Is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?

[Shen45]

Which is more important, a perfectly calculated zone one or an image that has subtlety or drama, impact or delicious nuances of tonality.

I have noticed a slavish adherence to rigid systems that call for deep shadow detail and creamy highlights when in fact that may be a wonderful representation of a step wedge but a lifeless representation of the scene [or whatever].

With the zone system basically formulated to standardise most negatives on a normal Grade [2] paper in the 50's how applicable is this antiquated system with modern films and VC papers?

In reality it is not a standard system because 10 different photographers presented with a scene may all choose to meter z3 differently. Then the determination of development can be skewed further by correct or incorrect choice of z7 or 8 or whatever highlight is chosen for setting development.

These simple individual variations bring the zone system fairly close to a box speeder with an average meter and normal development.

If my statements are incorrect why is the endless uncertainty of testing and the inordinate waste of materials justified for the often less than mediocre - often compressed tonality - associated with this system.

I can understand the American adoption of the Zone system but wonder if it is regarded as highly in Europe. Here in Australia it is reasonably popular but historically wasn't accorded a lot of attention. To my eye and it is not just lighting conditions European photography in general seems to convey more drama and impact by not attempting to get masses of shadow detail into an image. ** Very personal opinion ** There is a drastic over emphasis on shadow detail in most work today because of the fetish enslavement to finding your own personal EI and getting information into areas of the film it was never really designed to cope with.

Film is designed for fairly narrow parameters and when you step outside of the manufacturers specifications you run the risk of producing a long tone scale image that can be very flat dull and visually boring regardless of the actual content.

I am rapidly coming to the opinion that while the zone system served Ansel Adams wonderfully and likewise some photographers today it can be a total millstone around the neck of the majority of photographers, it promotes anxiety about every individual shutter and its accuracy, it causes fear that your EI is different to someone else and causes many photographers to second guess their actual creative processes.

So is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?

[C. D. Keth]

So is the zone system now redundant because of box speed and MC papers?

Not at all. That's like saying that stick charcoal is obsolete because somebody invented pencils. If you want your negative to record detail in every part of a scene, the zone system is a well-described way of doing that.

You don't need to think about it all the time or ever use it. Certainly don't let yourself become a slave to it, seeking technical perfection over artistry. Having said that, I don't think a photographer who works on film can really call their skills complete without knowing their way around the zone system.

[Kirk Gittings]

The ZS is a tool not a straightjacket.

[Vaughn]

It is not the system, it is the understanding behind it.

[Gem Singer]

The fundamental principle of the Zone System is: "Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights."

The method you use in order to achieve that principle is up to you.

[Leigh]

Tuco recently posted a building interior in Architecture that has direct sunlight streaming through the windows and open door.

He used N-2 development to control the contrast, resulting in a beautiful print.

No, ZS is not dead, but neither is it Master.

- Leigh

[Nathan Potter]

Use of the zone system really depends on how fussy you are and what degree of perfection you want from your craft. It's all a matter of fitting the brightness range of your scene to the density range needed from your negative. Yes it is a seemingly complex task in the beginning but there are ways to make it simpler.

I tend to use a calibrated Stouffer step wedge placed over the film in the camera; then a single shot yields about a 10 EV range spanning the deepest shadows to faintest highlights. Then I just pull the contrast index using a few N- and N+ development times as a calibration. I'll plot a sensitometric curve of EV vs Density for the N+ and N- development times and actually carry them into the field and refer to them for critical work.

For darkroom printing I typically shoot for Dmax = 1.5 to 2.0. For scanning I'll keep the Dmax at 1.5 or below.

Nate Potter, Austin TX, / Corea ME.

[Maris Rusis]

I use the zone system to get maximum spatial and photometric information in the negative. This does not mean I'm necessarily going to use all the information when making the positive but it gives me more options.

One thing that I've abandoned mostly is N+ and N- development protocols. Going up one paper grade is very similar to N+1 development and N-1 is closely matched by going down one grade. Even N+2 and N-2 can be fudged, more or less. Really long scale scenes, or really flat ones, can be fitted to useful negative densities by development modification but I'm thinking more often that it's not worth it. A scene that difficult to look at for what it really is rarely becomes magical through development gymnastics.

Big B&W film also offers a generous tolerance for extra exposure and detail is well preserved at even high densities. The only deadly sins to avoid are insufficient exposure and insufficient development. The zone system, simple or complex, is a good way of ensuring this.

[Merg Ross]

The ZS is a tool not a straightjacket.

It is not the system, it is the understanding behind it.

The fundamental principle of the Zone System is: "Expose for the shadows. Develop for the highlights."

The method you use in order to achieve that principle is up to you.

Well said. And to deviate from the principle is also acceptable; however, an understanding is paramount.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

what has always bothered me about it is that it seems to say that if you end up using a different grade of paper than grade 2 you did something wrong!