Zone system - relevance when scanning negs digitally

[jimbobuk]

I'm very much a beginner with large format photography (not that the zone system would seem to be only for large format) and have just started reading up on the zone system in the starter large format book i got (the one recommended by this site).

It seems a lot of hassle from a newbie's point of view who hasn't even had a sheet of film developed yet, only 1 single roll film via my roll film back.

Anyways, at a first pass read through it seems that a lot of the zone system is for handling contrast on the paper of choice.. well i'm only planning to scan my negatives onto a computer for the time being.. does this not eliminate a lot of the problems with contrast as i can tweak in photoshop if i need to.

From my understanding it leaves me as needing to calculate the films effective iso to get good shadow detail at the desired zone III, from here i should be able to make the contrast into whatever i wish.

Perhaps being more aware of the hilights if i'm shooting with transparency, which apparently isn't tolerant of over exposure like negatives are.

Just a newbie question, am i really missing the point with this one or can you get by without a lot of the zone system if you are working digitallly?

Cheers

[Bruce Watson]

Just a newbie question, am i really missing the point with this one or can you get by without a lot of the zone system if you are working digitally?
IMHO, you are not missing the point. The ZS does not fully apply to a hybrid film/digital workflow.

However (and there's always a "however"), what the ZS really teaches is how to correctly capture onto a negative what you need to make a fine print. And this doesn't change when using a hybrid film/digital workflow. The basic principle is still "garbage in, garbage out."

What it comes down to is giving the film sufficient exposure to capture the shadow detail you want on your negative, and developing the film sufficiently to give you a Dmax that is optimized for your printing process. IMHO, this Dmax is somewhat lower for scanning than it would be for optical enlarging in the darkroom. But, if you optimize your negative for the darkroom, it will scan just fine.

The ZS is an excellent place to start. If you learn it, and understand it, you can apply the parts that you want to get the prints that you want.

[JW Dewdney]

IMHO, you are not missing the point. The ZS does not fully apply to a hybrid film/digital workflow.

However (and there's always a "however"), what the ZS really teaches is how to correctly capture onto a negative what you need to make a fine print. And this doesn't change when using a hybrid film/digital workflow. The basic principle is still "garbage in, garbage out."


I think that just because the ZS has analogue roots and we're talking about scanning - that the two aren't necessarily incompatible. Let's say this person has a consumer grade scanner that only hits (by empirical measurement with a step tablet) 3.0 Dmax. They could modify normal parameters of such a system whereby they're producing negs that hit a maximum of 3.0 Dmax. I think the ZS is an excellent fit for this purpose. The printing process and it's data would be replaced by the result on the scanner bed. I don't see why that wouldn't work.

[jimbobuk]

Thanks guys, food for thought..

I will have to get a light meter soon, and a big enough camera bag that i can take an SLR along as well to take pics before deciding if a scene is worthy of unfurling the large format camera.. i've clearly got a good few months of learning to just get a handle on large format photography... maybe one of these days i'll stop buying a new camera system or paradigm and actually knuckle down to trying to develop my eye for a good photo opportunity.

The zone system makes some sense, i'll definitely have to read up on it some more.

The scanner's dmax analogy makes a lot of sense as well, which is why i was thinking that getting the shadows right and then not relying too much on getting the whites as white as they should be would be helpful in giving my fairly inadequate scanner the most chance of grabbing all the detail i want, in an albiet flat image that I can then make pop with some levels work on the computer. Of course if i ever do get a dark room and enlargers etc then my negatives would prove to be quite a pain to get good optically enlarged prints out of :)

Cheers.

[Bruce Watson]

I think that just because the ZS has analogue roots and we're talking about scanning - that the two aren't necessarily incompatible. Let's say this person has a consumer grade scanner that only hits (by empirical measurement with a step tablet) 3.0 Dmax. They could modify normal parameters of such a system whereby they're producing negs that hit a maximum of 3.0 Dmax. I think the ZS is an excellent fit for this purpose. The printing process and it's data would be replaced by the result on the scanner bed. I don't see why that wouldn't work.
Have you ever seen a B&W negative that approached a Dmax of 3.0? I have (I made a few) and I've gotta tell you that it ain't pretty. Since I'm drum scanning, I could scan them easily. But like I said, garbage in, garbage out. The film (and therefore the resulting file, and the resulting prints) has a distinct "cooked" look. It's not something you want to do on purpose, trust me.

Which brings us back to the ZS and a hybrid workflow. If you use the ZS as if you were building a negative for optical enlarging, with a Zone VIII value of around 1.2-1.3, scanning works fine. If you drop that Zone VIII value down to about 1.0, scanning works even better. This is because of the Callier effect - metallic silver scatters the light in scanners just like it does in enlargers. But because you are scanning, you can develop to a lower density, which means less metallic silver, which means less light scatter, which means better local contrast in your scan file.

So you are applying the ZS to your scanning. Kinda. Sorta. In a way that's appropriate to the medium of choice.

[Bruce Watson]

The scanner's dmax analogy makes a lot of sense as well...
It does seem logical. It just doesn't work that way in practice. The problem is that film doesn't want to be mistreated this way, and thus produces some odd artifacts.

Remember that graininess is directly related to density. You'll also find that when the film gets really dense, the grain gets to be pretty ugly - malformed and mushy. Sharpness suffers too.

But the joy of this photography gig is that you don't have to believe anything - it's just so easy to try stuff on your own. And that is without a doubt the best way to learn. You do the work, and the knowledge gained is yours to keep. No one can take that away from you.

So go out and play and have some fun. If you learn stuff as a result, so much the better ;-)

[Ed Richards]

I would not worry too much about the zone system at first. Pick a good developer/film combo that will give you a lot of range without having to be too dense. Tmax 100 in Xtol 1:3 works very well. Get an incident meter and start shooting film. If you have a little money to burn, shoot a hundred or two sheets of Polaroid film and you will get up to speed a whole lot faster.

When you can reliably use the camera and can see what negatives are good and which ones are not, then you can start with the zone system. Of course, you might find that with a modern film/developer combo, you can go the rest of your life without needing the zone system.:-) While I am sure this does not apply to anyone on this forum, there are many LF photographers who seem to use up all their energy testing film and never quite get around to taking pictures.

[Kirk Gittings]

As an old ZS user, making the change to a scanning/digital printing workflow has changed how I use the ZS very little. I now want a slightly flatter negative so I am still placing important shadows on Zone III but developing the highlights of negatives to a Z VII instead of VIII. That is the only change. Same old Zone System giving me great negatives taylored to a specific output.

[JW Dewdney]

As an old ZS user, making the change to a scanning/digital printing workflow has changed how I use the ZS very little. I now want a slightly flatter negative so I am still placing important shadows on Zone III but developing the highlights of negatives to a Z VII instead of VIII. That is the only change. Same old Zone System giving me great negatives taylored to a specific output.

This is pretty much what I was trying to say - but Kirk said it simpler and without the red herring of mentioning the 3.0Dmax (which was meant as an upper limit - to prevent HIGHER than 3.0D from happening - not as a purposely-dense neg).

[Capocheny]

Jim,

I agree with everything that has already been said by the posters above. The bottom line here is that the Zone System will help you get a good workable negative.

If you have a bad neg... I'm not entirely convinced that you'll get maximum value from the scene just because of the digital process. So, the first thing, IMHO, is to get a good, workable negative. Then, apply the digital process to improve what is on the negative.

If you can access the following two books... they're really well written in regards to The Zone System:

1. The Leica Manual, The Complete Book of 35mm Photography, 15th ed, by Morgan, Vestal, & Broecker. St. Ansel wrote the chapter.

2. The Art of Photography... an Approach to Personal Expression, 3rd ed, by Bruce Barnbaum. Chapters 8 & 9 deal with this topic.

Both of these are great sources of information and, after being away from it for the last 10 years... I'm re-reading the material and learning a lot!

Lastly, if I were in your shoes... I'd do as Ed suggested. Go out and burn some film. Have fun looking at the end results! :)

Cheers

[Ken Lee]

Just as many have done with wet darkroom printing, I have performed my own "Zone System" tests for scanning and digital printing. This kind of test may not help anyone else, but it works for my equipment fairly well.

I make sure my monitor has been recently calibrated, and I print with a a high-quality profile for my paper+ink combination.

I produce a series of negatives that have been exposed at different film speeds. When I take each shot, I place an index card in the scene on which is written the film speed for that shot. I take 3 shots at each film speed. One set gets under-developed, another set gets over-developed, and the third is developed according to the time recommended by others blessed with a more rigorous disposition (like Sandy King).

I scan each negative making them just dark enough to render the film edge at 0% brightness. This is analogous to "printing to the black film edge" - to remove the effect of base + fog + stain. I don't adjust the contrast in the scanner.

I choose the combination which which most "feels like light" on the monitor, and which renders all the tones within the confines of 0 - 100% brightness. I make this choice while viewing the image within the color space of the printer/ink profile (Photoshop lets you do this).

I then print that image, and make sure that it matches what I see on the monitor - which it does very closely.

After all of that, I discover that my "personal" film speed and developer time combination is about the same as when I printed in the darkroom - which should come as no surprise (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/gallery/maplefog.htm).

[Kirk Gittings]

Ken,

I have been working on something surprisingly similar. I agree with your film base + fog 0 placement.

What scanning software are you using?

When you scan, what do you do with the contrast, just let the auto settings do whatever? I bring this up because, if you start with a low contrast scan but end up applying a pretty steep curve in PS, you will end up generating alot of noise in the tone transition areas of the skies in particular in the file in PS. This is even true working with 16 bit files. So to avoid this you have to apply the steep curve in the scan software where it has the most raw information to work with or develope the negative to the desired contrast and shut off the part of the auto scan features that apply any kind of a curve. I am inclined to dev the negative to the desired contrast and then do a straight scan. The question is then what do you calibrate the dev of the textured high values to? 80%, 90%, 95%?

[Ron Marshall]

I second the recommendation for Barnbaum's book, or the Negative by Adams for a zone system primer. Some descriptions of the ZS make it seem more complex than it really is; after trying it out on a few dozen sheets you will get a good feel for it.

[Ken Lee]

What scanning software are you using?

When you scan, what do you do with the contrast, just let the auto settings do whatever?

The question is then what do you calibrate the dev of the textured high values to? 80%, 90%, 95%?

I use VueScan.

I mis-stated something: I do adjust the contrast in the scanner, so that the highest values align with their intended Zones. In that regard, I use a 100-Zone system, where black = 0%, and pure white = 100%. What used to be Zone V for darkroom work, is 50% brightness.

The negative which requires the least amount of adjustment, whose tones (http://www.kenleegallery.com/html/portraits/jrw.htm) best meet the expected values, and which subjectively feels the most like light, is the one whose film speed and development time I adopt.

I aim for 70-85% in the "textured" high values - which corresponds to the standard Zones VII and VIII. When you mouse-over such an area you see that the individual pixel values vary quite a bit, so we are talking about averages for a given region.

[Ed Richards]

An example of a straight shot with Tmax 100/Xtol 1:3, no manupulation of development:

http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/images/examples/000745.jpg

Bright Florida sun outside, dark as a crypt inside. N- development would have helped, but the range of this film/developer combo when scanning is very wide. No burning and dodging, just a little tweak of the curve to bring up the lower values. Not a finished image, just some perspective on what you can do with simple incident metering and straight processing. I think ZS is a good tool, but one that is less critical with modern film and scanning. I think worrying about ZS and the like can get in the way of a new photographer getting out and shooting and looking at images. Getting that first 500-1000 sheets of film through the camera to see what works and does not work is the most important thing when you are starting.

[Brian Ellis]

If you're simply trying to make a negative that captures all the tones of the scene in the negative and the print (as opposed to altering them for creative purposes) the principal function of the zone system was to allow you to do that by a combination of correct exposure (shadows) and correct development (highlights). In other words, the zone system allows you to overcome the limitations of the materials in terms of making a print that retains detail regardless of the contrast range of the scene (within reason).

The only thing scanning has changed for me is that I rarely use plus development any more. With a scan I can have under-developed highlights and easily bring them up to where I want while still retaining detail and not messing anything else up. Or if I'd like to make the highlights in the print brighter than they appeared in the scene I don't need to rely on plus development to do that, I can easily do it in the scanner or the computer.

So I still use the zone system the same way I always have except that now I'm much more concerned with blown-out highlights than I am with highlights that aren't bright enough in the negative so I almost always develop everything either normally or at minus development, almost never plus. In general, I've found that a slightly "flat" negative works better for scanning than what I previously would have aimed for in the darkroom. Otherwise I continue to use the zone system the way I always have because it's still my goal to make the best possible negative, i.e. the negative that will allow me to make the print I want to make as easily as possible.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks Ken, That answers the question. It is similar to what I am doing, though I am targeting developement to the high value with a standard curve so in a sense the high values fall on a particular zone to start with and then I can tweak it in the scanning software and then again in PS. Have you thought about altering Gamma settings to fit various media?

I use Silverfast. There are a couple of odd things about the densitometer that I cannot figure out for the life of me and the documentation is so outdated.

[sanking]

If one is scanning for digital output I would tend to agree with Ed Richards that the exposure and development controls of Zone is not very important. Basically, just expose to make sure you get what shadow detail you need and develop to avoid blowing out the highlights.

I work in a dual-tack mode. Much of my work is intended for printing directly from in-camera negative with an alternative procession either carbon, kallitype or palladium. That means I need to expose and develop for the long DR needed by these processes, typically about 1.8.

However, I also do hybrid process, which means that I scan the negative, do tonal controls and corrections in Photoshop, prepare the negative for output as a digital negative, and then make the print with the digital negative.

What I have found is that there is considerable flexibility in the hybrid process as to how thin or how dense the negative can be. I have absolutely no problem in making good scans of negatives that have a very long DR, up to 2.0. In fact, I have even made good scans of negatives with a maximum density of up to about log 3.1. And since these are LF negatives grain has not been a problem. I would add that the great majority of negatives that I have scanned have been stained negatives, primarily PMK and Pyrocat-HD, and with this type of negative the very high values are mostly dye stain that has no grain.

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

That raises another question. For arguments sake lets say we were scanning everything to the same size output.

I assume there is less light scattering in the highlights of stained negatives? In terms of light scatering from the dense silver grain in the highlights of reg. negs is it affected by the grain size (fast vs.slow films) or grain structure (tgrain vs reg.)? Is there enough of a difference to matter? To see in a print?

[sanking]

That raises another question. For arguments sake lets say we were scanning everything to the same size output.

I assume there is less light scattering in the highlights of stained negatives? In terms of light scatering from the dense silver grain in the highlights of reg. negs is it affected by the grain size (fast vs.slow films) or grain structure (tgrain vs reg.)? Is there enough of a difference to matter? To see in a print?

In my situation, comparing results from a scan of a negaive developed to a DR of 1.8 in a non-staining developer to a stained negative developed to an effective DR of 1.8 (UV reading) I would say probably yes, assuming magnification of at least 3-4X.

I have compared a few 5X7 negatives developed in HC-110 and DK50 with PMK and Pyrocat-HD negatives developed to a DR of about 1.8 and there is no question in my mind but that there is more light scattering in the non-stained negatives, especially evident in back lighted scenes, say with bare tree limbs against a light sky. The scattering with the stained negatives is what you would expect to see with an all silver negative with a DR of about 1.2, which is about the silver density of a stained negative with a UV printing density of 1.8.

However, I am not sure how relevant this experience is to that of others since not many people are developing negatives to a DR of 1.8, and of those most are printing directly with them by contact printing.

Sandy

[Capocheny]

Ed,

Very nice image indeed! :)

.


If one is scanning for digital output I would tend to agree with Ed Richards that the exposure and development controls of Zone is not very important. Basically, just expose to make sure you get what shadow detail you need and develop to avoid blowing out the highlights.

Sandy

Sandy,

But, isn't what you've just said... the essence of The Zone System?

Or, have I fallen off the boat somewhere? :)

Cheers

[sanking]

Ed,

Very nice image indeed! :)



Sandy,

But, isn't what you've just said... the essence of The Zone System?

Or, have I fallen off the boat somewhere? :)

Cheers

Yes, I guess that the essence Zone/BTZS, but it is also just as much the essence of plain common sense photography as practiced before AA and to this date. We need to remember that there are many folks making outstanding negatives who don't know or care a flip about either the Zone test for maximum black or BTZS film testing.

Folks who do DBI come immediately to mind, but I would venture to suggest that the great majority of photographers who work in medium format don't do Zone/BTZS type testing. I personally treat medium format negatives by lumping my exposed rolls in three categories, low, normal and high contrast, and develop accordingly.

Sandy

[Bruce Watson]

I assume there is less light scattering in the highlights of stained negatives? In terms of light scatering from the dense silver grain in the highlights of reg. negs is it affected by the grain size (fast vs.slow films) or grain structure (tgrain vs reg.)? Is there enough of a difference to matter? To see in a print?
My understanding is that there is indeed less light scatter from negatives developed with staining developers.

I don't think it's so much grain size (I'm not even sure how to define that) or structure. I think it's mostly just a function of density; I suspect that the grain size and/or structure is considerably less important than the density itself.

Is there enough of a difference to matter? That's left to the individual to decide. I can tell you that you can see the difference when scanning. For example, consider two negatives with all things being equal except one has a Dmax of 1.2 and the other has a Dmax of 1.5. Scan them both with the same settings except for highlight point, and print the resulting files without modification. When I've done this experiment, what I've found is that the print from the lower density negative has a little more local contrast - you can see it start around the midtones and increase up through the highlights. You could of course "correct" for this in Photoshop fairly easily. The effect isn't that large - you probably wouldn't see it without looking at the two prints side-by-side.

So... will it matter to you? Hard to predict.

[Paul Coppin]

I think, for a beginner, more important than the zone system or BTZS, is an appreciation for the concept that film has latitude, a maximum range of f-stops over which you are going to capture your information, and eg, that colour and black &white are different (5&7 respectively). Yes, I know, there are exceptions, and ZS is about changing that, but first as a beginner, you have grasp that fundamental concept and learn to "see" it on the GG, and/or be able to deduce it with a meter.

[steve simmons]

I use the ZS as described by Adams and then simplified by Picker for all my negs. I treat them the same way which is dictated by my testing procedures. I can then print them or scan them. I do not make a distinction. I still want the best from my negs and would not conside being sloppier if I was going to scan with the idea I can fix things in photoshop. I have set up scanning curve for my negs so I bring them into the computer as a good, full scale image. I don't want to spend time fixing either a bad scan or a poorly exposed or incorrectly developed image in PS anymore than I want to do so in the wet darkroom

just an observation.

steve simmons

[riooso]

I am also at the beginning of this thing. The people on this site are light years ahead of me in their knowledge. This approach is working for me and I hope that it helps. I have a couple of steps. I use a spot and an incident meter that is built into one. I am referring to color. B/W is in a league on to itself but I would think that the basics are the same.

1. What is the darkest thing in the frame that you are going to want definition in? When these guys say place it in III, from what I can gather, that means meter that dark spot and step down 2 stops because your meter is setting the dark spot at V.

2. What is the brightest thing in frame? Meter that, and know that the brightest you can move that is VII and still have definition.

3. I look at the total spread and make a decision what I want to include, or change in my frame.

I find that most of the time the thing that I am shooting is somewhere in the middle anyway. Hey guy aren't I correct in saying that if you shoot to get all of the shadow then you blow out the bright and visa-versa? Once the information is gone no amount of scanning can get it back.

Richard Adams

[Kirk Gittings]

I find that most of the time the thing that I am shooting is somewhere in the middle anyway. Hey guy aren't I correct in saying that if you shoot to get all of the shadow then you blow out the bright and visa-versa? Once the information is gone no amount of scanning can get it back.

Which is why precise developement is other necessary side of the equation to control the highlights. It is really no different than making a good negative for silver printing. I just dev my highlights a bit lower so the sc anner has plenty of detail to separate out.

[Bruce Watson]

Hey guy aren't I correct in saying that if you shoot to get all of the shadow then you blow out the bright and visa-versa? Once the information is gone no amount of scanning can get it back.
We're talking about scanning negatives here. The information isn't "gone." All that happens is that increasing subject brightness levels translate to increasing negative density levels. The negative just gets denser. A negative that has highlight density sufficient to make it very difficult to print in a darkroom can scan just fine.

I for one meter only for the shadows. I let the highlights fall where they may. My scans pick it all up - I don't have blown out highlights in my prints.

[Kirk Gittings]

For those transitioning from a traditional darkroom using the ZS to scanning and digital printing, here is a very useful Zoneish plugin. I have found it very useful conceptually. It was developed with the help of my friend George DeWolfe, an old ZS guy, author of the new Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop. Which by the way is an excellent primer for preparing files for digital printing.

http://www.reindeergraphics.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=154&Itemid=100

[Ron Marshall]

I am also at the beginning of this thing. The people on this site are light years ahead of me in their knowledge. This approach is working for me and I hope that it helps. I have a couple of steps. I use a spot and an incident meter that is built into one. I am referring to color. B/W is in a league on to itself but I would think that the basics are the same.

1. What is the darkest thing in the frame that you are going to want definition in? When these guys say place it in III, from what I can gather, that means meter that dark spot and step down 2 stops because your meter is setting the dark spot at V.

2. What is the brightest thing in frame? Meter that, and know that the brightest you can move that is VII and still have definition.

3. I look at the total spread and make a decision what I want to include, or change in my frame.

I find that most of the time the thing that I am shooting is somewhere in the middle anyway. Hey guy aren't I correct in saying that if you shoot to get all of the shadow then you blow out the bright and visa-versa? Once the information is gone no amount of scanning can get it back.

Richard Adams

You're doing the metering correctly, now you have to vary the development time to assure that the negative will contain the range of tones that you wish to include.

Adams: The Negative; or Barnbaum: The Art of Photography are good references.

[niklaus]

This is an excellent thread. I'm just starting to use ZS on both 4x5 and 35mm. I understand the principles of ZS alright. My issue comes when I want to scan a sample grey scale into my computer to check film speed, ZIII/ZV etc. This grey scale consists of one 35mm neg for each zone. How do I ensure that I achieve a representative scan of the individual negatives for each zone, when the scanner tries to turn every scan into an average image? I've tried scanning in groups but am still not achieving representative scans. I'm using Silverfast SE, so perhaps that's the problem? Any help much appreciated.

[Bruce Watson]

This is an excellent thread. I'm just starting to use ZS on both 4x5 and 35mm. I understand the principles of ZS alright. My issue comes when I want to scan a sample grey scale into my computer to check film speed, ZIII/ZV etc. This grey scale consists of one 35mm neg for each zone. How do I ensure that I achieve a representative scan of the individual negatives for each zone, when the scanner tries to turn every scan into an average image? I've tried scanning in groups but am still not achieving representative scans. I'm using Silverfast SE, so perhaps that's the problem? Any help much appreciated.

Scanners don't usually make very good densitometers. And you've hit upon why that is. Scanners are mostly interested in relative density, and what you want is an absolute density measurement. If the scanner firmware/software has that functionality, you can sometimes get fairly accurate and fairly repeatable results. If it doesn't have that functionality, there's not much you can do.

The best way to get accurate and repeatable results remains reading with a densitometer. Sorry.

[Ron Marshall]

This is an excellent thread. I'm just starting to use ZS on both 4x5 and 35mm. I understand the principles of ZS alright. My issue comes when I want to scan a sample grey scale into my computer to check film speed, ZIII/ZV etc. This grey scale consists of one 35mm neg for each zone. How do I ensure that I achieve a representative scan of the individual negatives for each zone, when the scanner tries to turn every scan into an average image? I've tried scanning in groups but am still not achieving representative scans. I'm using Silverfast SE, so perhaps that's the problem? Any help much appreciated.

You can shoot many zones on one sheet of film using a step wedge. They are available in 4x5 inch and may be placed next to a sheet of film in a film holder.

Similar to:

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/19721-Stouffer-Transmission-Step-Wedge-Gray-Scale-T2115-21-Step-1-2-inch-x

[sergiob]

One reason of mastering the ZS for any workflow, but especially for a digital one is that trying to extend your range of contrast from a flat negative will have a lot of problems due to posterization because there are simply no tones captured there. It is always more desirable to have those tones in analog capture like film, than trying to make them up from thin air in a curves palette. So you still have to be able to locate your shadows and your highlights within a scale that you can use as wide as possible, no matter what workflow you use. And that is what the ZS and its subsequent revisions is about. I disagree with the idea that if you are using a hybrid workflow you can get away with lax tonal controls. The last place where you want to control your contrast is in a computer. Try to get as much information you can into the negative in the first place.Your image will suffer if you try to make for it in the digital domain. Remember that once an image is digitized half the bits will be on the lightest stop (lets say Z VIII), and the other half for the rest of the scale. Then half of that remainder will be contained in ZVII and the rest for the other stops and so on. That means that if you have an 8 bit file (256 levels) your shadow can have very few levels, most of which can get lost the moment you move the curves in PS. This is why you always expose as high as you can with digital cameras without blowing into max signal (dmax in film terms).

One of the biggest reasons I am going back to film, not entirely though, is because I of this. I can have clean, nice, dark shadows with no artifacts nor noise and avoiding so the risk of posterization, among others. I don´t see much appeal in shooting LF if I cannot control my image thru the whole process in its entirety. Thats not what it is about for me. Sheer negative real estate is not enough. The whole purpose of LF is total control to achieve results otherwise unobtainable. If not, it is way more practical to shoot roll film with average exposure and development and have ok printable or scaneable (is that a word?) negs. That is what MF format is for. You trade precise control for convenience.
In conclusion there is no shortcut for achieving great results. You still have to master the craft.

[Ken Lee]

One thing to keep in mind is that after all the testing is done, most people converge on around the same film speed and developing times. This makes sense, since most people have a good thermometer, an accurate clock, decent water, and agitate more or less the same way. They all shoot the same films and use the same developers.

If you have unusual water, you can use distilled water or a bottle of spring water, and eliminate that variable. If you have a broken thermometer or clock, you can find another one very easily. If your light meter is really off, you can get it fixed or get one which works right. Similarly, if your shutter speeds are way off, you should consider getting a reliable shutter, or at least having them measured. (I purchased a Calumet Shutter Tester and discovered that all my lenses, very old and brand new, were within 1/6 of a stop).

Most people shoot their film at the stated film speed, or give one extra stop of exposure - which amounts to shooting at 1/2 the stated film speed. Most people develop their film for the times which are stated on data sheets, plus or minus a bit.

In my humble opinion, the most important thing about the Zone System (or BTZS) is that it makes you keenly aware of tonality and gives you a grammar to describe it. It provides the equivalent of a musical scale, without which, it is hard to conceive of music. Beauty can be achieved without it, but having a simple grammar makes things much easier and predictable.

As a Clarinet teacher once told my father: "The most important thing to develop, is a beautiful tone. People will listen to just about anything you play, if the tone is nice."

[Brian Ellis]

Ed,

Very nice image indeed! :)

.



Sandy,

But, isn't what you've just said... the essence of The Zone System?

Or, have I fallen off the boat somewhere? :)

Cheers

Well I guess you could call it the bare essence but the zone system isn't about just making a "correct" exposure, it's about exposure and development that will allow you to make the print you want to make, preferably as easily as possible. That doesn't mean always putting the darkest important shadow on Zone 3 or 4 and the brightest important highlight on zone 7 or 8. It might mean deciding that you want a high key print and putting the darkest important shadow on Zone V. Or maybe you want a dark, moody print so you put the brightest important highlight on Zone V or VI. What the zone system is really about is creative control, knowing how to make the photograph you want to make.