To Zone or not to Zone

[Joe AC]

Well in an effort to find out more about the genius of Ansel Adams photography and how he achieved those wonderful landscape/mountain shots I picked up The Negative in order to get the zone system directly from the horses mouth. It seems like a wonderful system and was just wondering how many people use it...and if not why?
Now it sems as though i'll have to pick up a 1deg spot meter because the sekonic L408 that i've been using for years apparently wont work.

 

[tlitody]

If you are a landscape photographer then sure go with it. But if you are a people photographer then I'd forget it.
You can get away without using it and many many fine landscape photographers don't use it. And many many people who think they are using it actually aren't because they just use arbitrary numbers given by AA and go with those. (materials have changed since he wrote those books).

 

[MCTuomey]

If you're a B&W landscape photographer, the zone system or one of its modifications will likely be useful. But if you're shooting color slide film or digitally, you might be better off with simple incident metering.

 

[tlitody]

I would add that with the zone system you must go through the testing process to determine that zones print where you expect them to print. That means you must apply it religiously. If you don't then its a waste of time and effort and you would get just as good results with your incident meter. So you need to be the pedantic type becuase if you're not then I'd suggest its not for you. You would just waste your time to get to where you could have been much faster with an incident meter. The zone system will just give you that last 10% or so of precision metering and development.
If you are scanning to print then there's little point in the zone system providing you give enough exposure so as not to lose shadow detail.

 

[Landshark]

Unless you can change film by using different bodies/backs it's not really convenient to apply the metering/developing techniques.
For 35, IMO incident is more convenient. You can apply Kentucky windage to modify exposure on the fly.

 

[Steve M.]

Honestly, w/ B&W film, if your exposures are right you probably won't see that much difference. Bracketing would work if you have any doubts. Most of Ansel's genius, and he had them in many areas, was in the darkroom. He used to say that he didn't take photographs, he made them. Nailing the subject, the exposure, using the right film, and selecting the right focal length lens are plenty difficult in themselves. Once that's taken care of, a lot depends on the correct developing for your neg's exposure, and deciding (usually by trial and error) how you want to print it.

Which is why I've lately taken to using C41 film in my 35mm cameras, having the negs developed and scanned to a CD, and then sending to an online print service. I just do not have the patience that LF requires.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Not.

See http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/zone system.html for the religious aspects.

Or for a more serious analysis: http://www.rogerandfrances.com/subscription/ps zone.html

Cheers,

R.

 

[MCTuomey]

.... I've lately taken to using C41 film in my 35mm cameras, having the negs developed and scanned to a CD, and then sending to an online print service. I just do not have the patience that LF requires.

I feel the same way, although I apply the concept to digi and non-C41 film. I make reasonable judgements on metering method and exposure to try to get it right in camera. Whether scanned film from the lab or native digi, I do limited post-processing on the files and then farm out the printing. I started to use a couple of online print servicers awhile ago for the sportsshooting work I do that produces a bit of income. Was pleasantly surprised to find that I was very happy with their work, quality and price wise, so have used them ever since.

 

[Joe AC]

But isnt the idea behind the zone system that you are able to control and manipulate the subject you intend on photographing to suit your visulization of it and get as close to a perfect a negative to make that visulization possible without guessing?

 

[jmcd]

I basically expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. Practically speaking, with 35mm I expose most rolls for N-1 (more contrast than normal range) and develop so that I can print the scenes with more contrast on a lower grade of paper, and the flatter N (normal contrast range) scenes on a higher grade. This is basically the system A.A. recommended for 35mm using one camera.

If I know the entire roll will be exposed in N conditions I will expose accordingly (less exposure than an N negative in the above N-1 scheme) and with longer development.

The above system can be used with an in-camera meter, a spot meter, or an incident meter. Its all about light and film, and the Zone System official was just one method of saying, expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights.

The last film that I used that responded beautifully to the Zone System expansions and contractions was Forte 400. Not only could the contrast range be controlled during development, the resulting photos looked good across the range, even with fairly extreme contractions.

 

[tlitody]

But isnt the idea behind the zone system that you are able to control and manipulate the subject you intend on photographing to suit your visulization of it and get as close to a perfect a negative to make that visulization possible without guessing?

What you find in "The Negative" will teach you a lot about film testing and personal film speed and get you well exposed negatives. It will make printing easier for some negatives. It might help you think about what the final print look like but that is nothing that can't be done without using the zone system.
Don't get me wrong, I use the zone system but it is a long tortuous route as so much bad or confusing explanations are given about it.
What it will never do is transform your images into something they are not. What comes out at the end is 99% down to you and not the process. i.e. regardless of which exposure system you use, you can get it right and you can get it wrong. Incident or spot are equally valid methods of arriving at your result.

 

[Roger Hicks]

What you find in "The Negative" will teach you a lot about film testing and personal film speed and get you well exposed negatives. It will make printing easier for some negatives. It might help you think about what the final print look like but that is nothing that can't be done without using the zone system.
Don't get me wrong, I use the zone system but it is a long tortuous route as so much bad or confusing explanations are given about it.
What it will never do is transform your images into something they are not. i.e. what comes out at the end is 99% down to you and not the process. i.e. regardless of which exposure system you use, you can get it right and you can get it wrong. Incident or spot are equally valid methods of arriving at your result.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with everything except the highlighted portion, and then, my only argument is that unless the subject brightness range is quite short, then for negative film an uninterpreted spot reading of the darkest area in which you want texture and detail (using the shadow index or IRE 1) is usually a damn' sight more use than an uninterpreted incident light reading -- and vice versa for transparency or digi.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Joe AC]

Well.. I'm all for using an easier method..as long as you get the control. I'll try using my sekonic 5 deg spot with the system for now to see if it is in fact a "better" way. Thanks everyone. And thank you for the link Roger. Great stuff.