The Zone System and dynamic range - on what I don't understand

T

Tijmendal

Young photog
Local time
12:45 AM
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Messages
507
Hi,

I understand how the zone system works, I've read 'the Negative' and get the principle. The thing I don't get about is, is the dynamic range of the system and it's relation to stops of light. The system is based on the assumption there's only 10 stops of dynamic range, right? B/W film has I don't know how many stops of DR, but more than 10 (correct me if I'm off base here). Same for my digital camera. Is it just that it's measured differently, in the sense that the dynamic range of film/your camera take the extremes from the spectrum (both light and dark), whereas the zone system just looks at the dynamic range of one (physical) zone and how the light in that zone changes? (eg. you're looking at the latitude of one zone).

Is that it?
 
with digital cameras there are five zones to work with, just like slide film. so when shooting digital, get the highlight detail and bring back the shadows in the RAW software.
 
Like Roger says, it's about getting all that info from the film into the limited range of the print that is the issue, if you are a genius you can get 10 individual zones, although this depends on a whole host of variables.
The zone system is too simple, I guess that's why it exists; most people aren't testing films and plotting info to quadrant diagrams in order to map the tonal response of film and paper combinations.
The zone system is a 'paint by numbers' version of the work of Dr Jones.
 
Photo_Smith said:
. . . The zone system is too simple . . . a 'paint by numbers' version of the work of Dr Jones.
Click to expand...
While also being hopelessly overcomplicated with its private vocabulary. The naming of Zones was a work of genius. Everything else about it is, as you say, derivative of others' work -- and not always very competently so.

Cheers,

R.
 
So if it's only about the tonal range of the print, why do we meter the shadows for Zone III and highlights for Zone VIII if the range of film is much bigger? Is it because scanners have an equally small range as film paper does?
 
... on film; its about fitting the tonal-range of the scene one is photographing into the range of the negative by adjusting the exposure and developing ... so one isn't losing detail from the highlights or shadows
 
Tijmendal said:
So if it's only about the tonal range of the print, why do we meter the shadows for Zone III and highlights for Zone VIII if the range of film is much bigger? Is it because scanners have an equally small range as film paper does?
Click to expand...
In order to know how to change development in order to alter the slope of the D/log E curve, i.e. to fit the subject brightness range onto the print brightness range. This works only with sheet film (or with roll film with every frame exposed to identical subject brightness ranges) and is normally important only if you don't have different paper grades (or a scanner).

The Zone System is an even bigger waste of time if you're scanning than if you're wet printing.

All right, "waste of time" may be an exaggeration -- clearly it works for some people -- but given how many brilliant photographers don't use the Zone System, it can hardly be essential.

Cheers,

R.
 
Different films or sensors have different characteristics. Just because Ansel Adams used a film with a range of ten stops to demonstrate his system doesn't mean that you can't apply the principals to sensors/film with greater or lessor range. You just can't push or pull chemical color processes nearly as much.

In practice hardly anyone who maintains a measure of sanity does the Zone System to the ninth degree. Most people realize that they'll introduce an uncontrolled variable somewhere in the process, and seeing and printing actual film in hand shows them that variations can be tolerated and even welcomed. Like most Catholics, I'm still faithful to my spot meter but decided to be an imperfect sinner who gave up his densitometer.

Same with Ansel's devotion to previsualization. I've had too many happy accidents to still have absolute faith in it anymore but it is still a pretty darn good foundation for how to approach making a considered photograph.

FWIW As for slide film having a five stop range, probably it does on a densitometer but in practice I always shot it flatter than that for commercial repro, most places would reject a full range chrome as being too harsh.
 
Thanks for the answers and explanations everyone. It's not that I intend to use it a whole lot, I just want to understand it. Especially for shooting slide film I reckon it's good to understand/know.
I think I understand a little better now. So is that also why slide film is a standardised process, because it has a dynamic range of only 5-6 stops, which fits perfectly in the dynamic range of the paper? Or am I being silly again?
 
The zone system is for B&W, that is the ten zones are translated from varying scene brightness ratios using contraction or expansion through development-these then go to the ten zones that grade two paper can show.
Conventional B&W film doesn't have a dynamic range as such as it is dependent on exposure and development to generate different contrast indexes.

Slide film is a whole different matter (the zone system doesn't really apply to colour print and not at all with slides), unless you change the development the range of tones it records are fixed by the film within the built in curve, Velvia has less Astia had more; exposure can shift slightly if conditions allow.
In order to lessen contrast you'd need to do that in printing (using contrast masks) or nowadays through scan and post.
 
That is why there are (up to) 36 frames on a roll of 35mm film.

Bracket in half stops as far, plus and minus, as you dare.

As an aside, I shoot 35mm half frame and so, have a little less per frame pressure.
 
I've never understood the Zone System, either.

The best advice I ever got was from a colleague who had done documentary and training films for the previous 25 years. He told me to get a reliable incident light meter and use it sensibly. I've never had an unprintable negative since, processing errors apart.
 
Tijmendal said:
Thanks for the answers and explanations everyone. It's not that I intend to use it a whole lot, I just want to understand it. Especially for shooting slide film I reckon it's good to understand/know.
I think I understand a little better now. So is that also why slide film is a standardised process, because it has a dynamic range of only 5-6 stops, which fits perfectly in the dynamic range of the paper? Or am I being silly again?
Click to expand...

Slide film was only intended for projected images by consumers. Later, in the 1950s, it was adopted for color reproduction by the printing industry because the film could be used as a color reference and it reduced the color separation process by one generation for better quality. (This is no longer the case with modern workflows.) (The only practical reason to still use slide film is for projection, everything else is just tradition and nostalgia.)

You can push slide film development with an increase in grain and contrast. Pulls are less successful but back in the day a professional photographer might underexpose slightly and then do clip tests (processing short sections of film) to determine how much to push the film to give a good exposure. You would do this when you were shooting something that could not be bracketed, like portraits or fashion. But there was never any variation with the chemistry and the last standard E6 process was carefully calibrated and maintained by professional processing labs (and not so carefully by those $1.99 drug store labs).

So you never really used the full-blown Zone System using darkroom adjustments for color back in the day... However you could dig into the old Sinar literature to see how the Swiss approached anal retentive color exposures ;-p They had special spot meter wands you could stick into the back of view cameras and other exotica. Everyone else bracketed.

I found a spot meter useful but a lot of the old school commercial photography was shot with strobe and there were not many spot meters capable of measuring flash outside of the Broncolor and the Minolta of the 80s.
 
Frank Petronio said:
Same with Ansel's devotion to previsualization. I've had too many happy accidents to still have absolute faith in it anymore but it is still a pretty darn good foundation for how to approach making a considered photograph.
Click to expand...

That's right 'happy accidents' seem to be the ones I like best. I doubt if we will spend extra time in Purgatory because we have committed a non-mortal sin of not using the Zone every time.
 
The place where i learn the most about how Zone system can help me, is in the darkroom. Limited "zones" can sometimes be beautiful too. It's a matter of using it to suit your vision and the subject.

It's just one of the tools.
 
I think I understand your question - how can say 20 stops of dynamic film range translate into 10 zones, which are also conceived as being 1 stop apart.

In practice, the extra dynamic range of the film will not be translated into variation upon printing - you may get a measurable change in film density when you double exposure at the top of the range, but the result on printed paper will still be pure white (still zone X).

So the missing part of the puzzle is calibration - you determine a development time for a specific film that translates a grey card (zone V) into the correct density on the finished print. That sets the midpoint of your dynamic range. If your film is capable of recording intensity variation above Zone X and below Zone 0, it does not make a difference upon printing.

Roger, forgive me, I found a couple books on the zone system at the used book shop, and ended up reading them!

Randy
 
When I was in college I had a couple of zone system classes and you first have to do the tests to find the proper ISO for the camera, meter and lens being used. The tests not only establish the proper ISO but show you the threshold of exposure over film base + fog. You need a densitometer to do it properly. You need to test with the film you will be using and the developer and dilution you will be using. It's also very important you agitate the same. Everything has to consistent. I used to do 14 sheets at a time and just rotate from bottom to top. 14 sheets were perfect to get the proper agitation. You also need to test for the shoulder (highlights) to . That means using hte same enlarger and same lens after the testing is done. Finding the proper ISO of the film/developer and the proper processing time for the developer and dilution then allows you to consistently place your shadows at the spot you imagine them to be. Zone II, zone III or maybe even zone IV. Then through the development time of your negatives you can then control the highlights. N+1 will push the highlights up one zone. N-1 will pull them back but the base is the shadow and where you decide to place it. This also requires some testing. That controls the exposure and without the test you won't be able to consistently place that exposure. This is way over simplified but all of theses things, if done properly, control the DR. Adams had a special dilution of HC110 and tri-x professional 320 sheet film where the toe looked more like a digital straight line toe than a traditional curved toe where the low tones block up. He could get tones down in the shadows with that combo that you probably couldn't get with other developer/film combos. So you expose to control the shadows and use your negative development times to control the highlights and the only way to do it consistently is to do the tests. It's a real pain but it pays off in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom