10 to 9,(I use 10). Phil David reduced even further to 8 (?) the textural range. Adams evolved the ZS with new technology but the core remains visualization. There are several other approaches, John Schafer wrote the Ansel Adams Guide to Basic Techniques of Photography in 1992. When President of the University of Arizona he brought AAs negatives to the UofAs Center for Creative Photography. Reading Phil Davis I think he was not concerned with visuzlaition, he was interested in a negative with a full range of tones.
When I attended Minor White's workshop one of the participants was finishing her masters in art with an emphasis in photography. She had just defended her protophilo. As she presented one image after another the committee asked the same question over and over. "What was intent when you took this photograph." In her way of thinking visualizing or previsualizing was her intent, not just the scene, but her emotional reaction to the scene.
Coming up with a good name for the method I use has been vexing me for years.
I think you pretty much nailed it in the first two sentences. I wrote something to post but it read like a lecture, so I'm just going to give your first two sentences a +1.
The Zone System is Dead — Johnny Patience
Ever since I published my article about metering for film and how to approach exposure to achieve optimal results with color negative film, I have gotten an overwhelming amount of positive feedback from film photographers who were finally able to achieve good, consistent results by applying a very s
www.johnnypatience.com
From this blog, it shows that the as long as the film is exposed on the generous side, the negatives should be very printable while those that are underexposed are usually the most difficult to print.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 9,314
- Format
- 4x5 Format
You know how HCB got real good at making compelling images by organizing reality into photographs?
And how Hasselblads and Rolleiflexes are really good cameras?
And how Kodak made it possible for anyone to take good pictures by buying their chemistry and following their directions?
Well Ansel Adams went down the rabbit hole of teaching people how to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. He and a couple other teachers came up with mnemonics that make it possible to write down what you took a picture of and how much you want to develop it.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,533
- Format
- 35mm RF
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.
Last edited:
If what AA called a record print is what you intend to print then the ZS is not for you. If you shoot sheet film and have access to a desnistomer or are willing to pay for film and developer testing the Beyond the Zone System may be of value. As combat photographer then a PJ working for the wires faithfully capturing the scene is much more importance than how I would visualize it.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,949
- Format
- 8x10 Format
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.
Last edited:
Perhaps some of these other tomes on that topic will revive your spirits. 
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,949
- Format
- 8x10 Format
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
The point I was trying to make was that exposing on the generous side will still produce a printable negative, while those that are underexposed are usually more difficult. Optimum exposure is best of course and worth making a test.
Last edited:
main goal is to obtain a negative that, when printed with close to no intervention on a medium grade paper, will result in a scene just like the photographer imagined (visualized) it.
I don't understand the difference between aestethics or tonal representation: the choosen tones are the aestethics of your print.
Moderator's Note: Subsequent discussion re: Tones and Aesthetics and Abstracts moved to their own thread, found here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/tones-vs-aesthetics.208833/
Last edited by a moderator:
Didn't the gritty newspaper BW photo process of the day add to its grittiness?
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2011
- Messages
- 13,949
- Format
- 8x10 Format
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.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |