Are there reasons not to use the Zone System?

[Gem Singer]

Jerry, I was born in 1930, so I do qualify as being an "old timer".

[Armin Seeholzer]

Hi

It is in my opinion good to understand the zone system, but sometimes and not very seldom I work just out of the stomach, but for thad you have to know your materials and thats "the why", not always to change your materials and why I work for a long time with the same film and developer! Good light!

[Christopher Nisperos]

Hi Rory,

Funny question. Makes me think that the Zone System might be dangerous under certain conditions ("Do not use the Zone System in a flammable area!") But seriously, it's more difficult to think of reasons NOT to use the Zone System than the contrary. As an extreme example, I guess you wouldn't use it (or try to apply some aspects of it) in cases where you wanted to exercise control over the results.

I like to think of the Zone System as a sort of "bubble-gum sensitometry" —and sugar-free, at that— because it's not as accurate as the real science, but offers enough to give you the flavor. To that extent, one might say that any black & white photograph taken by traditional means inadvertenty uses elements of the Zone System. Whether or not the photographer consciously applies those elements is another question. I tried once.. not to use it.

My first studies of the Zone System taught me to give enough exposure to the film to ensure adequate shadow detail. Then I read in books on b&w studio portraiture that highlight detail was king. The shadows could go to deep, dark hell, as far as they were concerned! Exposure and development for highlight detail was the priority. A good portrait negative was described as being rather thin. "AH.. here's a reason NOT to use the Zone System", I thought. I followed the books' instructions and made some nice portraits, but I didn't know why it worked.

I was really perplexed. I hadn’t yet understood that the maxim, “expose for the shadows“ assumed that the photographer had no control over the illumination of the scene. The Zone System, in effect, seems to have been formulated primarily for “wild“ light conditions (outdoor, uncontrolled, too-far-for-fill-flash, etc.). Therefore, I kind of agree with Ralph Barker. I guess his point is that shooting under studio conditions negates certain Zone System 'necessitities'. Instead of having to “place“ the shadow values to make sure they’ll be seen … you just light them (or, as John Cook said, “adjust the light“).

On the other hand, Fred Archer, the co-inventor of the Zone System with Ansel when they both taught at Art Center College of Design, wrote a book on studio portraiture (published in 1948) in which he describes the placement of of highlight values. He also talked about “minimum exposure“, “departures from normal development“, developing “ for the contrast needed to print within the scale of a normal grade paper“, and a bunch of other terms in Zone-Systemese! His writing style was pedagogic. Really easy to understand.

Here you have an example of where the Zone System isn’t strictly “needed“, but still proves useful not only for picture-taking purposes, but for educational reasons. Afterall, Archer and Adams devised the system not only as a practical working method, but as a way to “fool“ non-photographer students into learning photographic technique. Sensitometry itself is skimmed over, but enough of its basic concepts, terms and aspects (characteristic curves, threshold, density range, etc.) are conveyed to give the beginner a cursory understanding of the science. Not beyond. “Learn it and forget it“, yes ..but learn it! I believe that the Zone System, while not perfect, is still the quickest way to learn the technical basics of traditional, silver-based photography, from idea to image. Whereas sensitometry helps you think like the film and paper, the Zone System helps you think like the picture. In fact, that's the most important aspect of the Zone System: visualisation. Can anyone really claim to have an artistic approach without it? Plus, even under studio conditions, it’s nice to know if your shadow details will print! Until the Zone System arrived, most beginning photographers just guessed at their results (still do). The Zone System gives us the possibility of humming the music before we write the song.

So, the best reason I can think of NOT to use the Zone System would be for certain types of conceptual photography or photograms and the like. Also, I agree with Ralph Barker that laziness is one reason, but I would add 'time constraints' and impatience.

Sorry for the long answer. In any case, hope this is helpful !

Best regards,

Christopher Nisperos

[Pete Su]

You might not use the zone system if you aren't taking pictures of subjects or in situations that make using the zone system practical.

[james mickelson]

A number of people seem to miss the point of the zone system or any system for that matter. It simply gives you a means of control of your chosen materials. Simple. It is not control of your photography or vision but a means to control your materials and techniques so you can create what you want with your vision. Whatever you do with your material and technique is part of some system. And that is because technique, whatever you choose it to be, has been included within someones written description or recipe. You either gain some element of control over your materials, and create that which your mind sees, or you shoot in the dark, get whatever happens, and the tail wags the dog. Pete, you use elements of the zone system every time you expose film differently from the manufacturers suggested times, and develope that film differently from their processing times. The zone system, or any system, just gives you some type of control. If you don't want a full tonal range from the material, then you manipulate the material through some part of the process to get what you want. That is still a system. And that is all the "zone system" is. You want high key? Low key? Grainy? Lith like? Flat or contrasty? That takes some form of manipulation to get the look you want. If you want to get that look at any time you want it, then you have to use some form of system to come up with the same look at any given time. Call it any thing you want. Call it the "Pete" system. Too much time is spent by too many photographers trying to qualify their methods and not enough time learning to control their materials and methods. Learn the zone system and free yourself to create anything you want within the limits of film, chemistry, and paper.

[Jeff Buckels]

The laws of sensitometry govern contrast, whether one is using the zone system or some version thereof (incident metering) or not. But there are good reasons not to use the zone system, whether they are sufficient reasons in every case or not. Here is one: Study of the zone system gets some people all balled up in one narrow area of imaging-making, to wit, control of contrast in the making of negatives. There are other factors of equal importance (printing), some of greater importance (composition), and some of much greater importance (where you choose to put the camera in order to shoot -- what you put on the groundglass). Oh, and we have a great deal of great work (Cameron, Emerson, early Steichen, Atget, etc. etc.) by people who had only the dimmest ideas concerning sensitometry. I'm concerned that, due to all the fame of the zone system, a great many beginners are misled concerning the importance of contrast control, misled concerning the overall idea of image making. There are a few hints in AA's late-in-life autobio that he himself experienced similar twinges of doubt (consider the anecdote of AA's dismay when he realized he'd discouraged the amateur out at Point Lobos).... One more thing: I don't know much at all about digital imaging. Does sensitometry as we know it have any application there? I sense it doesn't. -jb -jb

[John Kasaian]

Jeff,

I have to agree with you. I see the zone system as a tool, its not THE tool, but its a very good tool, allowing unprecedented control over the negative and print. An unrepayable debt is owed to Ansel Adams, Fred Archer, (and probably some others I'm unaware of) who developed the technique. Hmmm....perhaps if these Pioneers were still around, they'd have been the ones to have unleashed Photoshop on the world? I don't know, but I do know that the zone system is not a religion, though it seems popular to embrace it as such(and woe to the unbeliever!) IMHO, if photography is about art, then one technique is niether superior or inferior to another(anymore than impressionism is superior or inferior to realism, acrylics to oils, or platinum to silver) when it comes to the final product---ultimately, it either satisfies or it dosen't. Certainly gain mastery of whatever tools you choose, but I don't think mastery of the zone system is the same as mastery of photography---if it were, every technically well done but unimaginative "zone" photograph would be a masterpiece and any imaginative photograph that wasn't the spawn of the "paint by the numbers(or zones) school would be relegated to the floor of the parakeet cage. IMHO, Whatever reasons you have for not using the zone system are good enough reasons.