Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
I'm not only a half-assed zoner, but I'm an inconsistent one at that. I'm not proud of that; just confessing my sins.
I've been using (up till now) for the past ten years, Delta 400 as my favored 4X5 film. I found out that the Delta films didn't respond as well to plus and minus development, or at least, that they didn't respond in the same way. So I modified my Zone approach, and ended up using normal development for at least 80% of my shots. That may have something to do with living up here in Maine rather than in the tropical glare of warmer climes. But normal for me works most of the time. If it's not normal, it's almost always plus and almost never minus. I only do a plus or minus, not an N+2 or an N-2.
As for the inconsistent part, sometimes I get antsy doing all the spot readings and just use my incident dome on my Sekonic 508 (depending on subject, background, lighting,etc.), and about 90% of the time, the negs are great and print easily with minimal manipulation.
I use variable contrast paper almost exclusively and a split-filter method of printing with my Beseler colorhead--- one exposure at full magenta and one at full yellow. Works great. Improves local contrast. Reduces dodge and burn needs.
Larry
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
"I`m going to agree with John Cook for the most part. Develope standard and expose enough for the shadows. If the light is no good, don`t waste film. Expansion doesn`t make overcast look like sun."
"I don't use the Zone System. My primary intention at shooting time is to record as much information as possible. So I usually expose for the shadows. This gives me more degrees of freedom in later darkroom work (but usually is more work)."
You guys have some interesting ideas about what the zone system is ...I just have no idea where you got them. The ZS is nothing more than a vocabulary for describing what you do when you control exposure and development to get the negative density range that you want. It has nothing to do with the light being "no good," with making overcast look like sun, with recording more or less information than is possible.
Black and white photographers figured out a long time ago to expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. St. Ansel just came up with an easy way to think about this and to teach it.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
You guys have some interesting ideas about what the zone system is ...I just have no idea where you got them. The ZS is nothing more than a vocabulary for describing what you do when you control exposure and development to get the negative density range that you want.
Not quite. The truly distinctive feature of the Zone System as promoted and practiced, and indeed of BTZS as well, is the notion of varying development on a sheet-by-sheet basis to try to achieve an optimal match with one's preferred paper in a specified contrast grade.
For me, that level of control just isn't worth the hassle - it doesn't buy me any meaningful advantage in making the prints I want to make.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
What Paul said. It's just about having a negative with a good tonal range, including accessible detail in the highlights and the shadows.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
For filmspeed and dev time testing I have used george DeWolfe's system as described in an early VC mag issue. A test target made up from 5 pieces of mounting board with one stop brightness difference gives you 5 zones, so you need only to expose 2 sheets of film to produce 9 zones (zone 5 duplicated, one on each sheet of film). Gets you in the right ballpark very quickly.
On the side I am currently investigating the Photographic Tone Control approach according to Norman Sanders, a visual method, no need for densitometer, from his book with same title, 1977. Instead of his test target I use a Wallace Expodisc on the camera lens and hold another in front of my spotmeter; that gives me a zone 5 and I go from there.
In the field I expose the shadows @ zone 4 and develop acc. to subject brightness range.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
Well, as usual this forum has great answers to a question. I am always impressed by all of you.
I will add my small two cents worth.
I think the Zone System has become overly complicated by the many books and systems out there. I don't think it was ever intended to make a "perfect" negative that would produce a "perfect" print on a grade 2 paper. Many books, workshops and photo courses seem to try and teach everyone that the system was designed to do that. I just don't think that was the origional intention.
In my opinion the system was origionally designed to allow an artist to gain enough control over their tools to allow them to make a negative in ANY manner that would enable them to create a print that communicated their interpretation of a scene they were photographing.
I use the system, and it is easy since there is no right or wrong way to use it. On some images I might place my shadows on Zone 2 while on others maybe Zone 4. It doesn't matter becuase I will place the shadows and highlights anywhere I want to in order to be able to print an image as I interpreted it at the time I made it. I have no intention of creating prints that look or feel the same, that represent reality.
A good negative is any that allows you as the artist to create a print that communicates the scene to a viewer in a manner that you feel is best.
Some testing of materials is required, but not much really. Just enough so you are comfortable and understand your tools enough to allow you to make the negative the way you want. To have it come out as intended when you exposed it.
To "Zone" or not to "Zone" is a good question. Many important photographers use it, and many don't. What matters is understanding your materials (tools) well enough to make negatives that allow you to make a print the way you want , and be able to do so consistently. When you can do this, then you can go from just trying to record something on film to creating something that you might consider art.
If you are creating negatives that allow you to create the art you want, and can do so consistently and with thought, then the system you use does not matter.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
"The truly distinctive feature of the Zone System as promoted and practiced, and indeed of BTZS as well, is the notion of varying development on a sheet-by-sheet basis to try to achieve an optimal match with one's preferred paper in a specified contrast grade."
I believe that's a Phil Davis variation on or supplement to the zone system if I remember my two workshops with him correctly. It isn't, as far as I know, a primary objective of the traditional zone system. The zone system as developed by Archer and Adams has as its primary goal predictability/control in making a negative from which the desired print can be made as easily as possible (at least that's always been my understanding, I never heard anything about matching negatives and paper grades until I took my first workshop from Phil Davis and heard about his Plotter and Matcher programs).
That doesn't mean a "perfect" negative or a negative that fits on any particular contrast grade paper or even a negative with detail in the darkest and brightest areas of the scene. It just means a negative from which you can make the print you want to make with as little manipulation as possible. If you want to place the darkest shadow on Zone VI and give the negative N+2 development so that you'll have a negative from which a high key print can be easily made, fine. If that means placing the darkest shadow on Zone I and N - 2 development to make a dark, moody print, that's fine too. Both involve use of the zone system, neither involves making a "perfect" negative or one that will fit a particular paper grade.
I certainly agree with you that trying to make a negative that will fit on a pre-determined paper grade is more hassle than it's worth. If that was what the zone system was all about I never would have bothered to learn it and use it. And I certainly don't think everyone needs to use the zone system to make excellent prints, it's just a tool that some people like and others don't, which is fine. I don't think Edward Weston even used a light meter much less the zone system for most of his career and he made some pretty good prints.
"You guys have some interesting ideas about what the zone system is."
Amen to that.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
I guess the Zone System is really just a special type of Rorschach test...
I really care about only one thing when exposing a negative: getting adequate density in the shadows. I deal with the highlights by developing to a single, conservative time with a non-aggressive developer, and avoiding films that are prone to excessive highlight density or that have a curve too convoluted to allow for a "full information" print without heroics. That's all.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
Oren - If that works for you, that's just fine. Maybe I never found the right developer or maybe here in Florida with its bright sun (except when we're under a hurricane watch, which seems like all the time lately) the scenes I photographed contained too much contrast. But when I first started out I had a lot of trouble keeping detail in both the shadows and the highlights. If the shadows contained detail the highlights were blown out and if the highlights contained detail the shadows were black blobs. The zone system cured that problem for me and as I learned more about it I used it for other, more creative, purposes and I've been using it ever since.
Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma
I have never understood the debate. All Adams did was give photographers a means of accurately controlling exposure and development with repeatable results. It's not a goddam religion. Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Use trial and error or do a bit of testing, as Adams suggests. Yes, there are people who will make pilgrimages to the southwest in order to reproduce exactly Adams' pictures, using astronomical charts to make sure the moon is in EXACTLY the same place, using exactly the same developer, wearing exactly the same hat, yada yada yada yada. The rest of us just want to be able to make good photographs and the idea of visualization and placement is a very useful technique.