Survey on Zone System vs BTZS

[darr]

Now, will all of you please try to play nice?

... and miss all the entertainment?

I started with the Zone System (Picker's book) in school and found it to be an easily understood and applied method, similar to replicating chiaroscuro in the drawing of form. I read Davis' book twenty years later and thought it was a bit over done since I subscribe to the k.i.s.s. philosophy.

[Brian Ellis]

. . . I use Picker's system, modified slightly: Place brightest thing on Zone VIII, make exposure, develop normally. Flip holder. Place same brightest thing on Zone VI 1/2, make exposure, develop N+1 1/2. Good choice of negatives, one with more contrast. Never fails unless I experiment and place 2nd neg on Zone VII to push the envelope. . .

Don't you ever want to do something other than make a "normal" negative? Don't you sometimes see a scene that you'd like to interpret as perhaps a high-key print in which the darkest important shadow is on Zone VI say? Or maybe create a dark, moody print in which the brightest highlight is on Zone IV or V say?

I'm sorry if that sounds argumentative, I don't mean it that way. I ask partly because I'm genuinely interested in how you deal with situations like that (assuming you do) with a system in which the brightest important highlight will always end up on Zone VIII and the darkest important shadow will always fall willy nilly wherever it happens to fall based on the brightness range of the scene. I also ask in order to make the point that I think we sometimes lose sight of the fact that Adams and Archer didn't create the zone system solely for the purpose of allowing us to make a "normal," easily printable negative every time. Part of the purpose of the zone system is to provide a method that can be used creatively, i.e. one with which we can make a print that interprets a scene the way we would like to see it as a print rather than exactly as it would look if we made a "normal" negative and print.

The zone system (and BTZS, at least as I think many people use it) allows that to be done relatively easily. I don't see how the system you describe does but I don't mean that argumentatively, I'm interested in your thoughts.

I also have to say that I'm surprised anyone who can work in half zones says he lacks the patience for BTZS. : - )

Sorry to go off on a tangent and away from Kirk's poll. I presently use BTZS for film testing (though I do very little of that any more) and otherwise use the traditional zone system. So I guess Kirk can put me in the "Zone System" column.

[Gordon Moat]

Hello Kirk,

I guess your question is just for the predominantly B/W shooters. I shoot mostly transparency films, though on the rare occaissions I shoot B/W I tend to expose them in the same manner that I use for transparencies. So no zone system of any kind here. Oh, I did learn the Adams zone system in college, but have not used it much since then.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Brian,

Thank you!

That is such an overlooked point in my opinion with regards to the Zone System. There seems to be an idea that it was developed to create a "perfect negative" that would "always" print well on a grade #2 paper, which is of course not true. I think it is sometimes forgotten that it is a very creative tool to allow a photographer to create any type of negative they want to allow them to realize an image based on their vision.

Thanks again.

[Mike H.]

I'm strictly zone system - which doesn't restrict one who wants varying results. Normally you just expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights, as the rule says. But, if you want to place some particular object in a particular zone, you can do so and let the other objects fall in whatever zone they will. If the range of zones metered is too wide, you can negative develop; if it is too narrow, you can plus develop. The lower the zone, the less it moves with increased development; the higher the zone, the more it moves. Very simple. No need to complicate it unless you want to.

[j.e.simmons]

I first read The Negative about 35-years ago (the small version) and first found a practical way to apply the ZS with Minor White's book about 30-years ago. Then I found Picker's system in the early 80s and stuck with that until recently. I hurt my back and couldn't carry my 8x10 for a few months. For a lighter kit, I pulled out an RB67 (yeah, that's a lightweight camera to me) and to further lighten things, I started carrying an old incident meter rather than a spot meter. I gave BTZS a try as I have sheet film holders that fit the RB67.

I've since returned to the 8x10 but I've kept the incident meter. Measuring the low light and the hight light seems to free my mind for making photos. Don't ask for a logical explanation - BTZS just seems to work better for me now.

Oh, and I'm printing the RB67 negatives on something else I thought I'd never use - Ilford MGIV.
juan

[Capocheny]

For the most part... I use a spotmeter and The Zone System.

Primitively though!

Cheers

[Bruce Barlow]

Brian-

I don't find you argumentative at all with your questions. Here goes.

I want to get the most, best information on the negative, hence the high value is placed as high as I can put it. If I want a dark, moody print I'll shine more light through the negative when I print it. The advantage, in that case, is that I have spectacular shadow separation because everything is so high up the straight line. Print Zone V and IV shadows in a negative down to values II and III and they're lovely. Snow and ice? Reliably exposed to print as Zone VIII white with texture every time.

I haven't encountered a situation where I would want to deviate from what I do. I don't do backlight, and I don't do dingy rooms with a sun-splashed white church out the window that requires 342 zones to get it all with detail. Those just aren't pictures that move me to make them. So there's rarely more than seven zones in my life. Usually less. For fewer than seven or so: Do I want more zones? Or do I want to take it the way it wants to go and have a soft, delicate print (think of a birch tree on the shore of a foggy pond. No black there, and the fog has to glow without a trace of harshness). All that's more easily do-able in the darkroom, assuming that I have all the information on the negative. I WANT negs that are easy to print. Enlarging should not be a blood sport.

Placing a half zone?? It's a half stop. So after the Normal neg with the high value at Zone VIII, I close down a stop and a half and make the picture. It only fails if (when!) I'm sloppy. But when it's right, the choice of negs gets fun. Do I print the Normal neg thru a #2 filter? Or the N+1 1/2 neg with a #0.5 filter (the equivalent, supposedly, of grade 2)? The LPL with the VCCE head lets me dial it all in. And when I make 2 prints this way, they aren't the same. The contrast matches, but they're not the same. Counter-intuitive things happen, too. Snow and ice in bright sun? Often the N+1 1/2negative gives me more of what I want than the Normal one. I'm glad I have the choice.

It's all become so automatic over the past 20-some years that I can't imagine doing it any other way. My wife calls that "rigidity" and warns me against it in other aspects of life. She tells me it's a symptom of advancing age. But for exposure, it's simple, reliable, and repeatable every time. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

We're off Kirk's track. Did I answer your questions? Call it the Zone System or not, for me it's all about calibrating materials to get the best information on the negative. Once I have that, it's a lot easier to grind out a decent print.

Thanks for asking!

All best,

Bruce

[Bruce Watson]

I use a method that's basically an "Inverse Picker" method. I first do the EI testing and figuring out my normal developement time (my N is about what most ZS practitioners would call N-1). Then for exposure, I place the shadows I want to carry texture on Zone III, and let the highlights fall where they may.

The rest of my process involves drum scanning and digital printing, which is why I don't care all that much how dense the highlights get, or don't get. As long as the negative contains the shadow detail, I can take care of the highlight detail.

[Jack Flesher]

Like Gordon, I primarily shoot color transparency and negative, so I use a form of the metering/exposure half of the Zone System modified for color.