Carterofmars
Well-known
lol- I actually watched this already Carter. It made me angry.
Kidding aside, Bruce Barnbaum suggests putting shadows at IV instead of III; in order to retain texture.
Does anyone agree with this? His prints are beautiful.
http://www.barnbaum.com/Home.html
.
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Forget about 'Zones'. They're merely a (very clever) way of describing the tonal scale of a print. Shadows are shadows, whatever Zone label you care to use. You can call the darkest shadows with texture Zone 2 or 3 or ten million; what you call them is irrelevant to what you see on the print. Indeed, there have been several versions of the Zone System, from the original (I to IX, symmetrical about V) through asymmetric (add Zone X) to the long symmetric (0 to X -- quite amusing as there was no 0 in Roman numerals). This is what I mean about the Zone System being over-complicated and jargon-ridden. Look at basic sensitometry instead.
You need enough exposure on the film to give you texture in whatever area you choose. This can mean anything from letting unimportant shadows go black (useful in many kinds of theatre and music photography) to keeping texture in everything you can see with the naked eye (often useful in lanscapes).
The only way to be sure of getting this shadow detail is to read the area in question directly, usually with a spot meter, using whatever EI and meter index you have found, by simple iterative experiment, to give you the texture you need. A properly designed spot meter doesn't even have a mid-tone index, because no speed system is based on a mid-tone. Instead it has a shadow index (for neg) and a highlight index (for tranny and digi). The mid-tone index is a pernicious invention designed to pander to those who don't actually know what they're doing, but work by rote instead. This includes a distressing number of Zone aficionados.
If there is no shadow index, you can work 2 or 3 stops down from the mid-tone index, or at any intermediate point between 2 and 3 stops: 2-1/3, 2-1/2, 2-2/3. Even 3 stops, at the nominal ISO, will often give you some texture. At 2 stops, you will always have texture. Obviously you can vary EI or index (2 stops, 3 stops, intermediate point) or, if you're a masochist, both: 3 stops down at EI 200 will give you exactly the same exposure as 2 stops down at 400.
Next, you want to make sure that the highlights aren't 'blown' to a featureless white in the print. You can usually do this by choice of paper grade, of (if you are wedded to a single grade) you can vary development time according to the brightness range of the subject: this is the Zone N-/N/N+ development time. Or you can split the difference via 3 dev times: what I call the 15/50 method, which works as follows.
You establish (via simple iterative tesitng) the dev time that gives you a good print of a normal subject on grade 2 to 3. For subjects with a very long brightness range (e.g. brilliant sun), decrease your normal dev time by 15%, and for subjects with a very short brightness range (e.g. heavy overcast) increase it by 50%. Then use VC paper again for fine tuning. If you don't like 15/50 use 10/40 or 20/60 or whatever works for you.
All this, of course, refers to wet printng. Once you're scanning, you have far more control. Your main limiting factor is the maximum density your scanner can see through. At this point, the Zone System and its jargon is even less relevant to what you're doing. In fact, if you have any sense, rather than piddling around with the Zone System you'll use XP2 Super (at whatever EI suits your metering technique) for its long, straight characteristic curve and absence of Callier effect, and sort everything else out in post-production.
Cheers,
R.
You need enough exposure on the film to give you texture in whatever area you choose. This can mean anything from letting unimportant shadows go black (useful in many kinds of theatre and music photography) to keeping texture in everything you can see with the naked eye (often useful in lanscapes).
The only way to be sure of getting this shadow detail is to read the area in question directly, usually with a spot meter, using whatever EI and meter index you have found, by simple iterative experiment, to give you the texture you need. A properly designed spot meter doesn't even have a mid-tone index, because no speed system is based on a mid-tone. Instead it has a shadow index (for neg) and a highlight index (for tranny and digi). The mid-tone index is a pernicious invention designed to pander to those who don't actually know what they're doing, but work by rote instead. This includes a distressing number of Zone aficionados.
If there is no shadow index, you can work 2 or 3 stops down from the mid-tone index, or at any intermediate point between 2 and 3 stops: 2-1/3, 2-1/2, 2-2/3. Even 3 stops, at the nominal ISO, will often give you some texture. At 2 stops, you will always have texture. Obviously you can vary EI or index (2 stops, 3 stops, intermediate point) or, if you're a masochist, both: 3 stops down at EI 200 will give you exactly the same exposure as 2 stops down at 400.
Next, you want to make sure that the highlights aren't 'blown' to a featureless white in the print. You can usually do this by choice of paper grade, of (if you are wedded to a single grade) you can vary development time according to the brightness range of the subject: this is the Zone N-/N/N+ development time. Or you can split the difference via 3 dev times: what I call the 15/50 method, which works as follows.
You establish (via simple iterative tesitng) the dev time that gives you a good print of a normal subject on grade 2 to 3. For subjects with a very long brightness range (e.g. brilliant sun), decrease your normal dev time by 15%, and for subjects with a very short brightness range (e.g. heavy overcast) increase it by 50%. Then use VC paper again for fine tuning. If you don't like 15/50 use 10/40 or 20/60 or whatever works for you.
All this, of course, refers to wet printng. Once you're scanning, you have far more control. Your main limiting factor is the maximum density your scanner can see through. At this point, the Zone System and its jargon is even less relevant to what you're doing. In fact, if you have any sense, rather than piddling around with the Zone System you'll use XP2 Super (at whatever EI suits your metering technique) for its long, straight characteristic curve and absence of Callier effect, and sort everything else out in post-production.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
That’s me, xp2 and if in doubt give it an extra 2 or 3 stops, “life’s too short to stuff a mushroom” as that women who wrote Superwomen observed
I have two negatives made using the zone system that date from 1973, they're nice but I’ve not felt the need to repeat the experience, in my experience the quality of the image is in an inverse proportion to that of the negative anyway
I have two negatives made using the zone system that date from 1973, they're nice but I’ve not felt the need to repeat the experience, in my experience the quality of the image is in an inverse proportion to that of the negative anyway
Last edited:
OurManInTangier
An Undesirable
That's how I've tended to use it. I read up on the subject at college, experimented, made notes etc etc so that I understood it as much as I could. Then applied it only in part and in a manner that worked for me. The process of learning about the Zone System was more useful, in so far as I came away with a far better understanding of exposure control, than any actual use of the Zone System.
flip
良かったね！
KenR
Well-known
Archer
Archer
Someone wrote that Archer and Adams developed the Zone system in the 30's. I thought that Archer was partners with Sam ***** in that San Francisco detective agency. I guess he have a lot of time between cases.
Archer
Someone wrote that Archer and Adams developed the Zone system in the 30's. I thought that Archer was partners with Sam ***** in that San Francisco detective agency. I guess he have a lot of time between cases.
Carterofmars
Well-known
Chris- Concerning the following...
Now, aim the spot at the brightest area in the scene.
If it's a five stop range between the darkest and brightest reading, use normal development.
Less than five, increase development.
More than five, decrease development.
for every stop less/more than 5, do you increase/decrease development equally in same amount of increments? In other words if the stop range is 7 (2 more than 5) then development would be N-2?
Will a place like A&I develop 120 N-* ?
Thanks
ChrisN
Striving
I must admit that I'm not qualified to answer this question.
Certainly Adams does refer to N+2 and N-2 development, and I believe that the digit does refer to a change in development time that produces the equivalent of a 1-zone (2-zone) change in final print value. I'm not able to advise how much of a change in development time is required to achieve that N+1 or N+2 change - that is a matter for your own experimentation. I would recommend borrowing Adam's "The Negative" from the library and studying it.
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I must admit that I'm not qualified to answer this question.
That's true. The actual development change depends on the film. N-1 can require anywhere from a 20 to 30% reduction. Modern films do not do well developed N-2, they become very muddy in the midtones.
N+1 can take anywhere from 20-40% increase, depending on the film. N+2 40-70% increase. N+ development, in my experience, is very rarely needed. The problem in natural light is most often too much rather than too little contrast.
newspaperguy
Well-known
I like Professor Hick's explanation.
FWIW - the best I'd read on this subject was the late Fred Picker's
ZONE VI Workshop,
published in the mid-70s and available in many used bookstores.
Incidentally, Picker was the guy who put me onto HC-110...
and I'm still using it.
FWIW - the best I'd read on this subject was the late Fred Picker's
ZONE VI Workshop,
published in the mid-70s and available in many used bookstores.
Incidentally, Picker was the guy who put me onto HC-110...
and I'm still using it.
Last edited:
BillBingham2
Registered User
I think Simon is spot on with this. The Zone System gives you great framework to look at exposure, development and the range of sensitivity of film. I've read up on it, tried it for a few dozen sheets of film some years back, and adopted parts for my everyday stuff.
One of the aspects of digital sensors that I think would be very interesting to take a look at from a zone perspective is can you get the full range of zones clearly from a sensor. What artifacts are injected into the file because the sensor or down stream processors are not made to handle them.
For me the zone system expanded the 18% gray concept and put names to some of the things I was doing and gave me even more things to put into my bag-o-tricks.
If you have three or five backs for a 'Blad you can actually use one quite well for the zone system. Much easier for developing but more stuff to carry. Masking tape and a good marker were critical for a day of LF at least for me.
B2 (;->
visiondr
cyclic iconoclast
I studied and used the Zone System for several years. I even taught the rudements of "the system" to students as president of my college's photography club. And those techniques inform my knowledge of exposure etc. to this day. Later, I came to the conclusion that the vast majority of important information in a print is in the mid tones and the extreme highlights and shadows are there for tinkerers to obsess over. It takes an awfully crappy exposure to ruin a compelling image. Conversely, without a compelling subject, the most perfectly exposed, developed and printed negative in the world is just a nice negative; an accomplishment of skilled craft. It's always a pleasant surprise to me when the technical and the artistic come together. But, given the choice, I'd take the artistic any day of the week. Just look at the iconic images of our time; Capa's D-Day beach photo, many of Cartier-Bresson's, images and much of Robert Frank's work (just as a very small sample) and you'll see.
Last edited:
charjohncarter
Veteran
Very right!
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
No. When I am standing on the street corner and see the shot the last thing I think about is how to zone system the exposure. Sure, if you have the camera on a tripod and stand around for an hour and half maybe then but the zone system is designed for an 18% reflective card. Do you know what that translates to? Human skin tones for white people. Meters are designed for that purpose...I'll say it again...to get the best image of White skin. Therefore, consider if you are photographing dark skinned people you need or open the aperture by a half or full stop. The rule of thumb that I work with is to expose for the darker areas. Keep the meter in the slightly positive area. I tried reading Ansel Adams books on photography and found them inapplicable to rangefinder/35mm use. They were helpful for medium format and above. All in all I am not sure in the history of photography if Ansel Adams adhered to the Zone System. He had extreme difficulty with color film. He experimented with color slide but never was happy with his results. See: "Ansel Adams in Color: Selected Writings in Color Photographs" by Ansel Adams. Obviously, I am not a big Ansel Adams fan and feel as do many others that a lot of his work was commercial; he was a great photographer but his reputation rests on posters for the uniformed. What I learned was: "The Zone System: 10 shades from white to black...so what does the photograph tell me about the Human Condition?"
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
Adams work wasn't about the human condition, he was a landscape photographer. Don't be so one-dimensional, there are many different types of artistic photography and even more types of commercial photography. Street/documentary/reportage is not the alpha and omega of photography, and to criticize the working methods and the photographs of another photographer as someone with an undeserved reputation just because YOU don't do landscape photography is silly.
Heck, you don't even have the technical stuff right. an 18% grey card is NOT white people's skin. White skin is generally one stop brighter. Dark skin one stop darker. The RIGHT way to expose white people is to meter the skin, open one stop; for dark skinned people, close down one stop.
Last edited:
bigeye
Well-known
These are interesting responses.
When Adams began, photography was not considered ‘art’ and the technology consisted of view cameras operated by shamen using slow, thick emulsions and no exposure meters.
He defined a way to take a single image to capture a visualization. His goal was to know how the image would print before taking it. No bracketing, test iterations, Polaroids, or chimping.
A bit ‘academic,’ it is a good method to get students to consider and visualize light values and correlate them with the technical capabilities and limitations of photographic equipment.
All sorts of expedients exist (topped by histograms and live view), but it remains a good means of communicating the connection in photography between the ‘left brain’ and the 'right.'
I do use it, my own way. For B&W I can't imagine not cross-checking my exposure meter by placing values. I think most photographers eventually do this intuitively.
- Charlie
When Adams began, photography was not considered ‘art’ and the technology consisted of view cameras operated by shamen using slow, thick emulsions and no exposure meters.
He defined a way to take a single image to capture a visualization. His goal was to know how the image would print before taking it. No bracketing, test iterations, Polaroids, or chimping.
A bit ‘academic,’ it is a good method to get students to consider and visualize light values and correlate them with the technical capabilities and limitations of photographic equipment.
All sorts of expedients exist (topped by histograms and live view), but it remains a good means of communicating the connection in photography between the ‘left brain’ and the 'right.'
I do use it, my own way. For B&W I can't imagine not cross-checking my exposure meter by placing values. I think most photographers eventually do this intuitively.
- Charlie
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Charlie,
On the one hand, of course. I do exactly the same as you: as you say, intuitively. On the other, the very phrase 'placing values' is exactly the kind of Zonie jargon that sets my teeth on edge. I learned the techniques of exposure compensation from other sources than the Zone System.
Cheers,
R.
bigeye
Well-known
Yes, it has an irritating formula-of-the-obvious sound about it that is popular in motivational business books.
Fawley
Well-known
Trying to use the zone system for 35 mm photography is, 1) impractical and 2)tends to ruin the 35mm photography experience. That said, I think a thorough reading and understanding of the zone system is a must for anyone wanting to fully exploit film medium. My favorite photography writer, David Vestal, panned the zone system ( although he appears to have highly respected Adams) but he was a believer in doing exposure and development tests, as was Adams. Just different types of tests using actual subjects. I do similiar tests, and they can be a lot fun and help with your photography. For my film and development testing, I use a spotmeter and I guess a little bit of the zone system, but when I take the results of those tests and go shooting, I leave the zone system behind.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
A PERFECT description!
@ Fawley: That said, I think a thorough reading and understanding of the zone system is a must for anyone wanting to fully exploit film medium.
I don't agree. First, you can be a great photographer without knowing anthing about sensitometry, and second, the Zone System is merely a jargon-ridden subset of sensitometry. AA was a great photographer, and by all accounts of those who met him, a nice guy, but he really wasn't a very good writer. His Gospels (The Camera, The Negative, etc.) are far longer than they need to be and all but unreadable.
Cheers,
R.