Survey on Zone System vs BTZS

[jshanesy]

I put the darkest part of the picture on Zone IV with my Pentax Spot Meter, and then see where the brightest part falls. I develop accordingly, by inspection with any film except TMY. Call this what you will.

[Gary L. Quay]

I use the Zone System. I've seen the book for BTZS, but I've never bought it. I don't have the mental energy follow the whole thing. I meter for the extremes of the scene, low, middle and high values, assign zones to them, and make sure that the maximum info will make it onto the neg. I also will make notes to under or overdevelop depending on the lighting situation. I have a Pentax 1 deg spot meter that has been converted for Zone System.

[phil sweeney]

I use both. I have old ZS data I still use. When I started contact printing 8 x 10 and experimenting with numerous developers I found BTZS necessary. I also develop by inspection.

[Gordon Moat]

What do you suppose Jacques Henri Lartigue used?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio

[Paul Coppin]

I don't do black and white process regularly enough to do more than waste film on zone, although at least conceptually I'm familiar with it. What it did give me was good sense of film latitude and an appreciation of what to look for in front of the lens to match my film latitude to image to intent. That coupled with my spotmeter, I aim to place my exposure on the money for standard processing with my chemistry. I use zone concepts to shift the key values, but I don't play much with expansion or contraction. I'm sure that if I had more time and/or money to play with it I'd do more, but this methods gives a higher percentage of workable negatives that aren't trying to be salvaged.
Having recently discovered I can get superb scan results in BW from my scanner and good print result from the printer has created a whole new dynamic. That's almost scary...
I haven't read Davis' book. The info for incidence meters in particular sounds intriguing, as I have less confidence with the IM outdoors than my spot.

[steve simmons]

I use the ZS as originally descrid by Adams and then siplified by Picker. I place the darkest area I care about in 3 and peg my exposure accordingly. I then see where the high values that I care about fall and adjust my exposure accordingly. After so many ears I rarely miss but that does not mean just a straight print. Burning is done on all negs, at least aroud the edges if not in other places. This does not negate the ZS at all. It is just another creative control in the printing process.

steve simmons

[Michael Kadillak]

I am a recently converted BTZS user. Out of simple curiosity I purchased Phil's BTZS book eight years ago and struggled with the concepts on the first pass. As a result it sat on the shelf until a little over a year ago. While I was out photographing with Sandy King, he graciously filled in some of the practical applications (as he articulated above) and the infamous "light" went on. I went back to the book with new insight and this allowed me to go back to basics and in about two weeks time I recalibrated my materials and have dramatically improved the quality of my negatives to the point that I am rediscovering LF photography. Reaching for the dodging and burning tools while printing are the exception rather than the rule (as was previously the case for at least me) and I feel far more productive within the whole process.

Having the Zone system principals to blend into the decision process is a great asset.

With my incident meter and BTZS along with the sensitometric information it has provided me with that I carry into the field I only look for the generic quality of the shadows in the scene to base the exposure on and as a result I feel that I am spending less time "metering". Everyone talks about how "quick" they can use their spot meter to get a low and high value. Well about half the time this was the case but the other half I was having a heck of a time with this iteration with certain lighting conditions. But maybe that was just me.

BTZS is a multi dimensional tool - not just another kind of meter to carry into the field.


Cheers!

[Frank Petronio]

When I did my own darkroom work I followed the Fred Picker book more or less.

When I shoot color or lab-processed B&W I use a spot meter to set the highlights on the appropo Zone and let what happens happen. Or I add a fill card or lighting.

And nowadays I most often use the spot meter and Histrogram of my DSLR, plus my gut instincts. Which seem to work the best of all.

[jshanesy]

I then see where the high values that I care about fall and adjust my exposure accordingly.

I think you'll find it easier to get beautiful prints if you adjust your development accordingly.

[Mark Sawyer]

I learned the zone system in the early 80's, and used it for two years during a time when I was very prolific in lf b/w photography. But I noticed that if I looked at the light and the subject, I could pretty much predict what the ZS would tell me. Really, it's just normal or plus or minus a little or a lot, on development and exposure.

As I often photograph around the house and yard, I can choose from many lenses in my cabinet, and that makes a big difference too. I'd never make the same guess for the Caltar II-N that I do for the uncoated Hugo Meyer Euryplan.

So today, it's pretty much instinct based on sometimes several spot meter readings to just a single average reading shot from the hip, and an educated, instinctive guess. I'm happy with my prints...