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

[Michael Alpert]

I have noticed a slavish adherence to rigid systems . . .

Well, yes, of course––"slavish adherence" to any system, rigid or not, is self-defeating. We have all seen very unimaginative photographs that are technically accomplished. Adams, at his worst, produced unimaginative imitations of Watkins; at his best, he created work that was more personal. The zone system, as I understand it, is a way to produce negatives that are consistently easy to print. Adams was not a very articulate writer, so he presented his rather simple method in a complicated way. Still, an understanding of the basic idea is useful––even with modern materials. The relation of the zone system to Art is another matter, which is your point.

[Frank Petronio]

Getting a full range of tones in a negative allows you to do whatever you please after the fact, versus limiting yourself with some blocked up film. I don't think many people really do the entire pre-visualization thing.

[David de Gruyl]

The zone system, as I understand it, is a way to produce negatives that are consistently easy to print.

That's the idea. It requires thinking about the paper (or at least the gamma of the paper) while shooting, and then following up on that while developing. In a sense, he (Adams) traded the complications of printing for the complicating both developing and shooting. To be honest, using Phil Davis' extension (Beyond the Zone System) as a basis for shooting has helped my printing. I wouldn't say that it is perfect, but any analytical method is bound to produce more consistent results than not.

The main problem with images shot using the Zone system is the flat look created when the zones are placed dogmatically. It is much like printing a negative for maximum tonal range: you end up with too little contrast. There is always a trade-off. The "art" is in deciding whether something is black or shadow / white or highlight.

To top all that off, you still need to use dodging (I use masks for that, so I just reset the base exposure to effectively burn in the un-masked parts). I've found that mask based dodging is far superior in terms of consistency to dancing with wands, but it is also more time consuming.

To bring it back to zone system: it is not a silver bullet, but it does give you more room to work with when you are adjusting an image.

[rdenney]

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.

This is it. Good technique cannot give life to a dead photo, but bad technique might make it impossible to achieve those creamy tones you desire. Film and development has advanced since the Zone System was codified, and we now have digital scanning and processing, giving us more margin for error. The Zone System was a huge advance over the intuitive and empirical processes it replaced. So, we may not need all the precision some have applied to it. But it still comes down to our negative having what we need or getting in the way of our expressive intentions.

Rick "do not break the rules before learning them" Denney

[Brian Ellis]

You don't understand the purpose of the zone system. It's the opposite of everything you seem to think it is. E.g. it's not "a rigid system[s] that call[s] for deep shadow detail and creamy highlights" when those qualities would result in a "lifeless representation of the scene." In fact its purpose is precisely the opposite, i.e. to allow the photographer to make a negative that will avoid deep shadow detail and creamy highlights in the print when that isn't what the photographer wants the photograph to look like. It also isn't "basically formulated to standardise most negatives on a normal Grade [2] paper." Again, it's purpose is precisely the opposite, i.e. to allow the photographer to make a negative that will print on whatever grade of paper the photographer anticipates using to make the print she or he wants to make.

You say that "[i]n 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." EXACTLY! In criticizing the zone system you've actually just stated its principal benefit. Different photographers might choose to meter Zone III differently because they see the scene differently and want to make a print that reflects their vision of the scene, not necessarily just some standardized print with deep shadows and creamy highlights. And development doesn't skew anything further, it's simply another aid to making the negative, and ultimately the print, that the photographers wishes to make.

I could go on and on but the basic point is that the zone system isn't designed to make one kind of standard negative from which one kind of standard print can be made, it's a system designed to allow the photographer to make whatever kind of negative he or she wants to make in order to end up with a print that looks like the photographer wants the print to look. It's a system designed for maximum creativity ("art" if you will) and minimum rote. Or as Rick Denney said, "it . . . comes down to our negative having what we need or getting in the way of our expressive intentions."

[Brian Ellis]

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!

Good grief.

[Scott Walker]

The ZS is a tool not a straightjacket.

Well said

[E. von Hoegh]

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?

The zone system is, to put it very simply, applied sensitometry. It will never be redundant. You can even use it with color transparency film. It provokes anxiety only in the already anxious. There is no "inordinate waste of materials"- quite the contrary - and the results are "mediocre" only when sloppy method and or poor previsualisation is/are used. The zone system is not for everyone, apparently.

[Drew Wiley]

The Zone System is simply a shorthand learning tool. It is not a religion. And no combination of exposure, film, and developer is articulated into neat segments, but consitutes a particular curve shape which you then intelligently control to achieve a useful negative. I don't even think about it anymore unless I'm trying to teach a beginner. What
I do is actually visualize where a particular meter reading will land on the film curve relative
to other values, and I can do it almost subconsciously with all kinds of film and developer
combinations. But it's easiest to learn just one combination at a time. VC papers make
printing easier in many cases, but won't necessarily salvage a poor exposure in the first
place. What kind of shadow and highlight reproduction you want is up to you - you define
your own artistic rules, not some how-to manual.

[cowanw]

The Zone System has evolved to meet newer photographers needs and, thus the understanding of the System and the verbalization of it has changed.
This is what wiki says (in part)

"The Zone System requires that every variable in photography, from exposure to darkroom production of the print, be calibrated and controlled. The print is the last link in a chain of events, no less important to the Zone System than exposure and development of the film. With practice, the photographer visualizes the final print before the shutter is released."

What we often hear now, as in this thread, is the importance of getting the information on the negative. However, given the dynamic range of B&W film, this was (and is) less of a problem than fitting the image on 1930's paper. Which was critical to "the System". But never invoved good VC paper, much less Photoshop.
An understanding of Sensitometry is great.
Partial application and personal interpretation of the System is common and very useful.
Visualization is a great tool, but the underlying necessity of The Zone System to match the scene to a (graded paper) has been supplemented by other tools.