BTZS vs Zone? Incident v

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

I have read all of Jorge's comments on using incident meters on the BTZS blog. It is clear from those dialogues that an incident meter requires a fair amount of field experience to use one well. It doesn't sound any easier than a spot meter which has its own little quirks.

No more than using a spot meter Kirk. Tell me, how many negatives did you ruin by placing shadows in zone III before it dawned on you that maybe placing them in zone IV would be better? How many times did you think you had the exposure and development nailed only to find out that you blew the highlights? SOmething that happens very often with the ZS and is hard to trouble shoot.

The thing about the incident meter is that requires a different way of thinking to visualize the final print. But this is a difficulty created by the ZS and having used it for many years.

The palm pilot takes no more space than your notebook and does far more things than it. Aside from calculating bellows extension, reciprocity (for which you have done your own testing, I no longer have to rely on tables that only go to 100 sec), filter factors, it gives you a complete record of the shot you took. I can go back 5 years and tell you the exact contrast range, development time, exposure, place, bellows factor, filter factor, development I have done for every shot since I started using the BTZS, can you?

For instance it separates film speed/film developing testing from the variances of meter accuracy, shutter speeds etc. That to me is not an advantage over the ZS

Unless you have done test for every combination of shutter and film you have, this is meaningless. Your 1 sec speed on a copal 3 might not be the same as your 1 sec speed in a copal 1. If you only tested with the copal 1 then you are assuming the speed is the same with the copal 3 or at least close enough. Why not just assume they are all going to be the same or if not the same at least so close the difference is insignificant for testing purposes? Why is it ok for you to make this assumption in one instance but not in the other one?

If you have done testing for every combination of shutter/film, dont you have to carry all this data with you? Seems to me this is just one more thing to forget or to cause you to make a mistake.

BTW, I dont carry 2 meters, I carry only a dual one, in the five years I have used the BTZS I have found myself in only one situation where I had to use the zone system, out of more than 200 negatives I think this is a good ratio.....

I dont see why you imagine there are more "levels of complication" when you have not tried it, remember, I have used the ZS, you have not used the BTZS and I can tell you, it is far simpler than you imagine definitely far simpler than the ZS.

[cyrus]

No more than using a spot meter Kirk. Tell me, how many negatives did you ruin by placing shadows in zone III before it dawned on you that maybe placing them in zone IV would be better?

Hmmm...this is what interests me. Seems to me that the "weakness" of the ZS is in the 'visualization' phase - in decided where to place what. That requires experience but I've wondered if there's a way to take whatever creativity and fun random luck exists out of that too.

Also, how significant is a 1 zone difference in exposure in BW, considering the exposure range of BW film?

[cyrus]

I can tell you in the smallest of nut shells that the BTZS system consists of a combination of equipment (hardware and software) and techniques that together are used to test film and to determine the appropriate exposure, development time, and paper exposure scale for a given image. Differences between it and the traditional zone system include (1) the method used to test film, (2) the method used to determine development times, and (3) if you use an incident meter, the method used to determine exposure. If you use a spot meter the method used to determine exposure is the traditional zone system except that instead of doing things in your head you enter the usual zone system information into a Palm Pilot loaded with a program written by Phil Davis

Thanks Brian.

Ok. So I get that BTZS is different in the ways mentioned. But you still have to test film, determine an exposure time etc the methods may vary but isn't that essentially the same as in ZS? - and you use computers (!) So beyond the methologies, is BTZS conceptually different - whole different thing?

Anyway I fell into this because I found an X-rite 810 for $40 and decided to try it all out, so I guess I'll be reading the BTZS book some more. But, I must admit that I'm not so happy about the using of computers part.

I learned the ZS a while ago using the " Zone System: Step-by-Step Guide for Photographers" by Brian Lav

Is that good enough to go "Beyond" ZS or should I go back to AA or Minor White's ZS?

[Kirk Gittings]

Jorge Its not that complicated, you test your shutters and have them adjusted, you calibrate your meter etc. and every time you do a proper contact sheet you can see if everything is working properly. IT WORKS. It has always worked. It will continue working. It may not be as accurate as BTZS but it is accurate enough. GET IT?

Tell me, how many negatives did you ruin by placing shadows in zone III before it dawned on you that maybe placing them in zone IV would be better?

Better for what? When I make a Z III placement it is because I want Z III shadow detail. Better for what?

[Kirk Gittings]

One advantage to not using BTZS is you don't have to wear the funny hats and go to all those boring meetings.

[JW Dewdney]

One advantage to not using BTZS is you don't have to wear the funny hats and go to all those boring meetings.

LOL! - or those awkward lodge handshakes with BTZS tubes on your fingers...!

[Kirk Gittings]

I'm sorry to say that I actually use BTZS Tubes! With my silly little test! Must be some kind of sacrilege!

[Brian Ellis]

"I learned the ZS a while ago using the " Zone System: Step-by-Step Guide for Photographers" by Brian Lav Is that good enough to go "Beyond" ZS or should I go back to AA or Minor White's ZS?"

I don't know that particular book but it should be fine without having to read White or Adams. "Beyond" the Zone System is probably not the ideal title for Phil's book and I remember him saying in one of the workshops that he kind of regrets that choice because it implies that his system is unrelated to, and over and above, the zone system whereas in reality there's still a lot of the zone system in the exposure portion of it, at least if you use a spot meter.

A nice thing about BTZS is that you don't have to use every aspect of it to still get some advantages from it. For example, for about $30 The View Camera Store will do the testing for you. They send you six sheets of the type of film you use, pre-exposed for the BTZS testing. You process the sheets for different specified times in your usual way and return the processed sheets to them. They'll then send you reams of information, some of which allows you to determine your development times the traditional zone system way (i.e. N, N minus, N plus) rather than by using SBRs.

I'm not suggesting that it's necessarily a good idea to use only one part of BTZS or to avoid using SBRs but this does allow you to use what Sandy said (and I agree) is its single best part - the method of film testing - without getting involved with the Palm Pilot, computer programs, paper exposure scales, etc. if that's your choice.

[Colin Graham]

One advantage to not using BTZS is you don't have to wear the funny hats and go to all those boring meetings.

Well you're either tired or have given up on reason altogether.

[clay harmon]

True, but you also would miss out on the special underwear that give you super powers. I use BTZS all the time, and if I'm wearing the underwear, I can use mind rays to keep my bellows from rattling in the wind.

One advantage to not using BTZS is you don't have to wear the funny hats and go to all those boring meetings.