B&W Photography, Zone System and you

[JeffGreene]

My question below relates to B&W print film.

Many of us when discussing developers mention our particular B&W film's true ISO that we shoot at versus the stated ISO on the box. We talk about the "pushing" or "pulling" required in various contexts to achieve our image and what we "envisioned" for the image and how particular developers support our vision or don't.

How many of you rely on the zone system in your photography? Do you meter for the deep shadows (i.e. Zone III) or not? Are there particular photographic subjects that you find more suited to its use (i.e. landscape, still life, portraits, etc). Do you use a densitometer?

I'm sure many of the pro's here have internalized it and no longer think strictly in those terms. As I've aged, I find myself spending more time thinking about the system and its application to the composition process. There's an enormous amount of talent on this forum, and I look forward to learning from all of you. Thanks in advance.

Respectfully,

Jeff

 

[wlewisiii]

I have read much about it & would say that, after years of study, I _almost_ understand the zone system. As a result I try to duplicate a centerwieghted TTL meter with my hand held or just wing it based on sunny 16.

Trying to put my dark area on Zone III or wherever just makes my head hurt.

William

 

[Anupam]

With rollfilm I just test for EI and development time. My target densities are geared towards my diffusion enlarger. With sheet film I go the whole hog. Spot meter, N- and N+ developments etc. Not that big a deal really once you have tested the basics with a densitometer, it becomes fairly intuitive - just a part of how you work.

-Anupam

 

[larmarv916]

Ok...for starters there a whole group of books written on the subject. But again...the whole zone system is blown way out of realistic relation to the real world. Not to mention the basic concept that "if" all you spend your time thinking about is the theroritical development of "roll" film with a system that was really designed work with sheet film and water bathing and other single....dip and dunk shooters. Your in for a lifetime of headaches.

Sure you zone system works on "roll film" but again once you are not shooting every frame with the idea that each exposure will be identiacal.....you have now gotten off the train.

In reality there are vey few situations where any scene in the brightest or darkest lighting can not be effectively shot with normal exposure.that is suggested by the film manufactures instructions. Yes we all bracket when shooting landscapes and other non action situation subjects. And if a whole roll is developed to help cut or ingrease range it is not really a drastic undertaking. All that being said.

Zone is only a tool to help you extract the "emotional" view you wish to save to enhance.

Zone is only a tool to help you be aware of the contrast range between details in the high or low shadow areas you want to hold. Once you get past a range between your higher detail values and your lowest detail values is beyond a few stops. you can kid yourself into thinkging that you are master of your destiny.....But really it is "shot" in the dark, with roll film.

So high contrast situations where you have a total range of 10-12 stops is only doable with sheet film and water bathing. Which was around before zone system was, the "golden child" of every member of the F64 Gang. you dont have clue as the mountains of sheet film that were wasted over the years by self styled "Zone System" wizards.

In the land of 35mm photography...you are either in sun light or open shade. Unless you are shooting the shadow side of a subject and under strong backlite conditionsl There is little need to spend any effort on coputation on Zone denisty computations. So do not make needless work for yourself.

The "Sunny 16" did not just come from nothing. All the early journalistic Leica shooters just used the rule of thumb that on the "shadow side" of the street "open 2 stops"

Sure your going to have some films that want to "blockout" But most often that is from temperatures or excessive agiation or other sloppy processing. Nothing here is some deep dark secrets.....there are none.

But blowing your brains out over some fantasy of the perfect negative on "roll" film...is a waste of your time. Basic process and metering will be more than enough to get you a great print. It's the composition that is always more important.

There are no classic images that are based on techincal excellence of undesirable subjects.

Good Luck......Laurance

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I use it for most of my work....the subject matter that isn't moving. I mostly photograph buildings and objects that sit still, so I can carefully set exposure, and that is really what the Zone System is about. I don't know what you're asking about as far as it having anything to do with composition. It doesn't...the zone system is about exposure and developing time.

I think a lot of people learn the Zone System and think they have to shoot mountains and western landscapes with a large format camera and make photos just like Ansel Adams, John Sexton, and Bruce Barnbaum make. You don't. I use medium format cameras and sometimes 35mm sucessfully with the zone system and my pictures don't look like the aforementioned photographers' work.

I set the shadow areas i need detail in on zone III if it is something real dark. If the scene hasn't got anything that dark I choose a lighter tone to base exposure on. In this example I based exposure on the white fog. You're not 'supposed' to do that in the Zone System, but it works for scenes with no real darks:

The darkest tone is about zone 4 or 5. I set the white fog to zone 8, the dark tree trunks fell between 4 and 5, and I developed normal. I printed with a little more contrast than the original scene had (by printed I mean scanned and adjusted curves in photoshop. I use a film scanner).

 

[tmfabian]

I use the zone system with roll film when shooting night scenes or anything with a large n-(enough to compensate)

 

[Roger Hicks]

The Zone System is for the most part a subset of basic sensitometry, as first set out by Hurter and Driffield in 1890. The only thing it adds -- which is a work of unalloyed genius -- is the naming of Zones.

In some ways, it is a simplification of basic sensitometry. In others, it is a complication -- not least because it dates from before the days when densitometers were readily affordable.

When I first encountered it, I found it forbiddingly complicated, so I set it aside until I was ready to come back to it. When I finally did come back to it, having read a lot about sensitometry in the intervening years, I found it needlessly complicated and rather opaque. My wife (who is a far better printer than I) feels the same way.

There's a free piece that sets out our views on our website Some may find it of interest. It leads to hate mail from those for whom the Zone System is a religion rather than a means of exposure determination, but we think it's a fair analysis:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps zone.html

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The Zone System is for the most part a subset of basic sensitometry, as first set out by Hurter and Driffield in 1890. The only thing it adds -- which is a work of unalloyed genius -- is the naming of Zones.

In some ways, it is a simplification of basic sensitometry. In others, it is a complication -- not least because it dates from before the days when densitometers were readily affordable.

When I first encountered it, I found it forbiddingly complicated, so I set it aside until I was ready to come back to it. When I finally did come back to it, having read a lot about sensitometry in the intervening years, I found it needlessly complicated and rather opaque. My wife (who is a far better printer than I) feels the same way.

There's a free piece that sets out our views on our website Some may find it of interest. It leads to hate mail from those for whom the Zone System is a religion rather than a means of exposure determination, but we think it's a fair analysis:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/ps zone.html

Cheers,

Roger

Roger,

I'm surprised you find it complicated. I find it easy...point the spot meter at the dark tone you want detail in, give two stops less exposure than meter says. Check white or brightly lit spots in pic to see if they go over zone 7 using exposure determined from dark tone. If not, change developing time. I think the problem is the books make it FAR harder than it needs to be.

I find using built in camera meters harder. Does the average of all the tones in this scene work out to the middle grey the meter thinks it will? No one can figure that out in their head just by looking! So people use the in-camera meter and guess on how much exposure compensation to use. I don't like to guess, i tend to screw up when I do that.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I find it easy...point the spot meter at the dark tone you want detail in, give two stops less exposure than meter says. Check white or brightly lit spots in pic to see if they go over zone 7 using exposure determined from dark tone. If not, change developing time. I think the problem is the books make it FAR harder than it needs to be.

Dear Christopher,

We are of one mind on this: the key lies in that part of your reply that I put in bold.

Reading the darkest tone in which you want texture is nothing to do with the Zone System: it's basic sensitometry.

In fact, there's an extra complication even in your straightforward explanation, and it was introduced at the behest of less-than-knowledgeable Zone System users as a result of their mid-tone obsession.

The earliest commercially successful spot meter (SEI c. 1948 -- I have one with Huw's modern LED conversion) didn't bother with a 'mid-tone' index: just a shadow index (for negative) and a highlight index (for transparency).

Without the Zone System sticking its nose in, you just took a direct reading instead of going 2 stops down. Likewise, you can use I.R.E. 1 (neg) or 10 (tranny) on today's Pentax meters (I have both).

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Dear Christopher,

We are of one mind on this: the key lies in that part of your reply that I put in bold.

Reading the darkest tone in which you want texture is nothing to do with the Zone System: it's basic sensitometry.

In fact, there's an extra complication even in your straightforward explanation, and it was introduced at the behest of less-than-knowledgeable Zone System users as a result of their mid-tone obsession.

The earliest commercially successful spot meter (SEI c. 1948 -- I have one with Huw's modern LED conversion) didn't bother with a 'mid-tone' index: just a shadow index (for negative) and a highlight index (for transparency).

Without the Zone System sticking its nose in, you just took a direct reading instead of going 2 stops down. Likewise, you can use I.R.E. 1 (neg) or 10 (tranny) on today's Pentax meters (I have both).

Cheers,

R.

I wish most meters worked like your SEI Photometer or the Pentaxes. I have two spot meters, a Gossen Ultra Spot II and A Sekonic L-508. The Sekonic gives midtone readings only, and the Gossen's Zone system function is very cumbersome...easier for me to take a midtone reading and figure it in my head.

I'm jealous of you having the SEI. When I was a teenager I got my hands on a copy of Dunn & Wakefield's book on exposure meters and I have wanted an SEI to play with ever since.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I wish most meters worked like your SEI Photometer or the Pentaxes. I have two spot meters, a Gossen Ultra Spot II and A Sekonic L-508. The Sekonic gives midtone readings only, and the Gossen's Zone system function is very cumbersome...easier for me to take a midtone reading and figure it in my head.

I'm jealous of you having the SEI. When I was a teenager I got my hands on a copy of Dunn & Wakefield's book on exposure meters and I have wanted an SEI to play with ever since.

Dear Christopher,

I know what you mean about the Gossen: I have one too. Normally I just set the ISO at 4x the EI I'm using!

Dunn and Wakefield's book is brilliant -- I have it, and based a lot of my own book Perfect Exposure on what I learned from it -- but don't be too jealous about the SEI. The telescope view is upside-down; the comparison spot is not always the right colour (as you know, there are two choices); and the calculator scale, even with Huw's modification, is super-slow. With the original calculator, scaled in British Standard Log film speeds, it was even worse. You really NEED the LED conversion, which is several hundred dollars, and even then, it's my least used spot meter...

On the other hand, the 1/2 degree comparison spot allows you to meter areas even smaller than 1/2 degree, simply by overlapping them with the spot. There's a lot more about the updated SEI on:

http://www.rogerandfrances.com/photoschool/sei.html

Cheers,

Roger

 

[40oz]

I use what i've learned from reading about the zone system to get what I want on film. It certainly helped me understand how to use exposure and development. That isn't to say I ever have performed formal tests or take notes. I just pay attention to my negatives and am careful when considering exposure. I certainly don't think of things in terms of N+1 or anything. But I do appreciate understanding how to get what I want on film.

 

[Ade-oh]

I've always looked on the zone system as one of those unnecessary complications of our craft that we photographers get hung up on, probably as a substitute for real creativity. To that extent I tend to lump it in with obsessing about lens sharpness or the effects of different types of developer with B&W film as a distraction from what I see as my main aim in taking photographs, which is to create interesting images. Understanding how to obtain proper exposures is certainly an important part of the craft of photography, but it is relatively easy to do. I think of the zone system as a fringe fetish.

 

[projectbluebird]

I don't use the zone system, although I've read a number of books about it. The concept is simple, but the application is complicated. Instead, I meter for the shadow, and err on the side of overexposure.

You can't print (or scan) something that isn't on the film!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've always looked on the zone system as one of those unnecessary complications of our craft that we photographers get hung up on, probably as a substitute for real creativity. To that extent I tend to lump it in with obsessing about lens sharpness or the effects of different types of developer with B&W film as a distraction from what I see as my main aim in taking photographs, which is to create interesting images. Understanding how to obtain proper exposures is certainly an important part of the craft of photography, but it is relatively easy to do. I think of the zone system as a fringe fetish.

When I was in art school the lazy students said things like this: "Learning how to get perfect exposure gets in the way of my creativity", or "Knowing how to use a light meter gets in the way of my creativity", or "Being precise with my developing time, temp, agitation, etc gets in the way of my creativity".

No, it doesn't. It just requires some effort. Guess how many of those "Creative" people are still involved in photography now, 9 years after I graduated from Indiana University. How many? NONE. Only two of the photo students from my years there are still doing photography today, and we both gave a damn about learning the technical aspects of how photography works.

All you lazy "creative photographers" who think you don't need to think to be a "Creative" photographer can write me when you get tired of your hobby and move on to something more exciting. I'll still be here, still photographing, still exhibiting, still earning my living as a PHOTOGRAPHER. A photgrapher who uses the zone system, cares about lens sharpness, and understands that different developers most certainly affect the look of my images and knows how to choose accordingly.

 

[delft]

I wonder how the zone-system stands when films are scanned and post processed. As long as the scene falls within the films dynamic range, there seems to be not much need to expand / contract by N +/- developping to adapt to the dynamic range of the paper.

Greetings,

Dirk

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I don't use the zone system, although I've read a number of books about it. The concept is simple, but the application is complicated. Instead, I meter for the shadow, and err on the side of overexposure.

You can't print (or scan) something that isn't on the film!

Quite right. The books make it sound complicated so you'll buy the books to learn this ultra-complicated technique. It takes some smarts to read those books like you and I have and find the real system in there, which is very simple. Expose for the dark tones and if the light is contrasty, reduce dev. time. No note taking needed, no complicated math, no years of testing. You have to test, but it isn't as complex as most books make it sound, and the actual application of the zone system is simple. really. And a little overexposure is not so bad compared to underexposure on negative films....of your within a stop and you're a decent printer, then no one will know the difference. I still prefer to get my exposures as close as possible to perfect, and the zone system makes that work.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I wonder how the zone-system stands when films are scanned and post processed. As long as the scene falls within the films dynamic range, there seems to be not much need to expand / contract by N +/- developping to adapt to the dynamic range of the paper.

Greetings,

Dirk

If you do adjust the dev. time as needed, the films scan and post process with much less effort. It is a lot like darkroom printing really; you could develop everything the same and use different paper grades in the darkroom and get good results, and you can scan and adjust contrast in Photoshop. I actually think printing negs with too much or too little contrast was EASIER in the darkroom than it is using a scanner and photoshop. I have used a Nikon LS-8000 scanner for 6 years and printed in the darkroom for a decade before that.

 

[Ade-oh]

All you lazy "creative photographers" who think you don't need to think to be a "Creative" photographer can write me when you get tired of your hobby and move on to something more exciting. I'll still be here, still photographing, still exhibiting, still earning my living as a PHOTOGRAPHER. A photographer who uses the zone system, cares about lens sharpness, and understands that different developers most certainly affect the look of my images and knows how to choose accordingly.

Balls. You can learn all you will ever need to know about the technical aspects of photography in a week or so but some photographers - professional as well as amateur - won't learn to take good pictures in a lifetime. The zone system is neither necessary nor sufficient to make you a good photographer; it may be helpful if you take B&W landscape or still-life shots, but that's about it.

 

[Ade-oh]

Expose for the dark tones and if the light is contrasty, reduce dev. time. No note taking needed, no complicated math, no years of testing.

If it's that easy, why bother with 'The Zone System' (cue music from Beethoven's 5th Symphony)? This is what you learn in the first couple of days of any taught photography course.