Zone System - WTF?

severian said:

Agreed. The ZS is how the science of our art works. You can determine iso, dev time etc. in one afternoon. Practice with real photographs until you can intuit the exposure. Then throw away your meter and any previsualization concepts and enjoy the act of making photographs. Phil Davis books should only be approached while wearing a wreath of garlic around your neck
Jack B

Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Now it's getting clearer.
So in essence, this is the next logical step after a film speed test and how you make the exposure fit the film speed/dev time combination that you come up with in the film speed test?

Sorry to seem like such a dolt -- tech manuals just give me migraines.

zenrhino said:

...but is it something one could use in street shooting or sports photography or photojournalism?

Click to expand...

definetely for your 1st example, not sure the 2 others you'd have a film camera with you (assuming professional version, not internet wanna-be variety)

Most people that shoot film would benefit from establishing a 'true' film speed no matter who processes their film. If they process their own, then they can benefit from working out 'ideal' development for normal scenes.

Nige said:

definetely for your 1st example, not sure the 2 others you'd have a film camera with you (assuming professional version, not internet wanna-be variety)

Click to expand...

Good point. But even if I have to shoot D*git*l for the paper or whomever, I always drag along the nikon slr. I'm not ready to give up on film being a good answer to the problem. More than once I've had an editor like the scanned film I sent in better than the DSLR shots.

zenrhino said:

But the book came in just this week for a Fall semester class, and ZS wasn't part of that class.

Click to expand...

Well now, that clears things up a bit.

I'd say wallow around in your schools library to see what they have on the subject and read up on it for a while. Even if you find the zone system isn't for you in the end, wrapping your head around it will improve your understanding of how everything is interelated.

Murray

Note that the reason people write books about these things is that they are too involved or complex to fully explain in a letter or forum post. As with many things, the devil is in the details, so reading the whole book(s) is/are really necessary.

That said, most of the books will describe the entire process, including film testing (with or without sensitometry), "previsualization" (how do I want to render this scene?), exposure determination, corresponding development, and printing. While all of this is most applicable to sheet films that can be developed separately, as required by exposure, many of the principals (excluding differentiated development) can also be applied to roll films typically used for photojournalism, street photography, etc. The benefit of exploring the Zone System, or other systems aimed at the same issues, is gaining a better understanding of the whole integrated process.

Obviously, using all or part of the Zone System, BTZS, or other approaches isn't necessary to make good photographs. What it/they will do, however, is make the results far more consistent and predictable.

rbarker said:

What it/they will do, however, is make the results far more consistent and predictable.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that was the whole aim of the class -- getting more control over our shooting and printing. Just learning that the rated film speed wasn't the real film speed (and how to do a film speed test) helped tons.

You guys certainly make it less daunting than the book (and the slew of websites I've seen about it) does.

Zone System at its Simplest

A meter does not (and cannot) inherently know what tonality (shade of grey) you are metering. The zone system, at its simplest, accounts for this and tells the meter what shade of grey you are metering: it tells the meter "I'm reading a black object" or "I'm metering a white object", or some shade of grey in between.

This information is necessary when using a reflected light meter to get a good exposure.

I have the Negative by Ansel Adams, found it very dense reading

I have read some really dense treatises for my BA in Political Science and History going on 15 years ago.
I have discovered I am both a visual, audio and hands on learner and I have always wished there was an easy resource to explain the zone system to me. While I consider my output to be really good, I always want to do better. I do also tend to shoot on the fly so sitting around crunching arithametic to get the correct exposure is not always my style.

Bill

The aim of the Zone System or BTZS, for that matter, is to arrive at a camera negative, that if exposed to varying brightness ratios, will exhibit a consistant density range that will allow it to print on a given printing material with the minimum of post exposure manipulations to the camera negative consistant with the photographers desire for print tonal representations.

The methodology that is used to arrive at this juncture is secondary to the desired result.

This methodology, whatever it might be, would result, one would hope, in the photographer having a knowledge of the sensitometric characteristics of the materials that he/she chooses to use.

Uncle Bill said:

..... crunching arithametic to get the correct exposure.....
Bill

Click to expand...

Please, no one who understands the ZS crunches arithmetic to arrive at there chosen exposure. The originator of the thread should at least understand this......remember what I mentioned earlier about buying into the negativity of the ZS, this is but a small slice of that sentament. If you make an honest effort to understand it, it can pay dividends in your photography. Mr. Barker's sentaments earlier is sound advice.

Regards
Chuck

While not an expert, or even well versed in the ZS, feel that I can comment on what a good methodolgoy can do for your work (Thanks Donald, I like the term methodolgy as used here). I used to get negatives that were more or less ok, but not what I coudl "see" when exposing film. Moving up to MF started to bracket like crazy and would get a decent negative once in a while (more by luck than by skill). Then read Bruce Branbaums "The Art of Photography" and started to understand what all the ZS stuff was about, and with help from people on this site, like Donald Miller, Lee Carmichael, Jorge, Mateo and Les McLean it started to come together. Lee worked me through film testing and while every negative is not great, I have more that print well than ever before. There seem to be many ways to arrive at a good negative and I suggest that each individual find what works for them. But an understanding of how a light meter works, it sees everything as gray (18% gray I think) Branbaum prefers the term gray meter (can see why now). The next step is to understand how film/developer work together and finally how paper (this would include developer, light source, toning, etc) is affected by all the variables at work. This means that if you plan to contact print plt/pld, VanDyke Brown, enlarge on graded paper or using MC paper you know what to expect.

Read all you can find, but in the end there will be no substitute for actually exposing film, processing it, and then printing it. The reject bin will get full....several times, and there will be times when everything works and you will be the proud owner of a nice print. Will it happen evertime with every image...don't think so, at least not for a while, but hopefully it will happen more often and when it does not you will have the knowledge to understand why something did not work.

Just my thoughts,...does not matter if it is the ZS, BTZS or bits and pieces of each but at least you will approach exposure through drying the print with some understanding of what is really going on.

Zone System- short version

zenrhino said:

So the book I needed for last semester's class finally came in. One of the things the book ([size=-1]Beyond Basic Photography: A Technical Manual by Henry Horenstein) discusses is the Zone System.

Ok, is this some sort of really elaborate Rube Goldberg hoax or do shooters actually try and figure out their exposures like this? How does this system get used in any practical sort of way?
[/size]

Click to expand...

The short version of the Zone System:

Meter the blackest black (in a scene) and stop down two stops.

The Zone System WTF ?

It is about Visualizing what you want the picture to look like. Period.

Everybody, pour a beer, read the Introduction to The Camera.
.

df cardwell said:

Everybody, pour a beer, read the Introduction to The Camera.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmm, beer.

df cardwell said:

The Zone System WTF ?

It is about Visualizing what you want the picture to look like. Period.

Everybody, pour a beer, read the Introduction to The Camera.
.

Click to expand...

With all due respect, you can visualize until the cows come home but if you have no technical methodology of how to achieve your visualization, your visualization won't amount to anymore then wishful thinking.

Changeling1 said:

The short version of the Zone System:

Meter the blackest black (in a scene) and stop down two stops.

Click to expand...

Actually, the meter blackest black where you want to show detail and stop down two stops. You may, after all, choose to have some areas of black in your image that lack any detail. But that is a purely artistic decision.

Robert

Donald Miller said:

With all due respect, you can visualize until the cows come home but if you have no technical methodology of how to achieve your visualization, your visualization won't amount to anymore then wishful thinking.

Click to expand...

First things first, second things second.

Without any point to the technical virtuosity, one may as well hang film curves on the wall.

Adams intended the ZS to fulfill the desire to make a statement. He preached Visualisation as the FOUNDATION to the Zone System, not as an appendix, afterthought or option.

First things first.

Visualisation is the transformative step that, when understood, makes all the rest of it obvious.

Ever meet a photographer with a spotmeter, linhof, a zillion dollars in lenses and a dilithium powered enlarger staring into Yosemite with no idea where to put Zone IV ?

Know anybody with a complete mastery of the technical stuff, conceived and taught by Adams to rest on the firm basis of Visualisation, who years later still hasn't caught on that Adam's pictures didn't really look like that in Reality ? That the whole point is not to reproduce a Literal Representation of a tree with rocks around it, but to reproduce in the Viewer the feeling of actually BEING THERE ? This IS what Adams taught, and WHY HE PUT the stuff about Visualisation in the Introduction, and why the technical stuff is buried in the back.

Finally, your assertion that the Visualisation is possible without a technical methodology is false. Adams never drew a line between them. But he wisely began with Visualisation, because once comprehended, the rest followed natuarally. You ALWAYS get to the technical mastery IF you begin with Adam's concept of Visualisation. Starting any other place does not assure success, and more often than not leads away from success.

Minor White said that learning Photography was more difficult than learning to play the piano. With a piano, you can start with a single note. Then add a second. And you learn. In time, in little steps, you learn to vary the time, the pitch, the duration, and so on. Step by little step. Photography is hard because you have to learn it all at once. The only place to begin is with Visualisation.

.

df cardwell,

With all due respect I disagree with your assertions. I do so for the following reason. Without a knowledge of exposure and development effects on the density range of a camera negative it is impossible to realize how tonality will be depicted and furthermore how it will translate to a print.

So first things first would seem to indicate some knowledge of technique. To place visualization first could just as equally correlate to the high values being rendered purple for that matter. Your reasoning appears to have several major irreconcilable discrepencies.

I feel that I have the freedom to disagree with you since I don't "parrot" Ansel Adams any more then I blindly follow the Zone system because I have found it to be incomplete in theory and lacking in practice.

No further response by you is required...this is another one of the many places where you and I disagree. I will agree that we disagree.

Don,
Is what you're saying, if you have an idea of how something should look (a visualization) it is easier to get the methodology down because you have an internal, visual benchmark?

I think this is true. Although, I may have just bent your words to meet my own beliefs.

zenrhino said:

[size=-1]Ok, is this some sort of really elaborate Rube Goldberg hoax or do shooters actually try and figure out their exposures like this? How does this system get used in any practical sort of way?[/size]

Click to expand...

I use to ask these types of questions when I had to learn Laplace transforms, boundary value problems, differential equations, etc.... Apparently they're all used around me everyday.

Regards, Art.

mrcallow said:

Don,
Is what you're saying, if you have an idea of how something should look (a visualization) it is easier to get the methodology down because you have an internal, visual benchmark?

I think this is true. Although, I may have just bent your words to meet my own beliefs.

Click to expand...

John,

No that is not what I am saying at all.

What I am saying is that there must be some basic knowledge of exposure and effects of development in order to have an appreciation of how these affect print tonal representations in order for one to make a valid previsualization.

Once this basic knowledge is present, then previsualization can occur because one is aware of decisions that are afforded at the point of exposure and film development. Conversely, until that basic knowledge is present, any previsualization is hardly predictable and often times not attainable.

This is the classic "chicken and egg" argument and I really don't want to become further involved in this circular discussion.

Donald Miller said:

This is the classic "chicken and egg" argument and I really don't want to become further involved in this circular discussion.

Click to expand...

Folks:
The reason that this can become a "chicken and egg" argument is that the discussion is circular - each part of the issue affects the other. The important thing to learn from the discussion, is that visualization and technique work together, and everybody benefits if they join into the circle, and go for the ride.

Now as to where to start, and what the best entry point is, that will vary from photographer to photographer. I would suggest, however, that it will always be beneficial to strive to improve those parts of the circle which come least easy to you. Even if you cannot improve them, if you have a sense of their power, and a respect for their role, you will be better off.

Now I've said my bit in my best approximation of "Ansel Adams" style. Anyone want to rephrase in "Minor White"?

To the thread originator--

AA (The Negative):

"Remember that the primary function of the Zone System is to support visualization, and the means available are numerous and flexible."

Fred Picker (Zone VI Workshop):

"Variable development is a refinement; it is not the basis of the system. Placement of values on the exposure scale is the basis, and the principals invloved come into play whenever a negative is exposed."

In its redumentary form, to understand the ZS is to understand the scale of zones and how it is created, and to understand not only how it is created, but how it can be used in visualization. You can produce a scale of zones easily without exhaustive testing and learn to "feel" what those zones look like. Simply use the manufacturer's ISO, create the scale of zones--(The Negative can tell you how to do that) and develop as recommended and learn to "feel" what that scale of zones looks like. As you do, you will see them in your mind as you think about the scene in your viewfinder. Film testing and development refinements can always be explored later. And I encourage it to expand on your understanding------it sure as hell expanded mine.

The singular act of using the ZS is to then make a conscious decision to "place" a important shadow reading on the scale of zones that supports your visualization of that shadow as you intend it to be rendered in the final print. By making a shadow placement on the scale, you can then determine where on the scale the important high value is expected to fall in the final print. I must tell you that the use of a spot meter is highly recommended, and it is on the spot meter that you will visualize the scale, your shadow "placement", and the highlight "fall".

Even if you discover that the ZS is not your methodology, you will learn tons and your photography will still be a benefactor of your efforts. I happen to be one that knows, without a doubt, that the ZS suits me, I love it. I'm finding myself working just as hard or harder on being expressive these days than thinking about my craft-----and that is the goal. The system is becoming more and more fluid for me all the time.

And, that is the last I will respond to this thread. To others, I am self taught in the ZS at this point and run the risk of grossly mispeaking here, but I guess I am feeling confident. I have also learned much from others that I have learned to respect in this forum as well. I will be glad to field PM comments on anything that I should be set straight on in this post. I still have much to learn, after all, I'm not dead yet!

Regards, Chuck

mrcallow said:

Don,
Is what you're saying, if you have an idea of how something should look (a visualization) it is easier to get the methodology down because you have an internal, visual benchmark?

I think this is true. Although, I may have just bent your words to meet my own beliefs.

Click to expand...

John

That's pretty much an accurate paraphrasing of Adam's own words, and the justification he gave for the NEED of the Zone System, and the thread that runs through it all to hold it together.

Hmm. It's just dawned on me that Don Miller and Don Cardwell see this from differnt places, and poor brother Callow is caught in the middle.

Have a good night, Don, and John, and all. Time for some rum.

d

Donald Miller said:

...This is the classic "chicken and egg" argument and I really don't want to become further involved in this circular discussion.

Click to expand...

Chicken.

I think it entirely possible to have visualizations that are valid without having a clue as to how to get them through exposure and development. I run into this situation a lot with students who lack the technical knowledge to produce what they visualize. They know what they want, know when they don't have it, and seek the solution. After following suggestions in the darkroom they may have an epiphany and incorporate that experience into their future work.

Also, much sophisticated "previsualization" does not depend on exposure and development alone. As an example, tonight I had an idea that exploits the orthochromatism of wetplate collodion. The Zone Sytem exposure and development controls are not really going to help me there, but the knowledge of what I want, what I see in my mind's eye, coupled with many years experience (of which study of the Zone System is part) is going to get me there.

It is perhaps the former experiences rather than the Zone System exposure/development controls that instruct me and the decision to use the Zone System or not. Typically, I could have arrived at a similar solution by using a ring-around or some other system as the former experience. Knowing the ZS technical controls is helpful but visualization and /or recognition of when the image arrives is more fundamental, IMO.

Also, other aspects of practice such as filtration can be visualized and explored without dependence on ZS exposure/development controls. These things are just tools while the visualization remains paramount.

Joe