Ade-oh
Well-known
Yes, exactly right. Once you have a basic understanding of the relationship between aperture, shutter speed, film sensitivity and depth of field - together with a basic understanding of how developers work - you're in like Flint. You can be taught this in a couple of hours: unfortunately, it's the 'stupid and lazy' creative aspects which are important in photography.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
You make me laugh.
Last edited:
oftheherd
Veteran
Is it disdained in this discussion of the Zone System, or has nobody here actually heard of the Y.O.B. Exposure System http://cgi.ebay.com/Photography-Y-O-B-Exposure-System-Parry-Yob_W0QQitemZ260058004141QQcmdZViewItem ? It was covered over several issues of Peterson's Photography some 25 or so years ago, and in a book by Parry C. Yob. I never tried it but it seemed useful.
Just curious.
Just curious.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I've never heard of it, I wonder what it is/how it works? I Googled, but all I got were links to places selling the book, no info about what the system actually entails. I may have to trek downtown to the library and do some digging....
charjohncarter
Veteran
That is really something, I can get accordion lesson with my search engine, but nada, zero, 10% of nothing, zilch on 'The YOB Eposure System.'
charjohncarter
Veteran
Chris, I hope you have a better library than I. Ours serves 1.2 million people and Parry C Yob produced a 'no results.'
Ade-oh
Well-known
Personally, I find it easier to switch on my light-meter, take a reading and then use my 30-odd years experience in photography to adjust the exposure to suit the prevailing conditions. Oh, and I often bracket too.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Well, yes; no arguiment from me on any of that.
On the other hand, when you start shooting black and white and haven't had 30 years' experience, it's quite easy to come up with badly exposed, overly contrasty or too-flat pictures. Understanding the relationship between speed, contrast and development time is useful in curing this.
It takes only a few minutes to explain how all this works -- as I said before, a 16-page pamphlet would do it -- which is why I get a bit annoyed at books an inch thick, riddled with jargon, that encourage people to run before they can walk.
Start out with the manufacturers' film speeds and dev times, and you'll do better than following the advice of some self-appointed guru. If you want better quality, you have to learn somewhere. My view is that for the raw beginner, the Zone System as normally taught is about as far from the best way to do this as you could easily get.
In other words, the Zone System is too complicated for the beginner, and once you know enough to undertand it, you probably no longer need it.
Cheers,
Roger
oftheherd
Veteran
It is interesting that there seem to be no commentaries on it as there is on the Zone System. Everybody seems to want to explain the Zone System with their own twist of how it can best be understood.
Yob starts out commenting on Hurter and Driffied, that they assigned a single value, gamma, to to developing their glass plates (by inspection), and that their work was monumental without accurate shutters or light meters. Then faults film manufacuturers for using the contrast index later.
He says that to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights is a great photographic myth requiring developing by inspection. By the way, those are brief comments at the beginning of the book. He doesn't belabor those points.
He then goes on to explain his system. Instead of starting with the negative and its exposure and development, he starts with the enlarger and works backward. He believes that allows the acheivemnt of proper exposure for each negative, and doesn't require changes in development. Tests are required with easy to construct testers to test the enlarger used by the individual photographer.
That doesn't do his book and system justice. I haven't read the whole book and tried the system. I hope to this summer.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
It is demonstratably untrue that you must develop by inspection to develop the highlights properly. You can test this by measuring a bright surface, exposing it a certain amount (say, 3 stops over the meter reading..or zone 8 in z-s terms). If you develop films with this exposure in the same developer for the same time, temp, agitation then you'll get the same negative density. You can then test developing times to reduce or increase this density as needed and they'll be repeatable too. No need for inspection if you are consistant in your working methods and take a little time to test your materials.
He is right about the influence of the enlarger though, different ones give different print contrast. So, you need to take that into consideration.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
The library in Fort Wayne, Indiana is the largest in the state, bigger than Indianapolis's library in terms of the size of the collection, and they didn't have it either. This must be a very obscure book, because I have searched for some very obscure things and always found a copy there.....
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Basically, I wouldn't bother to go to the effort of reading it, because (at least as you have described it) he's simply wrong.
You can control paper contrast (via paper and developer choice) but enlarger contrast for a given enlarger is fixed and with a fixed negative contrast you can ONLY use paper contrast to control print contrast.
'Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights' is about as far from a myth as you can get. The former is the only way to ensure adequate shadow detail; the latter is (admittedly slightly sloppy) shorthand for controlling contrast and maximum density. You certainly don't need to develop by inspection, and if he thinks you do, he has missed most of the point.
I had assumed that the first reference to Yob was a joke. In English, a yob is a layabout, wastrel, lout, troublemaker, hooligan; it is backslang for 'boy' and a 'yob' is often referred to as 'a backward boy'. From what you say, the latter definition sounds likely. I am not surprised that his work has sunk into deserved obscurity.
Cheers,
Roger
Turtle
Veteran
The zone system is very handy in LF where individual sheets are used but it I am honest the more film I shot the less I worried about applying it with more rigor. I came to realise that there is so much one can do with a neg in a B&W darkroom that as long as I had good shadow detail (easy to meter or estimate even without a spot meter) and did not blow the highlights to hell by over developing I could make the print I wanted. When using a TTL meter with my 35mm and MF cameras I have gotten to know the meters and how they deal with cetain lighting and so can normally be sure to get decent shadow detail. If I do not, then a spot meter would not have helped because that tends only to occur when the shot has to be grabbed...and that tends not to allow for spot readings. It is far quicker to fire a frame at the exposure you first come up with then do another plus or minus. I generally end up with lots of very different contrast conditions on one roll so I am not going to be able to vary development. If I know the entire roll or the bulk has been shot in very low contrast light I might add some time or reduce it if the contrast has been very high, but this is rare.
For rollfilm/35mm, the best skill is pre-flash and fogging paper. When highlights get very dense this is a life saver and very, very quick to apply in the darkroom once you know your papers. It might sit ill with purists, but then I only care what the print looks like!
The zone system can be a creativity killer. rollfilm formats excel when shooting with a degree of spontaneity/fuildity and if this describes your photography, understanding teh system may be handy, but you aint going to be able to rigorously apply it. If shooting static images and generally having one scene (or contrast index per film/back) then it can be handy.
Interestingly the only problem I tend to have is insufficient contrast in my negs as I use a very diffuse head....an image printing nicely below G2.5 is VERY rare for me!
This might upset a lot of people, but I see a correlation between those obsessed with the szone system and uninspiring images. It must not be allowed to get in the way or be seen as 'rules'. Instead it is a tool, but one you can choose to use, or not.
For rollfilm/35mm, the best skill is pre-flash and fogging paper. When highlights get very dense this is a life saver and very, very quick to apply in the darkroom once you know your papers. It might sit ill with purists, but then I only care what the print looks like!
The zone system can be a creativity killer. rollfilm formats excel when shooting with a degree of spontaneity/fuildity and if this describes your photography, understanding teh system may be handy, but you aint going to be able to rigorously apply it. If shooting static images and generally having one scene (or contrast index per film/back) then it can be handy.
Interestingly the only problem I tend to have is insufficient contrast in my negs as I use a very diffuse head....an image printing nicely below G2.5 is VERY rare for me!
This might upset a lot of people, but I see a correlation between those obsessed with the szone system and uninspiring images. It must not be allowed to get in the way or be seen as 'rules'. Instead it is a tool, but one you can choose to use, or not.
larmarv916
Well-known
Roger...again I agree with you and your latest post. So many self styled ZONE GURU'S are really nithing but hot air.....The is this effort to spend more time reinventing the wheel. rather than just going out and shooting. In the end what all of these "Guru's " do not want ot deal with is there own short comings on the artistic level.....actual finished work.
They would much rather wast hours of phony angst while life passes them by.
Best Regards...Laurance
They would much rather wast hours of phony angst while life passes them by.
Best Regards...Laurance
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
All that phony angst and hot air. Here are some of the charlatans and fools who waste thier time exposing and developing to get a good easy to print negative instead of doing the smart thing and just going out and shooting:
David Plowden
http://www.davidplowden.com/archive/
Bruce Barnbaum
http://barnbaum.com/photographs.html
John Sexton
http://www.pdngallery.com/legends/sexton/
Those idiots, their work is crap compared to yours. By the way, what's your website so we can see yours?
And to all you geniuses who say that the Zone System and other methods of exposing and developing using applied sensitometry are only usable with large format. Not only do I do it quite well with medium and small format, so does Plowden...he shoots exclusively with Hasselblads.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Christopher,
I'd say you're trying to prove a negative here (in the logical sense, not photographic).
There are great photographers who do use the Zone System.
There are at least as many great photographers who do not use the Zone System.
All are likely, however, to have acquired a working knowledge of the basics of sensitometry -- essentially, exposure and development -- whether formally or informally.
Surely you would agree that some Zonies use the Zone System to disguise the fact that their pictures are all but devoid of content. Not the ones you cite, perhaps, but even then, I have yet to be moved by a Sexton picture, except in the realm of exquisite tonality. Maybe it's just his subject matter.
And while I don't claim to be a great photographer, www.rogerandfrances.com at least absolves me from 'put up or shut up'.
Cheers,
Roger
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Roger,
My comments weren't aimed at you. You understand how film and devloping works and apply that knowledge to your work in order to get the best results. I was aiming at the people here, smug in their ignorance, who reject any testing of materials or use of developing as a tool to control contrast. The reason I defend the zone system is that for many, it is a symbol of such use of applied sensitometry. You can use any system you want and call it what you want as long as you don't just follow what the meter's averaged reading of the whole frame tells you and then refuse to change dev. time for different light. Some here seem to delight in, and indeed celebrate such laziness.
As far as putting up or shutting up, I wasn;t asking that of you either. I've read your articles in magazines like Shutterbug since I was a little kid (I got my first manual SLR at age 11 and began using my father's camera at age 8). I've always admired your work. I was talking about guys on this thread who have no website yet they bash others as uncreative.
larmarv916
Well-known
Christopher...you had better be careful who you put hold up for champions. Needless to say you have missed the "point" of everyone.......that is Zone does not justify or rubber stamp someones work as superior. Nor does it even ensure quality. The system has been twisted into a justification why those who do not bow down to Zone Guru's are inferior.
Also Christopher....Also I went to photography school with one of the people on your list. I will not metion his name here but does not deserve any artistice respect. A "Brown Noser" of extordinary talent...yes.
What show me you are really not that versed on Zone...is that you would have rather quoted the best book on Zone.....that was written by anothe school chum of mine....John Woods
Wood's book on Zone was and stil is a tour de force.....most likley out of print released about 10 + uears ago. Woods was actually a great guy and the mentor on Zone system to one on your list.
What yo ureally need to do is make a list of all the famous photogrpahers that did not use or care about Zone. Let me start a list for you HCB, Haas, Aget, Newman, Doisneau, Brassai, Horst, Capa, Brady, Brandt, Burri, Chim, Kertesz, Arbus, Eisenstaedt...just to name afew.
Again you desire to feel threatened is a reaction to this "cult" associtaion that Zone creates a false system of status because you hitched you print to Zone. Is the issue. We all love the work of the original mater photographers who actually used it.....but those people were great not becuase of Zone. rather because they had a great Eye and dedication to create great images. It is the polotical use of Zone that is the real problem you so refuse to acknowledge. You seem so intent on taking everyones comments on this so perosnally.
Best Regards......Laurance
Also Christopher....Also I went to photography school with one of the people on your list. I will not metion his name here but does not deserve any artistice respect. A "Brown Noser" of extordinary talent...yes.
What show me you are really not that versed on Zone...is that you would have rather quoted the best book on Zone.....that was written by anothe school chum of mine....John Woods
Wood's book on Zone was and stil is a tour de force.....most likley out of print released about 10 + uears ago. Woods was actually a great guy and the mentor on Zone system to one on your list.
What yo ureally need to do is make a list of all the famous photogrpahers that did not use or care about Zone. Let me start a list for you HCB, Haas, Aget, Newman, Doisneau, Brassai, Horst, Capa, Brady, Brandt, Burri, Chim, Kertesz, Arbus, Eisenstaedt...just to name afew.
Again you desire to feel threatened is a reaction to this "cult" associtaion that Zone creates a false system of status because you hitched you print to Zone. Is the issue. We all love the work of the original mater photographers who actually used it.....but those people were great not becuase of Zone. rather because they had a great Eye and dedication to create great images. It is the polotical use of Zone that is the real problem you so refuse to acknowledge. You seem so intent on taking everyones comments on this so perosnally.
Best Regards......Laurance
hiorgos
Established
Wow, dense and interesting thread! Really.
Just wondering, .. I have some knowledge about the zone system, and how to compensate the 18% grey when taking a picture. i'm willing to go back to film, but it can be discouraging not to be able to take a nice good exposure because the camera's lack of spot meter and -horror- that I actually have to send the film to the shop becasue I cannot have a dark room at home.
Is that bad to send the film to a good photo shop for developing?
Will I have to buy a spot meter, probably more expensive than the camera?
Is it possible to get good prints and consistent results using only the camera-lab combo?
Regards.
Just wondering, .. I have some knowledge about the zone system, and how to compensate the 18% grey when taking a picture. i'm willing to go back to film, but it can be discouraging not to be able to take a nice good exposure because the camera's lack of spot meter and -horror- that I actually have to send the film to the shop becasue I cannot have a dark room at home.
Is that bad to send the film to a good photo shop for developing?
Will I have to buy a spot meter, probably more expensive than the camera?
Is it possible to get good prints and consistent results using only the camera-lab combo?
Regards.
williams473
Well-known
Hirgos,
There's no need to buy an expensive spot meter unless you plan to be a long way from your subject (or you don't have any cameras with meters.) Try my "poor man's spotmeter" solution! I shoot on a couple old cameras without meters - when I do this, I just take along my SLR which has a spot meter in it and use that. It has everything I need - the ability to meter a small (usually shadow) area and adjust for film speed, fstop and shutter speed - then simply apply the settings to what you are shooting with. Even if you could only find a cheap SLR that had center weighted metering, you could buy a cheap 18% grey card from any photo shop and place it in the light you will be shooting in, meter that up close (thus filling the center weighted area) and get good enough meter readings.
Another little trick you can use if you don't have a grey card - green grass in full sun meters roughly 18% grey - I've used that many a time and gotten good negs. If you live in the desert, I can't help you there
As far as sending film to a lab for processing, it will be fine, although quality can vary greatly depending on who you use. Better to send to a top lab through the mail than use a local yokel. I prefer to process my own, but "developing for the highlights" is barely aplpicable in role shooting - however, exposing for the shadows is, which you can do for each shot if you choose using a simple in-camera meter.
There's no need to buy an expensive spot meter unless you plan to be a long way from your subject (or you don't have any cameras with meters.) Try my "poor man's spotmeter" solution! I shoot on a couple old cameras without meters - when I do this, I just take along my SLR which has a spot meter in it and use that. It has everything I need - the ability to meter a small (usually shadow) area and adjust for film speed, fstop and shutter speed - then simply apply the settings to what you are shooting with. Even if you could only find a cheap SLR that had center weighted metering, you could buy a cheap 18% grey card from any photo shop and place it in the light you will be shooting in, meter that up close (thus filling the center weighted area) and get good enough meter readings.
Another little trick you can use if you don't have a grey card - green grass in full sun meters roughly 18% grey - I've used that many a time and gotten good negs. If you live in the desert, I can't help you there
As far as sending film to a lab for processing, it will be fine, although quality can vary greatly depending on who you use. Better to send to a top lab through the mail than use a local yokel. I prefer to process my own, but "developing for the highlights" is barely aplpicable in role shooting - however, exposing for the shadows is, which you can do for each shot if you choose using a simple in-camera meter.