Zone system with roll film cameras

Some believe that the zone system is only practical if one is using cut sheet film. However, I think there is a way for it to be relatively practical with 35mm film.

The idea is pretty simple. Instead of trying to shoot the different zones on the same roll of film (together with the cumbersome problems of intricate record keeping, cutting the film and developing the pieces separately, etc.) why not shoot the different zones on different rolls of film? It is still a little cumbersome, but not nearly as cumbersome as trying to do the zones on the same roll of film.

The simplest way of using a separate roll for each zone is to use multiple camera bodies, with each body dedicated to a specific zone. If one is content with shooting just three zones (let us say, N, N+2, and N-2) this approach would require three cameras or camera bodies. If one chooses relatively small cameras (such as Canon Rebel film cameras) it would be a bit cumbersome, but actually not all that bad. I have carried three cameras before, and it was manageable, though in that case I carried three in order to have different types of film loaded rather than to use the zone system. It would harder if one is using pro-level 35mm cameras because they are so large and expensive, but in my opinion very little would be lost by limiting one's self to small/inexpensive 35mm cameras, particularly if one is shooting static scenes, which is the context in which most zone system work is done.

With certain types of medium format cameras one would just carry three film backs, one for each zone, which in some ways would be an easier solution than carrying three cameras, especially if the cameras are large, such as most medium format cameras.

Fred Picker addressed using a sort of modified method of the Zone System in 35mm in "The Zone VI Workshop" book, but if you wanted ultimate flexibility, I guess you could carry around a few bodies.

You could also pick up a Zeiss Contaflex Super B or variant that takes interchangeable backs and do it that way...

I don't think the compression/expansion development is worth it for 35mm personally. I could see/have heard of folks using 120 cameras with interchangeable backs but even in that setting, idk. I would definitely use the metering techniques of the zone system, and I would definitely recommend finding your true ISO.

I might be wrong on this but, with the Zone System, you place your shadows with detail and Zone III and the highlights fall on a zone depending on your processing. I would just just the place the shadows then develop normally then use paper grade to make your highlights (Zone VII) fall into your zone. I had an old photo instructor that was stuck on the Zone System with 35mm and and 3 camera bodies. He had an "N" body, and N+ body and an N- body. IMHO, it's slavery to a system. Chances are, if you have film processed dialed in, some paper grade adjustment will be needed eventually. I think shooting sheet film using the Zone System and processing your film to print on a grade 2 is really cool.

I think that the zone system is a good way to THINK about things, and provides an excellent structure within which to organize your understanding.

I use a spot meter and place shadows on "zone 3" but don't generally alter development to the subject unless in specific circumstances.

Brendan Quirk said:

I think that the zone system is a good way to THINK about things, and provides an excellent structure within which to organize your understanding.

Click to expand...

True. For 35 mm and roll film the zone system can be a systematic way to evaluate a scene that sits in the back of the mind as far as setting guidelines and tips for thinking about exposure. Instead of N, N1, etc., a simpler course would be to simply bracket exposures. The interesting point about the zone system is that AA’s most famous pic was basically a grab shot, but a grab shot taken with a lot of thoughtful experience. Nothing beats thinking while shooting.

For 35mm and roll film, instead of worrying about N, N+, N-, etc, development gyrations expose important shadow areas on zone 3 or, maybe, even zone iv, then develop film in a pyro formula. Unless your highlights are REALLY bright, you won't need to worry about them.

I use a digital spot meter and depending on what the composition and lighting is set the measurement in Zone 2, 3 or 4. I do not change the development and have never needed to.

Ansel Adams addresses using the Zone System with 35mm and 120 in "The Negative" and he also discusses using a reflective or incident meter. Back in the 1980's when I began using the Zone System with 120 film in a Mamiya 645 I was using a Weston Euromaster, and it wasn't difficult. It's well worth reading that section in The Negative.

Although predominantly an LF shooter I still use MF and work the same way as I did in the late 1980's, I do use a Spotmeter but not all the time, usually just when shadow detail is critical however I do have spot attachments for my Luna Pro (Profisix) meters but often use the meters in Incident mode.

Ian

I shoot landscapes with a Mamiya RB67 with changeable film backs. I'll keep one back loaded with Tmax 100 and the other with color Velvia 50. So I can get both versions of a particular shot if I want too. I get ten shots per roll of the 6x7's. I always bracket usually +1 and -1. Three exposure of three shots. I never know what to do with the 10th shot. In any case, I process in an outside lab normally. They use Xtol but other developers can be used by them but there's a $50 surcharge if not their standard Xtol.

Would special pull or push processing, which is available from the labs I use, improve anything? Since I'm not printing currently, only posting, I scan the best for each three bracketed shots and use it. If I print later (chemically or digitally), would any of this make a difference worth anything?

Like other's stated, I wouldn't mess with changing the development times. I mean you could, with different bodies or film backs, but that would be very cumbersome. Plus, I'd bet that if you carried around multiple bodies for different developments, you'd feel pressured to use them more, which would likely unnecessarily degrade some of your photos. It's generally best to avoid altering development times unless you actually need to, rather than looking for times when you could.

Even with sheet film where it's easy, I rarely mess with development, preferring instead to develop everything at a standard to maintain consistency. I primarily use the zone system as a way of metering light in a way so that I can exactly control the exposure to get the shot I want. In other words, if I find the scene would benefit from more shadow detail, and blowing out some highlights won't really hurt anything, I'll meter it to do just that.

The only times I worry about development is when I have too wide of a dynamic range and have to preserve shadow details AND preserve my highlights, or have a relatively flat looking scene that I want to boost the contrast in a bit (which is rare, because that's usually easily done at the print stage). I generally get the best negatives when I don't mess with my development, so I try to avoid that as much as possible.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I shoot landscapes with a Mamiya RB67 with changeable film backs. I'll keep one back loaded with Tmax 100 and the other with color Velvia 50. So I can get both versions of a particular shot if I want too. I get ten shots per roll of the 6x7's. I always bracket usually +1 and -1. Three exposure of three shots. I never know what to do with the 10th shot. In any case, I process in an outside lab normally. They use Xtol but other developers can be used by them but there's a $50 surcharge if not their standard Xtol.

Would special pull or push processing, which is available from the labs I use, improve anything? Since I'm not printing currently, only posting, I scan the best for each three bracketed shots and use it. If I print later (chemically or digitally), would any of this make a difference worth anything?

Click to expand...

I would just keep doing what you're doing, since it seems to be working for you. My experience with pushing and pulling slide film is that it messes with the colors and generally isn't worth the hassle. But, it might be worth sacrificing a roll to see if you like it. There are some online film labs who will push or pull process film for just a few bucks more.

Brendan Quirk said:

I think that the zone system is a good way to THINK about things, and provides an excellent structure within which to organize your understanding.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Back in the film days, the Zone System allows photographers to pre-visualize what the film sees. Expansion or contractions of zones is an attempt to fit the limited dynamic range of film. It's actually pretty clever. I see the Zone System as analog chimping without Polaroid.

jim10219 said:

Even with sheet film where it's easy, I rarely mess with development, preferring instead to develop everything at a standard to maintain consistency. I primarily use the zone system as a way of metering light in a way so that I can exactly control the exposure to get the shot I want.

Click to expand...

Same here. And, I rarely do a minus development and when I need a bit of expansion, I will do a +1 1/2 to give me something in between what a full paper grade change would give me.

Jim, When I was mentioning pushing pulling I was referring to when I shoot Tmax 100 and bracket them. Do you see any advantage for me with BW film?

Alan Edward Klein said:

Jim, When I was mentioning pushing pulling I was referring to when I shoot Tmax 100 and bracket them. Do you see any advantage for me with BW film?

Click to expand...

In high contrast lighting situations that are consistent through the roll, increasing the exposure and pulling the development will more easily give you high quality results, whether you print optically or scan.
This approach will also make it easier to deal with scenes that have high SLR - Subject Luminance Range, which is also often referred to as Subject Brightness Range.
Note that "high contrast" refers to the quality of the illumination as well as the range of luminances.

Whether you increase exposure for contrasty scenes or not depends on how you meter. If you place a shadow on Zone III, you don't need any compensation. However, if you use an averaging meter of any kind (matrix or whatever), a contrasty scene will tend to be underexposed if you use the meter reading as is. That's because the mid-point of the SBR is more that two-stops brighter than the important shadows. So, exposure compensation to place the shadows correctly is needed. In either case, the extra contrast needs to be dealt with somehow.

Dealing with contrast adjustments with roll film often involves compromise. With many different scenes of varying SBRs on one roll, one needs to develop to a contrast index that allows the contrast controls in the printing process to cover the extremes. Of course, one can carry around different camera bodies/film backs for N, N+ and N-. This is a great approach, but not always practical. One can also rewind the film partway through the roll and shoot the rest later under similar circumstances; also not always practical.

With roll film, I always take the former approach; developing to a mid-point "normal" and then compensating for the contrast during printing. I also usually just use my in-camera meter if I have one, meaning I'm compensating for scenes with large SBRs by overexposing a stop or two. If I am lucky enough to shoot an entire roll under the same lighting conditions, I can easily tailor development for that particular roll. Otherwise, I try to hit the middle.

With sheet film, it's a different story. Every sheet gets a page in the exposure record with detailed exposure notes and a designated development. Roll film, and the speed with which it's usually shot, require a different technique for me.

Best,

Doremus