Shooting Zone System or not-------Majority--Non Ma

[Mark Sawyer]

I learned the zone system about 25 years ago using Adams' and Minor White's books. Made myself follow it scrupulously for about a year. It worked.

Then I sort of left it behind and my own little system took its place; rate HP5 @ 200, meter the scene in half a dozen different places with a spot meter, paying most attention to the spread between highlights and shadows/dark areas. Figure I gotta stretch or shorten the development according to the range of light and nature of the lens, factor in the filter, add a little for bellows extension, a bit more for reciprocity, a little more or less because it seems right... I never do the numbers other than generally pushing times up and down in my head. It seems just as reliable, and has a nicer karma to it than standing out there with a calculator pushing little buttons. But to each his own...

It might be closer to what Minor White called "the Zen System." I've heard that phrase attributed to him, but I've never seen it in it's original context, so I don't know exactly what he meant by it. Anyone know the original usage?

One thing I don't often hear remarked about the zone system is how different lenses change the values. I switch back and forth from 19th century uncoated to modern multi-coated, everything from rectilinears and double gausses to plasmats. I like them all, but the modern lenses (especially the Nikkor 450 M) are quite contrasty, and the zone (or whatever exposure/development system one uses) is about contrast control more that just overall density. If your lenses vary much, you'd need to calibrate for each of them. (That's why I like my more informal system, I just know a lens is a bit soft or hard, and figure it in...)

[jantman]

I use the Zone system in terms of metering and place/fall in all formats. I also do use it with development controls in sheet film, but not all the time.

Lately I am much more inclined to use it to its full potential, and being that I just started using a new film (Bergger BPF200) I am quite excited to the full potential of reduced/increased development. I have yet to do a full test for film speed and then reduced/increased dev times with 8x10.

[neil poulsen]

I'm in the full-fledged category of zone system user. I do my calibrations for a given film-developer combination. I don't do separate calibrations for different papers and different lenses. I figured that, while "Uncle" Ansel may have done his calibrations for a particular paper at the time, he eventually ended up printing those negatives on many other papers. So, I use Ilford Gallerie III graded paper as a middle of the road paper, and I use 150mm Symmar-S lens as a middle of the road lens for my calibrations. (As I understand it, this paper is sort of in between a II and a III grade.)

I've never thought of the "zone system" as necessarily striving for richest black to richest white, nor do I think that Ansel Adams portrayed it as such. It's an exposure-development strategy based on the time honored approach of exposing for the shadows and developing for the highlights. This approach has solid roots in how film actually responds to both exposure and development. The zone system merely enables one to help predict how the tones in the final image can be expected to appear, regardless of whether the print emphasizes shadows, highlights, or both.

At one time or another, we've all been complimented on our printing. Yet when this has occurred, I've always acknowledged to myself, it's not in the printing, it's in the negative.

[Donald Qualls]

Lacking a spot meter or the budget to buy even a used one, much less a densitometer, I can't apply the Zone System properly, but I do think Zone thoughts as I'm preparing for an exposure with my plate cameras -- always, trying to ensure that I have detail where I want it, in both highlight and shadow. In my case, that boils down to something close to the way Adams describe Weston's metering technique -- one of waving the meter around the scene, scratching his head a bit, and then setting the exposure.

Oddly enough, this seems to work pretty well unless the scene has far too much brightness range (even though I'm using a very old Gossen Sixtomat), and I'm (slowly) learning to compensate for that by eye.

[Brian Ellis]

"There are times I envy those who practice the Zone system (a la Adams et al)-----going for the longest range of whites to blacks in their imagery----technical wizardry. Pushing the film to its ultimate usage as well as making prints with likewise long ranges of tones."

Wow, I didn't know I did all that when I use the zone system (as I do). All I'm trying to do is produce a negative that will allow me to make the print I want to make with as little manipulation as possible. As far as I know, that's all the zone system is designed to do.

"Even St. Ansel had to dodge and burn his prints, so that's proof that getting super-anal up front will not eliminate problems in the output stage."

You misunderstand the purpose of the zone system. Nobody I've ever heard of who uses the zone system has claimed that it can or should eliminate the need for dodging and burning . Objects in the scene that have the same luminance value will have the same density in the negative but I may not want them to have the same density in the print. In that case I'll dodge them if I want them to be lighter or burn if I want them to be darker (or do other things to make them look the way I want them to look in the print). The need to do that doesn't mean there's a problem with the zone system, it simply means we may not want every object or area in the scene that has the same density in the negative to look the same in the print so we dodge, burn, etc. to make them look the way we want them to look.

"Yes, I somewhat use contraction/reduction in my exposures/processing, metering , etc., however, as stated above, I'm not laboring over the Zone System."

I don't know exactly what you mean by using "contraction/reduction": in your metering or in your exposures but apart from that, there's no need to "labor" over the zone system. It's hard to imagine anything in photography less complicated than the zone system. Place the darkest important shadow area on the zone you want, see where that results in the brightest important highlight falling, develop accordingly. That's the zone system.

[ronald moravec]

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 did a shot last fall where a dark brown paneled door was in half shadow cast by a tree. Detail had to be in the shadow and the elements were such that natural lighting would never be right.

I overexposed three shops and made a lot of frames which I experimented with in the development to get a printable scene. It turned out great and several photo instructors wanted copies. This was a rare situation.

Last week I did a black and white of a brand new Norfolk Southern locomotive. For those who don`t know, they are pure glossy black with some white stripes. It had to show detail in the trucks and car body panel lines. It got 1/3 stop extra and standard development for #2 paper. The print is one of the best I have ever done or seen by anyone, anywhere. There is detail everywhere and the print has punch without being contrasty. If normal will do this, I have little use for zones. 4x5 fp4+, D76 1:1, Ilford Multigrade. No burning or dodging.

[Bill_1856]

Brian, you mean just expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights? Wasn't that what Nadar (or maybe it was Brady) recommended?

[Brian Ellis]

I don't think it was Nadar or Brady, I think it was Joseph Niepce.

[Thilo Schmid]

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). I have made totally different prints from the same negatives and several years in between. I usually do not want to make a decision on the final print at shoot time. However, I would consider the Zone System, if contact prints were my intention.

[Craig Wactor]

I used to meter everything meticulously, and then develop according to the zs. Now I tend to do it very intuitively. Sometimes I still meter highlights, sometimes I just have a feel for my developing time according to the scene I was shooting. I've even forgotten to bring a light meter a few times, and "used the force" to make an exposure. Seems like I get some really nice negatives too. Of course, I've made mistakes doing it both ways, too. I almost always make two exposures for that reason.