Survey on Zone System vs BTZS

[Mark Sawyer]

I keep hoping and praying someone will post...

"I shoot 20x24, and I just bracket everything..."

Sandy?

[sanking]

I keep hoping and praying someone will post...

"I shoot 20x24, and I just bracket everything..."

Sandy?

Mark,

The only time I bracket with 20X24 is when I plan to use HDR techniques. In real color this can take us up a lot of film fast since you have to do a high, low and medium range negative in RGB, which amounts to exposing some 27 sheets of film from the same spot. The digital back for the 20X24, which I am eagerly awaiting, is going to make this procedure a lot easier.

Sandy

[Alan Rabe]

Digital backs for 4x5's run between 8 and 22 thousand dollar's. I can't even imagine what a 20x24 will cost. Wonder what the mega pixels will be. Or maybe giga pixels would be more appropriate.

[Ted Harris]

A few comments now that I have unpacked enough boxes to not feel totally guilty about spending any time here on the 'puter. I, like Bruce, have gotten a headache several times when trying to wade through writings about BTZS. However, I will also admit that, if memory serves, I got the same headaches when I first read about the Zone System in Adams' original books. On the one hand I agree with Bruce and Ralph and find that the method I use is very close to theirs. OTOH I also agree with Brian and Sandy about the importance of sensitometry and the desire to make something other than a normal negative once in a while. Do I see an inconsistancy here, no, not at all. But, there is one thing missing and that is experience.

With all respect to our much missed friend John Cook, I need to rant a bit about the 'old times' and how they are relevant to how one uses the Zone /System. First, IMO, Adams didn't invent anything with the Zone System, rather, he codified what many had been doing for decades before him and for that he is to be aplauded, as is Picker for making it more comprehensible to the average user. My point here is that those of us who started our when the commonest light meters were the extinction type (nearly worthless or no better than a trained eye) unless you had lots of $$ for a Weston. I can't even remember seeing one during the 1950's (with the exception of one in a Mercury 35 and a Kodak Retina). I learned to expose film by trial and error, by training my eye to read the light in a scene. Later, when I had a light meter in my hands in the early 1960's it became a lot easier but I was reminded that I had already absorbed in my brain much of what the meter was doing and, hence, used it then and still use it to confirm what my brain tells me about the light in a scene. Granted, my experiences are not typical, even for photographers of my age, since I spent many years as a stage lighting designer and stage electrician which gave me a whole different set of opportunities to hone my skills at reading light. However, I do believe that those of us who learned most of the mechanics of photography in an age where the aids to using the mechanics were fewer and much more primative learned differently than those who came to photography later. We learned in a way that much of the mechanics became second nature to us without a need for any of the aids, even though we may use themn and welcome them today. I remember how quickly I embraced the metering in first a Pentax Spotmatic and soon after a Nikon F Photomic. Not many years after that I had my first Spotmeter, a BEWI. The point here is though that these things either didn't exist or were not readily available when I started out in the business. They were not part of my learning, they came later. What's the point? The point is that one of the reasons many schools of photography start students out with a bare bones camera, such as a Pentax K1000, is to aid them in training their brain to make the judgemetns and evaluations that a meter woudl outerwise be doing for them; to understand what the meter is doing and why they are using it. So, I use the Zone System and I think I am a reasonably sophisticated user of same but how I use it is so deeply embedded in the my being that it is difficult to extract and sometimes I need to stop and think when a student or workshop participant askes "why did you do/recommend that?" I need to dig deep inside my brain and make sure I can explain my answer in general photographic and Zone System terms that will make sense and be useful .... not always easy when what you really want to say is something like, "I've always doe it that way,its the way I learned to do it 50 years ago."

[Jerry Cunningham]

I use BTZS. There is no comparison when it comes to speed and accuracy. Furthermore, the ability to obtain tons of useful data that is quickly accessed by a palm computer is a great advantage. I was a skeptic until I actually took the time to learn the system. The ease of record keeping and the high quality of consistent development is a boom. The low cost of testing and the low cost of everyday development (2 oz. of developer) is easy on the pocketbook. I would encourage anyone to try it. It is easy to be critical without actually trying the method but for me personally it was not very honest. There is a learning curve but there is lots of help.
Sincerely,
Jerry Cunningham

[Kirk Gittings]

Ted,

Glad to have you back. My history is similar just a little later. First meter was a Weston in 1969. I couldn't figure out the ZS until Picker's book came out but I did figure out allot of basic sensitometry by trial and many errors.

[Kirk Gittings]

Sorry Jerry, what does this mean?

I would encourage anyone to try it. It is easy to be critical without actually trying the method but for me personally it was not very honest.

[Chet Kwapisinski]

I have been using BTZS for about a decade.

Cheers

[Jerry Cunningham]

Kirk
I probably spoke out of hand. Before I tried the BTZS I did as much research on the subject as time permitted. Some of the postings seemed so vehement that anything but the Zone System was heresy. Your question is an inquiry into who uses what. Therefore, I got a little off track and I apologize. I did not mean to be offensive. The point I was trying to make is that BTZS cannot be fairly judged unless one actually tries the method. A understanding of basic sensitometry is very helpful in understanding what went right or wrong with a particular negative. Of course, sensitometry was actually the basis of Adams and Pickers work. I agree that the book written by Davis is not an easy read. However, it is well worth the study. Since Davis wrote his book there has been much improvement. His plotter program takes all the mathematics away and makes access to the system very easy. BTZS and the Zone System are not mutually exclusive. The software makes it possible to use the Zone System or the BTZS. BTZS is actually a clarification and expansion of the older Zone System. A newer and clearer model. In additon, there is a fundemental difference between what works and what works best. However, happiness is an another thing. If the user is happy with the results that they get from whatever method (or lack thereof) then the hunt is over. Having said that, the photographic industry uses sensitometery for a reason and that reason is the need for scientic objective information that can be mathematically quantified. However, that degree of accuracy is now available to the average photographer using BTZS. I would encourage anyone to try BTZS. I am sure that they will be impressed with the results. My vote is again BTZS.
Jerry Cunningham

[sanking]

Digital backs for 4x5's run between 8 and 22 thousand dollar's. I can't even imagine what a 20x24 will cost. Wonder what the mega pixels will be. Or maybe giga pixels would be more appropriate.

OK, a couple of notes. If you did the calculation on the basis of image area the 20X24" back should run on the order of $528,000 dollars. I am just figuring that the 20X24 at 480 square inches is about 24 times the area as the 20 square inches of a 4X5" negative. Might stretch our budget a bit.

In terms of pixel count, a 20X24" file in RGB at 10,000 spi should come in at under 300 G. I figure that size would be a knock-out blow to my old Mac.

But this would sure save time over makin those 27 different exposures for the HDR work!! And you would not have to worry about the Zone/BTZS issue.



Sandy