Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

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

  1. #1

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

    I am curious re: the use of the Zone System as compared to a "Non Zone system" usage amongst the forum readers/shooters.

    Let me be a bit more specific using myself as an example. 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. I commend you, but I am not there.

    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 am content getting a wide range of tones as possible using my system & relying on my Ilford paper & use of Dekol as well as having a "decent" negative. I say again, a "decent " negative.

    So the question on my mind is thus: Are forum readers intent upon the usage of the Zone System in creating their negatives or are forum readers using "their modified Zone System" (like mine)? Which is the Majority or the Non Majority?

    Please keep in mind that I identify with David Vestal's philosophy et al that the important end result is a print that is "meaningful, personal & says something", and that is what I strive for in my imagery. I believe I am successful to that end.

    Your comments or methods used, please

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    538

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

    Having been forced by market pressures to use color most of my professional career, I adopted standard methods to achieve “perfect” lighting conditions since color transparency film could not easily be manipulated with the Zone System.

    As a pro, the budget was always there to rent equipment, hire assistants, etc. to clean things up.

    As a (now retired) amateur, the pressure to produce according to the client’s deadline is off. If the light stinks, I go home. No longer any need to make myself crazy.

    I remember hearing stories about a particularly laid-back fine art photographer in Southern California. The legend says that every morning, he hung his light meter out the window next to his bed. If it didn’t read at least f/11, he rolled over and went back to sleep.

    As to specific methods, I employ an incident meter and subscribe to Edward Weston’s meter dial calibrations: five stops of surface pigmentation plus two stops of b&w light ratio for a total acceptable subject reflection density range of seven stops (or Zones).

    That’s Edward Weston the English designer of the Weston Meter, not the California green pepper nude photographer guy.

    The Zone System is a wonderful thing, in principal. My only misgiving is when it is used as a cure-all or excuse for working in ugly lighting conditions. Used responsibly, I’m all for it. Just not for commercial color film assignments. (Heaven only knows what the kids are currently artificially tweaking out of digital.)

  3. #3
    Scott Davis
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Washington DC
    Posts
    1,875

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

    I'm a modified zone system user myself. Like you, I work for the best possible negative within the constraints I set for myself - I'm not willing to spend days doing film testing, developer testing, etc to micro-control my exposure, development and printing processes. There are only so many hours in the day, and of the ones that are my own, I'd rather be spending them taking pictures or admiring final prints than slaving in a lab to pin down within 10ths of a stop the precise film speed I should use for each lens I own (all of which has to be repeated any time you change a variable, like get a new emulsion lot, buy a new lens, or develop your film in a different darkroom (process your film in a rental darkroom in a different city or move somewhere with a different water source, for example)). 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.

    Just go out, take your photos, and do what you need to do to make photos that satisfy you. If you are unhappy with the results you are getting, then become more sysematic in your approach (or less... there is something to be said for the aesthetics of the imperfect).

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    8,634

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

    I'm a Vestalian: my practice is to expose for the shadows, develop for a standard time that yields readily printable negatives of moderate contrast for even fairly contrasty scenes, and leave the rest for the darkroom.

    I am familiar with both the Zone System and Phil Davis' Beyond the Zone System, and although I think the latter is a superb approach to learning sensitometry, I don't find either system to be useful as a routine working tool.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Posts
    1,093

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

    I use the "half-assed" Zone System. Years ago, I went through the drugery of doing film speed tests and development tests. I'm still using ( stupidly, perhaps) the same film speed and development times I came up with 15 years ago (Tri-X). But they're producing results good enough for my bathroom wall.
    As someone who is not very technically inclined, I just point my spot meter at shadow areas where I want detail (which determines my exposure). Then I check the bright areas of the scene to see if they fall higher than Zone VIII (which determines my develop time). My problem is that I still have trouble differentiating between Zones II and III.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    St. Simons Island, Georgia
    Posts
    879

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

    I guess I'm a Beyond-The-Half-Assed-Zone-System photographer - I discovered the Zone System years ago while I was still a music major in college. Adams system reminded me very much of music analysis, so I instantly understood it. I later found Fred Picker's film speed test and development time test. A couple of years ago, I found and experimented with BTZS. I liked BTZS, but found in the light here, I frequently got underexposed negatives with the incident meter.

    So, now I use my spot meter, using one film speed time for my film, and place the shadows where I want them. I use the meter to determine the other values, then use Phil Davis's formula for determining my development. Sort of. Because while developing, I also use DBI to decide when to pull the print. Ha.
    juan

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    506

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

    I don't use all the control that the Zone System provides. Most of my subjects have a fairly consistent 4-5 stop brightness level so my standard development works. But I should do some work on contrast control for the odd exceptions.

    I do find it useful to use a spot meter to place the shadows and highlights then I can decide if I need to favour one end or the other and how much flexibility I have for the mid-tines. It seems to be working out, since my large format exposures seem to be about right 8-) Personally I have found that understanding the system gives me better control using any exposure method - reflective, incident, or multiple spot. It isn't magic, just a description of what happens with _every_ exposure and development.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    4,589

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

    It wasn't until I went to the Sierra Nevadas a couple of years ago that I saw any need for the Zone system. Photographing in the Southeast USA and Europe there has been little (or no) need for expansion or contraction. Just learn where to point the meter and give everything "Normal" development. When one photographs for 35 years with almost nothing but ASA 10 and 25 Kodachrome, the inherent latitude of B&W film seems infinite.
    Wilhelm (Sarasota)

  9. #9
    Abuser of God's Sunlight
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    brooklyn, nyc
    Posts
    5,796

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

    Definitely a half-assed zone system user. I usually meter in two places or so, most of my exposures are N, about one in five is N-minus-whatever, and about one in fifty is N-plus-whatever. This is all the precision I've ever needed. Darkroom materials (and digital ones) are so flexible that I don't feel the need for laboratory-accurate negatives. They just need to be close, and they always are. I'd rather not waste valuable brain time while I'm in the field trying to be creative.

    For what it's worth, I sense that some people treat the zone system as some kind of religion. All it really is is a technical vocabulary that helps clarify what photographers have been doing from the begining. When people say "i just expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights," they're doing the same thing that zone system users do; they're just not using the same words.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    40

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

    I use Phil Davis's Beyond the Zone System refinement of the Zone System with very good success. What I mean by that is that my negatives almost always give me a nice straight print on my chosen paper, Ilford MGIV FB at a grade 2.5. (To address Scott's point about even AA having to burn and dodge: I certainly have never made a landscape picture that did not require some manipulation in the darkroom; but I do maintain that a negative that yields a good straight print will require less work to get to the final print.)

    BTZS is, of course, a "modified form" of the Zone System, but it is at least as complex. I think the question Raymond means to ask is how many of us are using a simplified version of the zone system?

    BTZS works well for me, but I am not a BTZS zealot. I recognize that because of the forgiving nature of variable contrast paper I could probably do pretty well with some simpler variant of the zone system. For example, many photographers seem to do alright by placing their shadows in Zone IV and then ignoring film speed loss caused by minus development. The generous exposure will almost always prevent unprintably thin shadows. Any other deficiencies in the negative are remedied by means of variable contrast paper.

    I stick with BTZS because I find it conceptually clear, and, having taken the time to master it, I find it is actually pretty easy to use in the field. But any photographer who is consistently making good negatives with some simpler system would have no reason to change to BTZS or any other system.

Similar Threads

  1. Help with the Zone System
    By Jason_1171 in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 6-Feb-2013, 12:09
  2. zone dial or zone system wheel
    By jerry smithson in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 13-Apr-2001, 18:19
  3. ZONE SYSTEM
    By Martin_1505 in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 24-Jan-2001, 08:29
  4. Zone System: Zone 7 or Zone 8 for Highlight Testing
    By William Marderness in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 14-Feb-2000, 10:50
  5. zone system
    By dileep prakash in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2-Aug-1999, 08:48

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •