Mastering the Zone System without a spot meter?

[johannielscom]

What the title says, calling out to all Zone System aficionados and other too.

Is mastering the Zone System doable at all without using a 1º spot meter?

I'm looking to improve my exposures and currently own a Gossen LunaSix-3 which offers reflective reading, incident reading and (with the addition of a dedicated accessory) also 15º and 7.5º spot metering. It's large but accurate and I like it.

Am I good to go or is a true 1º spot meter essential to get the best results?

 

[icebear]

Just a guess :
Mr. Zonesystem himself most likely had not have access to a 1 deg. spot meter 😉

 

[rybolt]

Archer and Adams did not use spot meters in the late 30's when they came up with the concept. Adams did use spot meters when they became available. ISE Photometers were first and then the Pentax models.
In answer to your question; You can probably get acceptable results without a spot meter but having one will make it easier and probably more consistent.
The most important part of the zone system is the calibration and the consistency with which you apply the results from your tests. If you aren't going to do that you might as well just pay closer attention to your metering and improve on your current technique.

 

[f16sunshine]

Master? Maybe not. One can still become quite good at evaluating the values in a scene by eye with practice and good notes.
You can still "place a zone" with a 7.5 or 15 degree meter as a guide for various areas in the scene.
That said... why not just get a 1 degree spot meter?
I use an old Pentax spotmeter when I want such acuracy and actually really like it.

 

[ronnies]

True "zone system" requires processing each frame individually. Not really practical on any film with multiple frames. 🙂

Ronnie

 

[Pioneer]

Sure. Walk up and directly meter the dark area where you would like some detail or texture. Then walk up to something light in which you would like to retain texture or detail. Expose for the shadow area and then develop for the highlight. I don't always have a spot meter with me, but I usually do carry a small Sekonic, so I use this method frequently and it turns out decent.

Of course, as Mr. AA could have said himself, it may not be possible to meter directly. In that case you would pick a substitute that closely matches your dark and/or light items and meter them.

When using the 2nd method is sometimes worthwhile to bracket if you have the time.

This is just one, I'm sure there are many ways.

EDIT - I think it goes without saying but this is best used for single sheets of film where you can develop individually.

 

[johannielscom]

True "zone system" requires processing each frame individually. Not really practical on any film with multiple frames. 🙂

Ronnie

😀

Might be true, but I'm planning on shooting a portrait series with the Hasselblad and continuous studio lighting etc. so my lighting will be pretty consistent, not requiring much variation in development I reckon?

It's just that I want my lighting and exposure to be as consistent as possible since I will only have a single session with each subject and have to make sure I get it right in that one session.

 

[Godfrey]

What the title says, calling out to all Zone System aficionados and other too.

Is mastering the Zone System doable at all without using a 1º spot meter?

I'm looking to improve my exposures and currently own a Gossen LunaSix-3 which offers reflective reading, incident reading and (with the addition of a dedicated accessory) also 15º and 7.5º spot metering. It's large but accurate and I like it.

Am I good to go or is a true 1º spot meter essential to get the best results?

The Zone System is a matter of policy and practice, it is not dependent upon a particular metering technology. I always found it easier to use an incident meter instead of a 1° spot meter. With an incident meter, you are always reading Zone V and can extrapolate all the other zones very effectively.

G

 

[johannielscom]

The Zone System is a matter of policy and practice, it is not dependent upon a particular metering technology. I always found it easier to use an incident meter instead of a 1° spot meter. With an incident meter, you are always reading Zone V and can extrapolate all the other zones very effectively.

G

That's an interesting take on the matter, considering the incident reading equal to Zone V sure makes things more straightforward. I presume you take the incident reading in primary light hitting the subject, yes? I gotta give that a try and see what it does. Could be on the mark without a lot of hassle.

 

[rybolt]

The reason for the Zone system is to be able to get all of the zones that you want into the negative. This is a combination of the exposure and the processing. If you take one of those two out of the workflow you aren't doing what is popularly referred to as the Zone System. Not that you can't get great results using another system.

 

[Godfrey]

That's an interesting take on the matter, considering the incident reading equal to Zone V sure makes things more straightforward. I presume you take the incident reading in primary light hitting the subject, yes? I gotta give that a try and see what it does. Could be on the mark without a lot of hassle.

The trick with the Zone System is to learn to recognize what the zones are, then expose and process properly to allow the film to capture them as you desire. If you measure Zone V and use standard processing, you'll immediately see what is zone V is properly rendered on the negative, and you can see what is too hot and too dark.

If you make a series of test exposures based on that reading, you can see what zones I, II, III, IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X look like too. If you make multiple series of such exposures and clip them for different processing techniques, you can see how exposure and processing work hand in hand to build density the way you need it to happen in order to capture a wide range of scene situations with differing light, and you can also determine the dynamic range of a particular film that way too.

The meter, whatever meter you use, simply sets a reference baseline for your learning. It's what you see and understand from using it that is important, not the meter type. 🙂

G

 

[Dektol Dan]

Zone Metering

Zone Metering

You pretty much have to have a spot meter. When processing one must learn to identify the zones with practice. Scanners may eliminate some zones, some folks today refer to this as poor Dmax.

There are applications made for the Leica Mono that that do it for you. I wrote about this possibility when the Mono was introduced and scoffed at by some on this forum.

Here's how my dad handled it. He made this zone graphic out of plastic and attached to his meter 30 years ago. I use it today.

 

[rybolt]

Here's how my dad handled it. He made this zone graphic out of plastic and attached to his meter 30 years ago. I use it today.[/quote]



Dan-How is that different from The Zone VI dial that Fred Picker did?

 

[johannielscom]

Thanks so far, fellows. Given me great reference points to start from. Your outline of a possible approach was very helpful Godfrey!

Pretty obvious I also need to get my act together on developing, I've so far used a pretty straightforward Rodinal 1:75 at 1-hour refrigerated stand development on my medium format Tri-X approach but that might not cut it with this new project.

Earlier on when planning this, I considered bringing a D700 and lens along and use flash strobes, but I reckon that video continuous lighting I also own, used through umbrellas, is a lot easier to control, both in brightness and direction. As a result, I now want to fly Hasselblad-only and leave the digital camera at home altogether.

WRT scanning, I think I have it covered with an Imacon Photo scanner that will get me a wide Dmax and ~49MP file when scanned at full-resolution 😎

 

[nikon_sam]

In Fred Picker's book Zone VI Workshop he uses the Weston Ranger 9 and there's a Zone System scale you can attach to the dial...

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

You don't need a 1 degree meter. You just need a meter that will let you measure a small part of the subject accurately. When I used cameras with built in spotmeters, like my beloved Olympus OM-4T bodies and my old Nikon F4s, the built in meters worked just fine. In fact, the meter display in the finder that both of these cameras had made the zone system easy. They had a bar graph showing 'correct exposure' (zone V) and +1, +2 and -1, -2 in 1/3 stop increments. It was very fast, accurate, and easy.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Archer and Adams did not use spot meters in the late 30's when they came up with the concept. Adams did use spot meters when they became available. ISE Photometers were first and then the Pentax models.
In answer to your question; You can probably get acceptable results without a spot meter but having one will make it easier and probably more consistent.
The most important part of the zone system is the calibration and the consistency with which you apply the results from your tests. If you aren't going to do that you might as well just pay closer attention to your metering and improve on your current technique.

And (sorry, can't trace the quote) he is said to have reckoned that his exposures increased by an average of 1 stop when he got one. In other words, don't look for more precision than is needed, let alone more precision than the system can deliver.

With the kind of set-up the OP is talking about there is less than no need for the Zone System. Base the exposure on an incident reading at the subject's face and keep the illumination range modest: 16:1 or less (even as low as 4:1). Choose a development time to suit that illumination range. You could set this up with a plaster head, a grey card, and a couple of bits of fabric, one bright white and the other black velvet. Thereafter stick to the same exposure and development.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

And (sorry, can't trace the quote) he is said to have reckoned that his exposures increased by an average of 1 stop when he got one. In other words, don't look for more precision than is needed, let alone more precision than the system can deliver.

With the kind of set-up the OP is talking about there is less than no need for the Zone System. Base the exposure on an incident reading at the subject's face and keep the illumination range modest: 16:1 or less (even as low as 4:1). Choose a development time to suit that illumination range. You could set this up with a plaster head, a grey card, and a couple of bits of fabric, one bright white and the other black velvet. Thereafter stick to the same exposure and development.

Cheers,

R.

Not one word of this is relevant to the OP's question. Your hostility to the zone system is well known, no need to butt into a thread about something you do not like/understand. I answered his question; I'm the only one so far who made the effort to do so.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

True "zone system" requires processing each frame individually. Not really practical on any film with multiple frames. 🙂

Ronnie

Gee, I must be an idiot. I've used the zone system on roll film for 20 years now with incredible results and flawless negs every time. As long as the whole roll is shot with subjects needing the same developing time, it works. This has never been an issue for me. I'm glad to know I was wrong the whole time. Gracias.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not one word of this is relevant to the OP's question. Your hostility to the zone system is well known, no need to butt into a thread about something you do not like/understand. I answered his question; I'm the only one so far who made the effort to do so.

Dear Chris,

Eh? I'd have thought that the fact that AA devised the Zone System without spot meters was highly relevant, as was the fact that his exposures increased significantly when he got one.

As for your claim to be the only person who tried to answer his question, well, no. He had already explained in a subsequent post more about why he thought he might find it useful. I explained why he might not.

As for "something you do not like/understand", do you REALLY think I don't understand it? Why "butt in" with gratuitous insults to those who do not agree with your world picture but are genuinely trying to help?

Cheers,

R.