Problems understanding the Zone System

[Fredrick]

Hi.

I am having som difficulties understanding and utilizing the Zone System. I unfortunately have dyscalculia, I cannot comprehend numbers. Therefore I can't understand the math behind the zone system meetering and development. I would however very much like to learn how to use it.

I guess the thing I am wondering is the following. If my film has a dynamic range of say 10 F/stops, since that is the number of zones. If I then place the shadows at Zone 5 to in order for them to be visible in the print, but this blows the highlights by 3 stops, putting them on zone 13. How do I develop? I'm sorry if this is an inconvience to anyone, but I really like working with largeformat and I would very much like not having to carry Lee filters everywhere I go.

[C_Remington]

It's over rated. Just use an incident meter. You'll be fine 80% of the time.

I was bad at math too.

[Fredrick]

I am bit of a perfectionist and 80% of the time wont cut it for me. I need it to be right 100% of the time.

[Lachlan 717]

You've placed the shadows too high.

They need to be in either Zone II or III (depending on what you want detail in).

Do you have a handle on how changing developing times comes in to play with this process?

[Fredrick]

You've placed the shadows too high.

They need to be in either Zone II or III (depending on what you want detail in).

Do you have a handle on how changing developing times comes in to play with this process?
No, I guess this is what I need to get a handle on. When to use n+ and n- development. So I should always place the shadows on either zone II or zone III? I see. So blowing the highlights is okay, since the developing time will compensate for this?

[jcoldslabs]

In the most basic terms, meter the shadow areas in the scene that you would like to retain some discernible detail and stop down two stops from that reading. Any areas darker than those that you metered will be close to pure black in the print. Part of the trick is deciding in advance which parts of the image you are willing to relegate to pure black and which you are not.

Next, meter the highlight areas of the scene that you would like to show detail and not be pure white. If this reading is around five stops above the shadow meter reading (depending on your film's latitude), develop your film normally (N) and all should be fine. It gets a bit more complicated if the highlight areas are, say, only three stops above your shadow point, in which case you would want to extend development to increase contrast (N+), or if your highlight areas are more than five stops above your shadow point, in which case you would want to reduce the development time (N-) to tame the contrast and hold detail in the highlights.

Testing is required to determine your own N, N+ and N- times.

Jonathan

DISCLAIMER: I realize this topic is a can of worms, and that the above is a GROSS oversimplification. And yes, I avoided using the term "zones" on purpose.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

So I should always place the shadows on either zone II or zone III? I see. So blowing the highlights is okay, since the developing time will compensate for this?

Not necessarily always on zone II or III. I place shadows on zone IV quite often, when I want the detail to be easily visible in the print, or zone III when they are slightly less important. You may also find out that the shadow placement (and highlight's fall) are more sensitive with films/developers that have a characteristic of compressing, that is reducing the contrast in those areas. Some people refer to such films as having a characterstic curve with a long toe (compressing shadows) or a pronounced, rounded, or an early shoulder (compresses highlights). With other film/dev combinations the placement maybe less of a concern, as long as you are prepared to bring the shadows, or the highlights, back with dodging and burning, or even some masking.

You are asking to be right 100% of the time. This is a commendable, but a hard goal to achieve in a process that involves a lot of variables that will affect your results, including, amongst many others: lens, camera and meter flare, different film behaviours in different developers, your development process and agitation scheme, different enlarging and printing systems, and various paper characteristics, and, above all, different approaches to what may matter to you the most: mechanically fitting the entire subject range into the paper's range at the cost of a significant loss of control over local contrast, or a focus on local contrast enhancement at the cost of a loss of the mechanical ability to fit the whole negative range onto paper.

In time, testing, and real-use experiments will make it clearer. But if you want to get started somewhere, consider picking up a book, such as Ansel Adams's "The Negative" or Chris Johnson's "The Practical Zone System", but keep asking more questions here, and also on APUG, where you will find a good few people with a lot expertise in the nuances of the tone reproduction process, like Stephen Benskin or Bill Burk.

[Lachlan 717]

That should really help to clear things up for the OP...

[Fredrick]

I realize that being right 100% of the time might have been a bold statement. What I mean is that I want to perfect the process and get printable negatives which are easier to print than the negatives I have now. I have already purchased Ansel Adams's "The Print" and I find it very informative and I learned everything I know about printing from that book. I also have a digital copy of "The Negative", but the text is much too blurry for my eyes to read. I will most likely pick up a copy of the book in a few hours.

I feel that I should give some information about which film I am using and which developer I am planning on using. I am using the Ilford Delta 100 film now, and have 70-75 sheets left. I plan on using all those sheets before I purchase any other BW film, so that I have mastered that film. Using many films at once would make me "Jack of all trades, Master of none". I'm either going to use Ilford DD-X or Kodak HC-110 (recomendations please). I previously used FX-39, but that developer gives too much grain and I find it a pain to use. Right now I don't have access to a light meter, but I have the light meter app for my iPhone and I usually carry my digital camera around when I'm out shooting. I am young and quite fit, so weight isn't an issue for me. I am considering buying an oldstyle light meter, but I don't know if it is neccesary.

If I meter the shadows in a scene at 1/8 sec and f/16 at ISO 100. Should I then expose at either f/32 or set the shutter to 1/2 seconds? The numbers are quite hard for me, but I am determined to find out of this.

Oh and by the way, right now I don't have access to a printing darkroom, but I am going to check out what kind of facilities there are in my city. I know there is one printing room which is free to use and they have Leitz enlargers, but I don't know if they have enlargers for 4x5. I know there is a photoclub which has enlargers for 4x5, but to a yearly fee. Economy is tight, but I'll bite that bullet if I have to. Untill such a time, I will try and get myself a scanner. I might get my parents to sponsor me with an Epson V700. Right now, I am contemplating sending some Negatives to Tim Parkin and his cheap drum scanning service. We will see. Thank you for your time.

[jcoldslabs]

If I meter the shadows in a scene at 1/8 sec and f/16 at ISO 100. Should I then expose at either f/32

Yes.


or set the shutter to 1/2 seconds?

No. In this example you would set the shutter speed to 1/30 if the aperture setting remained at f/16. 1/2 second is giving two stops MORE exposure than 1/8 sec., whereas 1/30 is giving two stops LESS. In general you want the shadow areas to be exposed at two stops less than the meter reading. I think you might be able to find a chart of aperture and shutter speed equivalencies online somewhere, but with your number-impaired condition it may prove difficult to digest.

For example, all of these exposures are equivalent:

1/8 sec. @ f/16
1/4 sec. @ f/22
1/2 sec. @ f/32
1 sec. @ f/45

Don't worry, though. After thirty years of setting apertures and shutter speeds I STILL get confused at times and make exposure errors by opening up when I should have stopped down.

Jonathan

[Fredrick]

Yes.



No. In this example you would set the shutter speed to 1/30 if the aperture setting remained at f/16. 1/2 second is giving two stops MORE exposure than 1/8 sec., whereas 1/30 is giving two stops LESS. In general you want the shadow areas to be exposed at two stops less than the meter reading. I think you might be able to find a chart of aperture and shutter speed equivalencies online somewhere, but with your number-impaired condition it may prove difficult to digest.

For example, all of these exposures are equivalent:

1/8 sec. @ f/16
1/4 sec. @ f/22
1/2 sec. @ f/32
1 sec. @ f/45

Don't worry, though. After thirty years of setting apertures and shutter speeds I STILL get confused at times and make exposure errors by opening up when I should have stopped down.

Jonathan
Oh, that was quite the bummer! Haha. Quite the mistake from my side.

I realize that longer shutter speeds will give more exposure to the sheet. I don't know why i fumbled with this, might have been that I was thinking about compensating for a red/orange filter which is also two stops.

Thank you for clearing that up anyway! I'm looking forward to starting shooting again.

[jcoldslabs]

Good luck. And yes, once you throw filter factors into the mix things can get very complicated: subtract two stops for the shadows, add two stops for the filter....oy! God forbid you run into reciprocity effects. That one always trips me up.

J.

[Fredrick]

Yes, and bellowfactors! LF is very complicated, but very rewarding - atleast for me. I really like the process, being meticulous and seeing my vision come to life in an image.

[jcoldslabs]

LF is very complicated, but very rewarding.

Indeed.

J.

[Gem Singer]

"IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE"

Fred Picker presented a clear, simple explanation of the Zone System in his book "The Zone VI Workshop".

Get a copy of the book, read it, and you'll realize how easy it is to use the Zone System when you understand what your exposure meter is telling you.

You don't need to be a mathematical genius.

[photobymike]

"IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE"

Gem is right.... i think it was all invented to sell books.... making easy complicated to make a buck..... shoot a gray scale at different exposures using a meter and note the EV numbers ...shutter + Fstop.... standardize your development and use a the meter to place your 18% at five or six on the scale.... your meter is setup to read at 18% ...about what a face or skin should be at ...... if using a spot meter measure a gray card.... I would not try and use developing time to make the correct exposure... Unless you are very very experienced in the darkroom. The secret is to know your film ....the toe and highlight limitations and know where you the skin or step 5 is in relation to upper and lower limits of your film..... moving 18% up or down the "curve" is where you can get creative...(varying exposure)....

[Brian Ellis]

While there are ten zones, the first two (I and II) will generally show no texture or detail, i.e. they'll essentially be clear in the negative and black in the print. The first zone that generally shows any detail or texture is three (Zone III). Therefore, you meter the darkest part of the subject in which you want any detail or texture to show and place that on Zone III (or IV, which is what many people including me sometimes use to make sure the texture or detail shows up in the negative). I realize you don't have a darkroom, this explanation is given just to help understand the system and possibly for future reference or instructions to whoever develops your film.

Then check to see on what zone your brightest important highlight (i.e. the brightest part of the subject in which you want some detail or texture to show) will fall based on that exposure. If it isn't higher than eight (VIII) you probably can develop for your normal time. If it's higher than eight then you would reduce the development time, if it's lower than eight and you want it to be eight you would increase your development time. These times (referred to as "plus" for more development and "minus" for less) are best established by testing. But if you can't or don't want to test, use the manufacturer's suggested time for your film as your normal time, reduce by 20% or so for minus one stop and increase by 30% or so for plus one stop.

All of this assumes you want a "straight" or "normal" looking print. The best thing about the zone system is that it allows you to be creative and deviate from the above standard depending on what you want the print to look like. E.g. you might want to make a high-key print so you'd place the darkest important shadow area on Zone V or VI or whatever based on how you want the print to look. But that takes some experience, for now just stick with the norms outlined here and in some of the other responses. Ignore people who tell you to just use in incident meter. Not that that's necessarily a bad practice but you said you wanted to learn the zone system and telling you not to doesn't serve your purpose. In my opinion the zone system is the easiest, most predictable way to make the kind of print you want to make. Not that it will allow you to make a perfect negative all the time, it won't. But it will at least get you in the ballpark.

[Larry Gebhardt]

My advice is to get a Pentax digital spot meter because of the very useful mechanical "calculator" it uses. Put a Zone dial on it and it's very easy to see how your exposure fits once you use this. There is no need to convert aperture and shutter speed combinations into zones, which I frequently mess up when I'm rushed (and I'm reasonably good at math).

I always put my shadows on Zone 3. Then you can check where the highlights fall. If they are above or below where you want them with normal development you will need to use plus or minus development. This will cause a minor change in film speed (which you can determine by testing, and without much math by graphing). Set the new speed on the meter and you now have your exposure. Look for a few pictures of the meter and I think it will help with what I am trying to explain.

I imagine there are other meters with similar calculators, and I know you could easily build one with a few rotating discs and a meter that reads in EV, but the Pentax is perfect since it's all built in. So in my opinion it's the perfect meter for the Zone system.

[Light Guru]

My advice is to get a Pentax digital spot meter because of the very useful mechanical "calculator" it uses. Put a Zone dial on it and it's very easy to see how your exposure fits once you use this. There is no need to convert aperture and shutter speed combinations into zones

I second that. the pentax meter with the zone sticker makes things a LOT easier.

[Bruce Watson]

I am having som difficulties understanding and utilizing the Zone System.

It all comes down to the old dictum: Expose for the shadows and develop for the highlights. What the Zone System does is offer an explanation of why this is so, and offer a method of actually doing it. But it all comes down to exposing for the shadows, and developing for the highlights.

I second the idea of you having a Pentax digital spot meter. Excellent tool. Get and apply a Zone System sticker to it. Takes most of the math out of it and makes it all very visual. And very accurate.

I also second the idea of using Picker's book (Zone VI Workshop (http://www.amazon.com/Zone-VI-Workshop-Fred-Picker/dp/0817405747)) instead of Adams. I've read both and actually prefer the Adams book myself. But the Picker book gives a very concise and lucid explanation while skipping most of the math. Probably better for you.

[Thom Bennett]

In Steve Simmons' book, "USING THE VIEW CAMERA" (http://www.amazon.com/Using-View-Camera-creative-photography/dp/0817463534) there is a great chapter on determining your own personal film speed, exposure methodology, and development. I had been trying to understand the zone system for years and this book cleared it up for me. No more futzing around. Good luck!

[Light Guru]

Good luck. And yes, once you throw filter factors into the mix things can get very complicated: subtract two stops for the shadows, add two stops for the filter....oy! God forbid you run into reciprocity effects. That one always trips me up.


Yes, and bellowfactors! LF is very complicated, but very rewarding - atleast for me. I really like the process, being meticulous and seeing my vision come to life in an image.

There is a great iPhone app called Reciprocity Timer. You select your film type, and put in the exposure setting that you metered, your focal length, bellows extension, and the filter you may be using. It then calculates your final exposure time time taking into account all the things that effect the exposure and then sets a timer you can use for those longer exposures.

The app is so helpful if you don't have an iPhone then you can look into buying a used iPod touch to use it on.

[ROL]

I am bit of a perfectionist and 80% of the time wont cut it for me. I need it to be right 100% of the time.

I learned a long time ago in the weather forecasting biz that anyone who claims 80% accuracy for anything, be it meteorological processes, medical efficacy, or photography, is either an outright liar or entirely ignorant of any process important to their discipline (i.e., pulled the number out of their arse). "80%" should be a trigger resulting in great suspicion of anyone claiming it, unless coincidentally backed by rigorous evidence and peer review.

The (a) ZS will get you as close to 100% accuracy as you are likely to find anywhere. The beauty of it is that it will allow you to place exposures, based on extant lighting, exactly where you want them. Normal panchromatic B/W films generally are not capable of 10 zones of exposure. You fit the available light, as measured with an appropriate (spot)meter to your film's latitude, mostly 7 or 8 stops (or zones, if you prefer). This is accomplished most accurately through film testing, but you can certainly use others' evaluations on standard films, until ready for that degree of specificity. The ZS may best be visualized as a sliding scale of exposure. You slide the relatively small range of your film up or down the range of the scene for best exposure. At its simplest, when more than 7 or so zones of light are present in the scene, you decide where to place your shadows, and then how much to decrease (contract) development (again, eventually through film testing) to reign in highlights. Conversely, when the lighted scene contains less than 5 to 7 stops, one may wish to increase (expand) development to extend the range of light (;)) expressed in your film.

Take advantage of the information and resources offered here, and stick with it. The Negative is the bible for zonies. Once grasped, its use will pay dividends, taking virtually all the guesswork out of exposure – though unfortunately not visualization :rolleyes:.

[C_Remington]

I learned a long time ago in the weather forecasting biz that anyone who claims 80% accuracy for anything, be it meteorological processes, medical efficacy, or photography, is either an outright liar or entirely ignorant of any process important to their discipline (i.e., pulled the number out of their arse). "80%" should be a trigger resulting in great suspicion of anyone claiming it, unless coincidentally backed by rigorous evidence and peer review.

The (a) ZS will get you as close to 100% accuracy as you are likely to find anywhere. The beauty of it is that it will allow you to place exposures, based on extant lighting, exactly where you want them. Normal panchromatic B/W films generally are not capable of 10 zones of exposure. You fit the available light, as measured with an appropriate (spot)meter to your film's latitude, mostly 7 or 8 stops (or zones, if you prefer). This is accomplished most accurately through film testing, but you can certainly use others' evaluations on standard films, until ready for that degree of specificity. The ZS may best be visualized as a sliding scale of exposure. You slide the relatively small range of your film up or down the range of the scene for best exposure. At its simplest, when more than 7 or so zones of light are present in the scene, you decide where to place your shadows, and then how much to decrease (contract) development (again, eventually through film testing) to reign in highlights. Conversely, when the lighted scene contains less than 5 to 7 stops, one may wish to increase (expand) development to extend the range of light (;)) expressed in your film.

Take advantage of the information and resources offered here, and stick with it. The Negative is the bible for zonies. Once grasped, its use will pay dividends, taking virtually all the guesswork out of exposure – though unfortunately not visualization :rolleyes:.
80% is an estimate. Do you know what that is? Maybe you should have learned that too a long time ago.

[Ari]

I am bit of a perfectionist and 80% of the time wont cut it for me. I need it to be right 100% of the time.

Use an incident meter, you'll be fine 100% of the time.

[Light Guru]

Use an incident meter, you'll be fine 100% of the time.

And if your subject is to far away to take an incident meatier reading? Spot meters were invented for a reason.

[Ari]

And if your subject is to far away to take an incident meatier reading? Spot meters were invented for a reason.

How far away does it have to be that you can't use the sunny 16 rule? Or place the incident meter in the same light conditions as the subject?

[Light Guru]

How far away does it have to be that you can't use the sunny 16 rule? Or place the incident meter in the same light conditions as the subject?

Apparently you have never done any landscape photography.

[Ari]

Apparently you have never done any landscape photography.

Maybe not, but I do know how to use an incident meter.

[Mark Barendt]

I am bit of a perfectionist and 80% of the time wont cut it for me. I need it to be right 100% of the time.

IMO an incident meter can get you the right exposure every time, no exception. It is incredibly accurate and reliable.

You are the wild card, your experience and skill with the tool are the limiting factors.

[Light Guru]

Maybe not, but I do know how to use an incident meter.

Yea they are hot hard to use, just like a spot meater is not hard to use. Some situations are better suited for one type of meeter and some are better suited for the other that's why we have both.

Say I'm under a tree using its branches to help frame my landscape image and provide some foreground interest with a lake and some mountains in the background. In this scenario is a incident meeter going to help me properly expose the those mountains in the background?

Nope not a chance. You want to use a spot meeter.

And bringing this back to the original topic of the Zone System.

Say I want to keep some detail in the shadowy branches of that tree. Using a spot meager and the zone system I can place them in zone 3 and them measure my highlights place them in zone 7 and then know how to develop to get the image that I pre envisioned.

[Glenn Goldapp]

There was a book printed about 1968. The name is "Zone System Manual" and it is by Minor White. It can be found used on Amazon. Most of the concepts of the Zone System are covered with actual exercises to help you understand before actually using the Zone System. It teaches the "eye match" method, which I still believe is important for a beginner. The "eye match" method uses comparisons that you make by looking at a standard black, standard white and grey card. Development times are determined by developing for Zone V which may not be the best method - but it works. Many photographers today use Zone VIII to determine development times - but there is not a standard Zone VIII card to match. . . so Zone V should be used for the "eye match" method.

[Bill Burk]

Thanks Rafal for the kind words.

I like to guide people through different approaches to the Zone System, because I enjoy it.

A number I often quote is 15% - because that's how far off I tend to be when I make a mistake, like re-using a tray of developer.

Fredrick, A great thing about the Zone System is that after you do the lab work, you may leave the high-math at home. In the field, you set your meter to the speed number you found. You meter something (meters always assume Zone V) and count up or down by Roman Numerals. That math might be easy for you. You got good answers how to place your shadows.

Not to contradict everyone, but more to tell the other side of a story. I think many things conspire against being able to achieve 100%.

For example, incident metering: I recently developed several sheets of a 100 speed film that I shot at 100. I hadn't taken the time to test it. I used an incident meter and was disappointed with my lack of shadow detail. It's not the incident meter's fault - I should have tested. A test could have told me to set the meter at 50. Moral: Use too high a speed and your negatives may lack shadow detail by any metering method.

Another example, other failures: On Film Photography Day I took five photographs on four sheets of film. The first three were OK. The last one, I forgot to pull the darkslide out for one shot. The final shot wasn't properly focused. Moral: Many things conspire against you.

I poked around a couple threads to try to get to know you better. I like your landscape shot! I also saw you picked up some slide film. This idea of giving shadows plenty of exposure and developing for highlights is for Black and White negative film. Soon as you shoot color, or transparencies, you need to follow different exposure procedures.

[Lenny Eiger]

This is much simpler than it is being explained here. The zone system is a wonderful tool.

There are four steps

1. Read you shadow detail reading.
This is generally called Zone 3, the place in the shadows where you would like to see full detail. Dark colored dirt is a good example.

2. Read your highlight reading.
This is the last place you want full detail in the highlights.

3. Subtract one from the other.
Note (on your holder with a pencil) your N reading.
This is easiest if you are using a meeting that reads in EV's.
That way it's some numbers like 12 - 6. I'm sure you can handle that. Much easier than dealing with parts of a second.

I use 4 stops as the "magic number". It's an old habit. Some use 5, or some other number. It doesn't really matter, its the development chart that matters.

In my system, if there are 4 stops between the two readings, that's N.

7 stops N-3
6 stops N-2
5 stops N-1
4 stops N
3 stops N+1
2 stops N+2

It's all about that relationship to 4. These N numbers relate back to a chart on your darkroom wall for how long to process your film based on the N number.

4. Close down 2 stops from the Zone 3 reading to expose.
This is simple. If Zone 3 was at 6, set the meter at 8 and see what your exposure choices are. If you can't remember which way, its always a number in between the two readings. I like the depth of field at f45. Everyone's different.

That's it.....

I don't think an incident meter is appropriate. One can get it to work, but why? The Zone System is too easy. I don't think you need to read any books, or do expensive testing. You just need to follow the instructions a few times and it will get easy. I did all the testing when I was younger. I don't look at the densitometer anymore, I just look at the negative... and how it prints.

The books mostly help you to understand why this works. It's basically that development does NOT increase film speed (for all practical intents and purposes). What that means is that if you didn't expose the film enough to get you the shadow detail you want, no amount of development will help. You can develop the film for a year and you won't get any more detail. That's where the part of the expression "Expose for the shadows" comes from. The exposure is what controls the amount of shadow detail.

However, the longer you develop, the darker the highlights will get. That means the negative will be more and more contrasty with added development time. If you go too far, you won't be able top print those highlights (with detail). Therefore, you want to adjust the contrast of the negative from the original scene to what the rest of your process can handle. That's where the "develop for the Highlights" part comes in.

I hope this helps...

Lenny

[Lachlan 717]

IMO an incident meter can get you the right exposure every time, no exception.

What if there's insufficient light for it to give a reading? I figure that's an exception.

On a broader note, I'm not sure why this thread has degraded into a pissing contest about meters. Both work if used correctly within their working range. One might suit your style/understanding/tolerance levels better than another.

After all, in the timeline of photography, meters are relatively new. What did they do before them?

Perhaps we all should lighten up a little.

[welly]

Perhaps we all should lighten up a little.

How should we meter that?

[Lachlan 717]

How should we meter that?

Perhaps use the Surly 16 rule?

[Fredrick]

This is much simpler than it is being explained here. The zone system is a wonderful tool.

There are four steps

1. Read you shadow detail reading.
This is generally called Zone 3, the place in the shadows where you would like to see full detail. Dark colored dirt is a good example.

2. Read your highlight reading.
This is the last place you want full detail in the highlights.

3. Subtract one from the other.
Note (on your holder with a pencil) your N reading.
This is easiest if you are using a meeting that reads in EV's.
That way it's some numbers like 12 - 6. I'm sure you can handle that. Much easier than dealing with parts of a second.

I use 4 stops as the "magic number". It's an old habit. Some use 5, or some other number. It doesn't really matter, its the development chart that matters.

In my system, if there are 4 stops between the two readings, that's N.

7 stops N-3
6 stops N-2
5 stops N-1
4 stops N
3 stops N+1
2 stops N+2

It's all about that relationship to 4. These N numbers relate back to a chart on your darkroom wall for how long to process your film based on the N number.

4. Close down 2 stops from the Zone 3 reading to expose.
This is simple. If Zone 3 was at 6, set the meter at 8 and see what your exposure choices are. If you can't remember which way, its always a number in between the two readings. I like the depth of field at f45. Everyone's different.

That's it.....

I don't think an incident meter is appropriate. One can get it to work, but why? The Zone System is too easy. I don't think you need to read any books, or do expensive testing. You just need to follow the instructions a few times and it will get easy. I did all the testing when I was younger. I don't look at the densitometer anymore, I just look at the negative... and how it prints.

The books mostly help you to understand why this works. It's basically that development does NOT increase film speed (for all practical intents and purposes). What that means is that if you didn't expose the film enough to get you the shadow detail you want, no amount of development will help. You can develop the film for a year and you won't get any more detail. That's where the part of the expression "Expose for the shadows" comes from. The exposure is what controls the amount of shadow detail.

However, the longer you develop, the darker the highlights will get. That means the negative will be more and more contrasty with added development time. If you go too far, you won't be able top print those highlights (with detail). Therefore, you want to adjust the contrast of the negative from the original scene to what the rest of your process can handle. That's where the "develop for the Highlights" part comes in.

I hope this helps...

Lenny

Thank you Lenny. This was very informative and I feel confident that I will be able to utilize The Zone System now. I will of course have to buy a light meter, but I feel that this is an investment that will pay dividence down the road in my photography. I'll read your post a few times and try to understand everything, and if there is anything I'm uncertain of, I'll ask about it. My learning progress is some what long, but when I finally learn something I remember it for the rest of my life. I don't think an incident meter would be appropriate, I don't want to leave anything to chance. I want a 1 degree spotmeter, preferably the pentax digital.

Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Seems so simple put in those terms :)

[Fredrick]

Thanks Rafal for the kind words.

I like to guide people through different approaches to the Zone System, because I enjoy it.

A number I often quote is 15% - because that's how far off I tend to be when I make a mistake, like re-using a tray of developer.

Fredrick, A great thing about the Zone System is that after you do the lab work, you may leave the high-math at home. In the field, you set your meter to the speed number you found. You meter something (meters always assume Zone V) and count up or down by Roman Numerals. That math might be easy for you. You got good answers how to place your shadows.

Not to contradict everyone, but more to tell the other side of a story. I think many things conspire against being able to achieve 100%.

For example, incident metering: I recently developed several sheets of a 100 speed film that I shot at 100. I hadn't taken the time to test it. I used an incident meter and was disappointed with my lack of shadow detail. It's not the incident meter's fault - I should have tested. A test could have told me to set the meter at 50. Moral: Use too high a speed and your negatives may lack shadow detail by any metering method.

Another example, other failures: On Film Photography Day I took five photographs on four sheets of film. The first three were OK. The last one, I forgot to pull the darkslide out for one shot. The final shot wasn't properly focused. Moral: Many things conspire against you.

I poked around a couple threads to try to get to know you better. I like your landscape shot! I also saw you picked up some slide film. This idea of giving shadows plenty of exposure and developing for highlights is for Black and White negative film. Soon as you shoot color, or transparencies, you need to follow different exposure procedures.

Thank you! I really like working with black and white. Digital can't even come close to analog in tones. I really do enjoy it.
Yes, there are many things which conspire against us. I have had quite a few mistakes myself. For example, when I started out I had very uneven development. This was due to me developing in tanks, and when I was agitating I didn't angle the film from one side to the other. I have some other Large Format work in my flickr stream. I really like this one, but unfortunately I has streaks from the uneven development. It printed OK in smaller sizes. I would love for it to print well in a larger size though. Ah, I nearly forgot the link: Photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36235064@N04/8246620783/in/photostream)

[kev curry]

...

[welly]

Thank you! I really like working with black and white. Digital can't even come close to analog in tones. I really do enjoy it.
Yes, there are many things which conspire against us. I have had quite a few mistakes myself. For example, when I started out I had very uneven development. This was due to me developing in tanks, and when I was agitating I didn't angle the film from one side to the other. I have some other Large Format work in my flickr stream. I really like this one, but unfortunately I has streaks from the uneven development. It printed OK in smaller sizes. I would love for it to print well in a larger size though. Ah, I nearly forgot the link: Photo (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36235064@N04/8246620783/in/photostream)

There's nothing wrong with that photograph. Lovely.

[Joseph Dickerson]

"IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE"

Fred Picker presented a clear, simple explanation of the Zone System in his book "The Zone VI Workshop".

Get a copy of the book, read it, and you'll realize how easy it is to use the Zone System when you understand what your exposure meter is telling you.

You don't need to be a mathematical genius.

Another vote for the Picker Book...no math involved. Fred distilled, some would say diluted, the zone system down to what you really need to know to make it work.

JD

[Lenny Eiger]

Thank you Lenny. This was very informative and I feel confident that I will be able to utilize The Zone System now. I will of course have to buy a light meter, but I feel that this is an investment that will pay dividence down the road in my photography. I'll read your post a few times and try to understand everything, and if there is anything I'm uncertain of, I'll ask about it. My learning progress is some what long, but when I finally learn something I remember it for the rest of my life. I don't think an incident meter would be appropriate, I don't want to leave anything to chance. I want a 1 degree spotmeter, preferably the pentax digital.

Expose for the shadows, develop for the highlights. Seems so simple put in those terms :)

Frederick,

You're very welcome. If, after reading it a few more times you have a question or two, feel free to contact me directly. Of course, this forum is filled with folks who know this system well. You've got a lot of help available to you if you need it.

Have fun!

Lenny

eiger@eigerstudios.com

[Brian Ellis]

Thank you! I really like working with black and white. Digital can't even come close to analog in tones.

Assuming that by "tones" you mean separation or gradations of tonality, if you think digital can't even come close to analog, without intending any disrespect I'd guess that you've never seen a good b&w digital print made by someone who knows what he or she is doing. And if by "tones" you mean tonal range, I've seen measurements of dMax on various silver papers and on various "digital" papers. I don't remember the numbers but IIRC there was usually a slight dMax advantage to silver but certainly not "can't even come close."

There's a reason why people leave the darkroom to print digitally and it isn't always because they only do color or because digital is easier or faster. If we're talking about making a"fine print" (as opposed say to wedding or sports photography) it's actually much harder and usually slower. I have no problem with anyone printing in a darkroom, if that's what they like that's just fine. I printed that way for many years and enjoyed it. To each his or her own and all that. But if I couldn't make better prints digitally (better in terms of technical attributes) than I did in the darkroom I'd go back to the darkroom. And I suspect that would be true of others as well.

[Fredrick]

Assuming that by "tones" you mean separation or gradations of tonality, if you think digital can't even come close to analog, without intending any disrespect I'd guess that you've never seen a good b&w digital print made by someone who knows what he or she is doing. And if by "tones" you mean tonal range, I've seen measurements of dMax on various silver papers and on various "digital" papers. I don't remember the numbers but IIRC there was usually a slight dMax advantage to silver but certainly not "can't even come close."

There's a reason why people leave the darkroom to print digitally and it isn't always because they only do color or because digital is easier or faster. If we're talking about making a"fine print" (as opposed say to wedding or sports photography) it's actually much harder and usually slower. I have no problem with anyone printing in a darkroom, if that's what they like that's just fine. I printed that way for many years and enjoyed it. To each his or her own and all that. But if I couldn't make better prints digitally (better in terms of technical attributes) than I did in the darkroom I'd go back to the darkroom. And I suspect that would be true of others as well.
Yes, each to his/her own and all that. It's also a matter of subjective perception. I find silvergelatin prints much more appealing than digital gelatin prints. But that's not the topic of the conversation here.

I have been reading a little bit about the Divided Pyrocat, and I find it to be an interesting developer. Since it's very cheap I think I'll buy it and try it out. Originally I was going to buy a JOBO drum for 4x5 processing, but it's too expensive for me at the moment. The MOD54 seems to be my only option right now. I am just wondering if it is possible to use the Pyrocat in that configuration and avoid uneven development? I read a thread about someone processing in JOBOS and having a little bit of problems with it, untill he added a wetting agent to the solution.

[Rafal Lukawiecki]

I am using the Ilford Delta 100 film now, and have 70-75 sheets left. I plan on using all those sheets before I purchase any other BW film, so that I have mastered that film. Using many films at once would make me "Jack of all trades, Master of none". I'm either going to use Ilford DD-X or Kodak HC-110 (recomendations please). I previously used FX-39, but that developer gives too much grain and I find it a pain to use.

Delta 100 is a lovely film, I am just getting into it. If that's what you use, stick with it. Your idea of minimising options, and perfecting few, is a good one—I used HP5+ most of the time for almost a decade, and it helped me.

Ilford recommends DD-X (pricey) or ID-11 (D76) with Delta 100, but many developers will be fine. If you look up posts by Michael R 1974 about Delta 100 on APUG, you will find a few comments about DD-X and XTol, and he has posted a few curves for it. Since you said you're not too fond of math, you may find curve drawings easier, especially when you are ready to study how film/dev respond to your light.

[Fredrick]

I have now purchased a Pentax Digital Spotmeter. I am looking forward to receiving it and starting to utilize the zone system to it's full potential. I'm really excited! I've also got an interview/meeting about a darkroom 9. May. I really hope they have 4x5 enlargers. If not I think I'll buy a cheap 8x10 and use that for contact printing. I've been wanting a rodenstock 240mm anyway. Man I would love the to have the Seneca which is for sale here now, we'll see!

[Bob Sawin]

Perhaps use the Surly 16 rule?

You owe me a coffee...I just spit mine out while laughing...

[ROL]

80% is an estimate. Do you know what that is? Maybe you should have learned that too a long time ago.

You make my very point. The OP's entirely justified desire for exactness is not served by reviled estimations feigning authority.

I think it quite telling that you view percentages as estimates. The OP's question was about the ZS, for which incident metering, though being a great tool (like you) for general photographic work, offers little value. Maybe you should have learned a long time ago not to piss all over someone else's thread expressing a need for deeper understanding, with unhelpful comments justifying your own habits. I'd go so far as to say that you're comments should probably be totally disregarded 80% of the time, but really, I'd just be pulling that particular overused, sloppy figure feigning authority, out of my ass.

[jayabbas]

Time for you gents to fry some silver - eh !!

[DannL]

The Practical Zone System - Chris Johnson - Third Edition, starting at $1.99

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/practical-zone-system-chris-johnson/1101447285?ean=9780240803289

ISBN: 0240803280
ISBN-13: 9780240803289
Edition: 3
Pub. Date: 1999
Publisher: Focal Press

[Brian Ellis]

Yes, each to his/her own and all that. It's also a matter of subjective perception. I find silvergelatin prints much more appealing than digital gelatin prints. But that's not the topic of the conversation here. . . .


I thought it became a permissible topic of conversation when you informed us that digital prints "can't even come close to analog in tones."

[Fredrick]

I have now aquired "The Negative" and I have been scimming through it. It's a really good book and I am much wiser now. I have also purchased a spotmeter. Something really interesting I read about was pre-exposure. Ingenious idea for slides. I'll have to try this out!

[Bill Burk]

As you intend to use the Zone System, you have the right reference. And for your spotmeter, you will want to add a Zone Sticker. Notice the Zone Sticker is simple, just a piece of paper with roman numerals written on it. You don't "have" to have actual shades of gray, the roman numerals are meant to be memorized as "things" that are normally seen in certain shades of gray symbolized by the Zones.

[Fredrick]

Yes, I have understood the meaning of the sticker. The zone system is not complicated at all and Adams does a good job of explaining it. The figure 4-14 on page 72 of the book is especially enlightening. I feel quite confident now. Can't wait for my supplies to arrive from Germany!

[Heroique]

The figure 4-14 on page 72 of the book is especially enlightening. I feel quite confident now.

That figure is a fine ideal, worthy to inspire confidence in most anyone, but you do realize (don’t you?) that you have a lot of personal testing ahead of you to use the zone system with the precise, reliable results that Figure 4-14 implies.

For example, just take a look at Appendix 1! (Better brace yourself first.)

But don’t let all this paralyze you – exhaustive testing, of course, is not a requirement to use the zone system for the first time. But the more testing you do, the closer you’ll come to using it at its fullest potential. More important for now – just get out there and shoot, and into the darkroom to develop, and start building on practical experiences with the quirks of personal equipment.

[Joseph Dickerson]

Fredrick,

The Negative (the whole series for that matter) is probably the best resource for the zone system out there, and God knows there are plenty to choose from. But, you knew there would be a but right (?), as Heroique points out, they're not for the faint of heart, or the even only-occasionally-faint-of heart. :p

Ansel's approach also requires the use of a densitometer, not an insignificant investment.

If you get Fred Picker's book, you can get started very simply, minimal testing required, albeit exactly what's required to get started and understand what you're doing.

Then when you move on to The Negatve you'll be building on a firm foundation. I have been teaching the zone system at the college level for twenty or so years and strongly believe that starting with a simple approach and then building on that is the way to go. Many of our students discover that the simpler approach is all they really need to achieve the amount of control that they want/need. Others choose to refine their technique and will go through the whole process using the Adams books.

JD

[Drew Wiley]

There's no need to go out an buy a densitometer to learn the Zone System. One can simply buy a labeled step tablet and then take a hole punch to a couple
of pieces of black cardboard. You compare your image densities to specific densities on the step tablet, looking at limited areas of each thru the holes. It's called
visual densitometry and is plenty accurate for the Zone System learning curve. If you want to actual plot film curves, that's a different story. If you do buy Ansel's
Basic series, it really helps to have a copy of his Examples too. But if you want to learn true densitomety, Ansels books aren't much help. They are very elementary
and practical. I don't know what all the fuss is about. The Zone System is really a tool kit rather than some complicated machine. You pick and choose from it
what you actually need to know to get good results. After that, it's just practice shooting and printing. No substitute for that!

[Ed Bray]

You don't need Fred Picker's book, his method is adapted slightly here: http://www.celluloidandsilver.com/zone-system-testing.htm

[Joseph Dickerson]

You don't need Fred Picker's book, his method is adapted slightly here: http://www.celluloidandsilver.com/zone-system-testing.htm

Ed,

That's a good resource that I was unfamiliar with...thanks.

JD

[baachitraka]

Oh, that was quite the bummer! Haha. Quite the mistake from my side.

I realize that longer shutter speeds will give more exposure to the sheet. I don't know why i fumbled with this, might have been that I was thinking about compensating for a red/orange filter which is also two stops.

Thank you for clearing that up anyway! I'm looking forward to starting shooting again.

'The Negative' - Ansel Adams is a very good book to start with Zone System.

The meter do not know whether it is a shadow or highlights and it might be calibrated to give a middle gray value no matter where you take the reading.

In Zone System, this middle gray value is designated to Zone V. So, for shadows you might need to stop down a stop or two i.e., placing shadows either on Zone IV or Zone III.

Testing is required to establish dev times. Say for ...N-1, N, N+1...